 Inclusive Language in Bible Translation
- by John R. Kohlenberger
III
Copyright © 1997 by John R. Kohlenberger III | All
rights reserved. Used by permission. Excerpts from
a presentation made at the CBA International Convention,
July 14, 1997. Updated March 2002.
Introduction
The International Bible Society (IBS),
which owns the NIV, has released an update of the NIV
called Today's New International Version (TNIV). Most
of us know that that the NIV has a commitment to stay
current. There was already a revision in 1984; there
had already been a revision of the New Testament in
1978 when the Bible was completed. It is an ongoing
process because language is changing faster than it
has ever changed before. For a Bible to communicate
clearly, it has to be tweaked in accordance with changes
in language.
There have been at least 20 new translations
and revisions since the 1980s and all of them, except
the 1995 revision of the NASB,
have used inclusive language to a greater degree than
NIV—including the ESV and HCSB. The TNIV is the
latest version in a 20-year trend and should not be
singled out for its gender language any more than the
ESV or HCSB.
The
Underlying Issue: Translation Philosophy
Word-for-Word and Phrase-for-Phrase
Translation
The issue of inclusive language is really
about translation style—"word-for-word" translation
versus "phrase-for-phrase" translation. Both have been
with us since the 14th century.
The English Bible originated with the
Wycliffe Bible. The first edition (c. 1380-1384) was
a slavish, word-for-word rendering of the Latin Vulgate.
In 1395 or 1396, Wycliffe's secretary John Purvey updated
the Wycliffe Bible using more idiomatic English. As
quoted in F. F. Bruce's History of the Bible in
English (Oxford University Press, 1978), Purvey
wrote:
First, it is to be known that the best translating
out of Latin into English is to translate after the
sentence [i.e., the meaning] and not only after the
words…the words ought to serve to the intent and
sentence, or else the words be superfluous or false…
No translation is exclusively one style
or the other. For example, the KJV is full of idiomatic
renderings, such as "God forbid," which occurs 24 times
in the King James (e.g., Rom. 6:2). In none of those
twenty-four instances do the words "God" and "forbid" appear
in the original. "God forbid" is an idiomatic rendering
of one Hebrew word or two Greek words that mean, "this
should never happen." In King James English, "God forbid" captured
the same meaning, but it was not a word-for-word translation.
How Precisely Should a Word Be Translated?
Another question related to the issue
of inclusive language is, "Should a word be translated
exactly the same way each time it appears?" What about
the assertion, "If it says 'man' in Hebrew, it should
say 'man' in English"? For starters, it doesn't say "man" in
Hebrew; it says ish or adam. "Man" is
an English translation of these words.
Let's use an English word for an example.
A trunk can be the back of a car, the front
of an elephant, the bottom of a tree, the middle of
a person, or all of a suitcase. Which is the literal
trunk? In each case trunk means something very
different depending on what object it refers to. There
is no such thing as the "literal" meaning of a word,
only contextual meaning. Trunk means whatever
it means only when it is used in a sentence.
Even the Hebrew word for "God" is not
translated the same all the way through the Bible.
In the Old Testament, elohim (a masculine plural
form) sometimes means the true (singular) "God" (Genesis
1:1); sometimes it means plural "gods" (Exodus 20:23);
sometimes it means a masculine singular "god" (1 Kings
11:33); sometimes a feminine singular "goddess" (1
Kings 11:5); and even human "judges" (Exodus 22:8-9).
It's the same exact Hebrew word, letter for letter,
but with very different meanings.
The Greek word lampros occurs
only nine times in the New Testament, but the King
James Version uses six different words to translate
it into English-including two different words in back-to-back
verses in James 2 (highlighted below):
For if there come unto your assembly a man with
a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there
come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have
respect to him that weareth the gay clothing,
and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place;
and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here
under my footstool. (James 2:2-3, KJV)
(This example also illustrates what happens
as languages change. What might the phrase "him that
weareth the gay clothing" communicate today? The modern
connotations are not the same as they were in 1611.)
In the original preface to the KJV, the
translators make one extremely important statement
that relates to the word-for-word vs. phrase-for-phrase
debate: "We have not tied ourselves to a uniformity
of phrasing or to an identity of words as some peradventure
would wish that we had done."
Changes
in Language
The KJV cannot be heard today the way
it was heard in 1611. It has men wearing "girdles," men
in "gay clothing," and a God who is "terrible." As
language changes, you go to the original texts and
reshape the translation so that people don't mishear.
This is what gender inclusive language is about, and
this is what it was about 2,200 years ago.
Inclusive
Language in Translation
Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and English all
use gender differently. When we (in English) use gender
in reference to something, we invest that thing with
personality. But if something doesn't have a personality—if
something isn't human, for example—we don't like
to say "him" or "her." Instead we use "it."
In many languages, every noun and pronoun
has gender, as well as adjectives and verbs associated
them. For example, the Hebrew word for "spirit," ruach, is
grammatically feminine. A truly literal translation
of the Old Testament would refer to the Spirit of God—the
Holy Spirit—as "she." The Greek word for "spirit," pneuma, is
grammatically neuter. A truly literal translation would
refer to the Holy Spirit as "it." But in English, "it" would
imply that the Holy Spirit doesn't have personality.
Concerning the "uncircumcised man child," Genesis
17:14 (KJV) says, "that soul shall be cut off
from his people; he hath broken my covenant." The
Hebrew word for "soul" is feminine, but we do not translate, "That
soul shall be cut off from her people."
In Luke 1:35, the KJV refers to Jesus
as "that holy thing" because in Greek, the gender
of this phrase is neuter. But in English, the word thing—though
it captures the form of the original—usually
indicates an object, not a person. Most translations,
including the RSV, NASB, NIV and NKJV use terms such
as "holy child" or "holy one"—in keeping with
our understanding of the personality of the unborn
Savior.
Translation of the Words for "Son"
The Old Testament word ben (plural
banim) and the New Testament word huios (plural huioi),
though they are masculine terms, can refer to physical
descendents of any age, generation and gender. All
the standard Hebrew and Greek resources agree about
this. These words are even used idiomatically to characterize
members of a group having no physical relationship
at all. The "sons of God" in Job are angels. The "sons
of God" in John are believers—men and women.
Note the following historically accepted
gender-inclusive translations:
-
In 2 Cor. 6:14-18, Paul
reminds his audience of God's promises for Christians
who separate themselves from the world. One of
those promises is found in 2 Samuel 7:14a, which
reads, "I
will be a Father to him, and he will be a son to
me." Paul quoted this passage ("As God has said," 2
Cor. 6:16a), applying it to the church: "I will be
a Father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters
to me." Paul changed the Old Testament's "him" (singular
masculine) to "you" (masculine plural, because in
Greek and Hebrew you refer to groups in the masculine
plural, since there is no neuter plural for that
purpose). "Son" became "sons and daughters." Paul's
listeners would have been very familiar with 2
Samuel 7:14a, so he wanted to make its significance
clear as he applied it to the Christian church.
-
William Tyndale's translation
of Matthew 5:9 reads, "Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called the children [huioi] of
God," not "the sons of God" (Matthew 5:9).
Every Bible translation of the 16th and 17th centuries,
including the KJV, retained Tyndale's translation.
It wasn't until the more grammatically exacting translations
like the 1901 ASV that "children" was replaced with "sons."
-
The KJV translated the
Hebrew word ben/banim as "son" or "sons" 2,893
times. But it translates it as "child" or "children" 1,570
times. Does that mean that 35% of the KJV is inaccurate?
Translation of the Words for "Man"
The Hebrew words adam and ish and
the Greek words anthropos and aner can
refer to human beings of either gender as well as to
males in particular. All the standard Hebrew and Greek
resources agree about this.
If you went into any church today and
said, "I'd like all the men to stand up," most, if
not all, of the women would stay seated. The adult
males would stand up, and all of the teenage males
would wonder, "Am I old enough? Do I get to stand up?" Most
people today hear the word man as an adult male,
not as referring to any person.
Now, let's look at some phrases that
have historically been rendered inclusively. For example,
look at Exodus 18:16.
When they have a matter, they come unto me; and
I judge between one and another, and I do
make them know the statutes of God, and his laws.
(Ex 18:16, KJV)
The English translation "one and another" is
literally "a man and his neighbor" in Hebrew.
1 Peter 3:1-6 (KJV) commands wives to
concern themselves not so much with their outward adornment
as with "the hidden man of the heart." Now I
don't want my wife to have a "hidden man of the heart"!
Even literal translations like the RSV, the NKJV and
the NASB talk about "the hidden person of the
heart." In the NIV and the NRSV, it is translated as "the
inner self."
There has always been gender inclusive
language in Bible translation. The question is: Are
you representing the intent of the original? You are
not doing so when you call an uncircumcised man a "she." You
are also not representing the intent of the original
when you refer to Jesus or the Holy Spirit as "it." And
you are also not representing the intent of the original
when you say that only men get blessed or that
anyone who obeys God is his son—that is, when
both genders are included in the meaning of the original
but can be misheard when rendered with masculine language.
"He" and "Man" as Inclusive Terms
We have been wrestling for years in English
with how to represent general references to people
in the singular because we do not have a neuter singular
pronoun that refers to people. As early as the 16th
century—even back to Chaucer—people have
started sentences in the singular and finished them
with the plural: "If anyone wants to do this, they should
do it this way."
But in the mid-1800s, grammarians decided, "Don't
do that anymore. We're telling you now, the masculine
pronoun he is gender inclusive." So for 150 years we've
used "he" in a generic sense, just like we've used "man" in
a generic sense. That worked for more than a century,
but as language has developed—especially in the
latter half of this century—people hear "he" as
exclusively masculine; they hear "man" as exclusively
masculine. As a result, they can misunderstand Bible
texts if they're not translated in a gender-appropriate
way.
As language has developed, some translations
have resorted to the plural because the plural is not
exclusively masculine. Thus, the TNIV translates Luke
8:8 as follows: " 'Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.' " While
this may seem far removed from the form of the
original, it is the clearest way to accurately communicate
the gender inclusive meaning of the original.
What is fascinating is that the Psalms
and Proverbs often change (in the Hebrew) between singular
and plural. For example, look at Psalm 34:18-20 (KJV).
I have labeled the singulars (s) and the plurals (pl):
18 The LORD is nigh unto them (pl) that are of a
broken heart (s);
and saveth such (pl) as be of a contrite spirit (s).
19 Many are the afflictions of the righteous (s): [LXX = pl]
but the LORD delivereth him (s) out of them all. [LXX = pl, "them"]
20 He keepeth all his (s) bones: [LXX = pl, "their"]
not one of them is broken.
This psalm talks about the "righteous" in the singular
and in the plural; it talks about "the wicked" in the
singular and in the plural. In verses 19 and 20, the
Septuagint (LXX)—the ancient Greek translation
used by the New Testament writers—made it plural
all the way through. The Septuagint gives a pluralizing,
gender inclusive translation in Psalm 34.
Now look at verse 20. This is a Messianic text, fulfilled
in John 19:36. But does the fact that this text relates
specifically to Jesus in the New Testament mean that
it can't relate to righteous people in the Old Testament?
It can be plural in the Old Testament and still apply
absolutely well to Jesus. Notice that throughout Psalm
34, the plural is used far more than the singular is.
Also remember that the New Testament frequently takes
Old Testament passages that in their immediate context
applied to Israel and uses them to compare Jesus to
Israel. They show a typological fulfillment rather
than a direct prediction. Psalm 34:20 is not necessarily
a prediction of the crucifixion, but it is in keeping
with the crucifixion. In the larger context of Psalm
34, verse 20 says that the Lord will protect those
who trust in him. In relationship to Jesus, it took
a much higher application as John related it to none
of Jesus' bones being broken.
Translation of adelphos ("brother")
The Greek word adelphos has the concrete meaning
of a blood relative like a brother, but it also has
the figurative meaning of a spiritual relative-another
Christian. All the standard Greek resources agree about
this.
Throughout the Acts and the epistles, hearers of sermons
and readers of letters are addressed as "brothers." Yet
there are specific references to some of these "brothers" who
are wives, younger women, and older women. They're
referred to by the Greek word adelphos or its
plural adelphoi. The TNIV uses "brothers and
sisters" to make explicit that women are included.
It's not just men who are to be good wives and good
mothers.
Note that this same translation technique can be found
in the original, 1973 NIV: "In those days Peter stood
up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred
and twenty)" (Acts 1:15). Here "believers" translates adelphoi with
gender appropriate language, since the group included
both men and women.
Translating Passages Regarding Roles of Men and
Women
If you want to check out a gender inclusive translation
to find out if it is actually tampering with role relationships,
following is a list of the key husband / wife passages
and the key church office passages in the New Testament:
1 Corinthians 7 and 11, 1 Timothy 3, Ephesians 5:22-23,
Colossians 3:18-19, Titus 1:5-9, and 1 Peter 3:1-7.
A lot of the criticisms of these modern versions imply
that the motivation for use of inclusive language is
to promote the ordination of women to pastoral ministries.
But look at how they actually translate passages like
1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. The masculine pronoun "he" is
used throughout. The original Greek can be read as
allowing both male and female deacons, but so
do many conservative Baptist churches. The key issue
is the bishop, the overseer, and the leader of the
church. Look in the TNIV, the NCV and ICB, the NLT,
GW, and the NRSV and you still have male bishops or
overseers in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. None of these
translations gives you assistance here if you want
to ordain women into pastoral leadership.
Translating Terms Referring to God
Gender inclusive translations like the TNIV do not
dabble with God language. When God describes himself
as a Father or a husband—or even compares himself
to a comforting mother in Isaiah 66—these images
are retained. He does not become "parent"; he does
not become "spouse." The masculine-specific images
stay masculine-specific.
The same is true with references to Jesus and to the
Spirit. In the Incarnation Jesus became a male human
being—and none of these modern versions dabble
with that. In the few places where Jesus and anthropos are
used in the same sentence, these versions are very
conservative in their approach. The point is not so
much that Jesus is a male when you are talking
about the nature of salvation as that he was genuinely
a human being. Probably the most prominent passage
in this regard is 1 Timothy 2:5 (TNIV): "For there
is one God and one mediator between God and human beings,
Christ Jesus, himself human." Jesus' humanity is the
point of 1 Timothy 2:5. Because Jesus became a human
being, he alone can be the mediator between God and
human beings. The same word is used for "human beings" and
for Jesus in 1 Timothy 2:5. Yes, Jesus is a male human
being—and none of the mainstream gender inclusive
versions apologize for that.
Summary
-
"Word-for-word" and "thought-for-thought" translation
styles have been with us since the beginning of
Bible translation. From the Greek Septuagint of
the second century BC to the English versions of
the fourteenth, sixteenth and twentieth centuries,
there has always been a balance of thought-for-thought
and word-for-word translation. No English version
is absolutely or consistently one style or the
other.
-
It's not possible to use only one word to accurately
translate every occurrence of a word that is used
frequently in the Bible. For example, the Greek
name for Jesus has to be translated "Joshua" a
couple of times in the New Testament. No translation
of the Bible has ever done a one-to-one translation
that way—not even interlinear Bibles. It is
impossible to use the same word every time. There
are "trunks" in Hebrew just like there are in English.
-
The use of gender-inclusive language in modern
translation follows patterns established in the
Greek Septuagint, the Greek New Testament, and
historic English versions. It is nothing new—it's
simply a matter of degree. The use of inclusive
language in modern translation is prompted by changes
in English, not political agendas. The early versions
were certainly not driven by a feminist agenda,
and it's not necessary to conclude that modern
versions are.
-
Mainstream inclusive versions do not change gender-specific
references relating to male and female roles in
the home or in the church.
-
Mainstream inclusive versions do not change gender
references to God, except that they refer to the
Spirit as "he" instead of "she" in the Old Testament
or "it" in the New Testament.
-
We may not like changes in our language, but people
in their 20s and 30s don't hear things the way
previous generations have heard them. Remember
the "gay clothing" in James 2:3 (KJV)? Today, "gay" commonly
means "homosexual." But as English continues to
change, "gay" has also come to be used by young
people as a negative term, meaning "uncool" or "undesirable." For
example, "gay clothing" would refer to clothing
that is out of style, having nothing directly to
do with homosexuality. The point is this: As language
changes, we must respond, or we will unintentionally
miscommunicate God's word to today's generation.
|
