Stupid Scholar

Several years ago, the TNIV (Today’s New International Version) sparked some controversy by, among other things, using gender inclusive language throughout the text.

For instance, in Psalm 1:1, the text reads:

Blessed are those
who do not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers

The NIV on the other hand reads:

Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
or sit in the seat of mockers.

Likewise, terms like “sons of Israel” (Exodus 13:19; NIV) are often changed to “Israelites,” but not every time.

I remember at the time being rather upset by this. It felt as if the translators had tampered with the Word of God in order to accommodate the current trends, philosophies, and sensitivities of our (post)modern culture. Now, however, I think my view is a bit more nuanced.

Gender Inclusive Language is Appropriate and Beneficial

Because of our awareness to cultural diversity, differing opinions and various assumptions, much in our culture is more sensitive and understanding to such differences than before. This has made, in particular, scholarly discussions more open and welcoming than ever. The academic world of biblical studies is nothing if not diverse. The same is true of churches. This is a good thing.

More specifically, like most professions throughout history, biblical Studies and theology have been dominated by men. In our day, however, there are a large number of great, female scholars (Phyllis Tribble, Susan Niditsch, Kathleen O’Connor, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, et al). Plus, there are huge numbers of women that read the Bible for pleasure, spiritual development or worship. Thus, the move towards gender inclusive language has attempted to make these women sense that the Bible speaks to them too.*

Linguistics, in fact, help support this move.

Both Greek and Hebrew use masculine terms to refer to groups of both men and women. Hence the word אנשׁים (plural of אישׁ, meaning “man”) can refer to either a group of men (”Elders” in Ruth 4:2) or to a general group of people (”When sleep falls on men/people” in Job 4:13). The singular אישׁ can also refer to a person or mankind in general (e.g. Exodus 11:7).

Likewise, the word בנים (plural of בנ, meaning “son”) can refer to a mixed gender group. A great example is the common OT phrase, בני ישׂראל, which literally means, “Sons of Israel” but clearly refers to the entire group of Israelites. Thus, either “Children of Israel” or “Israelites” are perfectly acceptable translations.

This is also true in the New Testament where ανθρωπος often simply means, “Person” (e.g. Matthew 4:4) While sometimes it is gender specific (e.g. Matthew 19:10), in the plural, it perhaps best translated as, “People.”

In short, Hebrew has no neuter declension (a gender-neutral “it”). It is impossible for Hebrew to express a generic group or a person in general without resorting to masculine language, as shown above. Greek has a neuter declension, but it never uses it to describe people only things or ideas.

We actually have modern day examples for this. Spanish, for example, has masculine and feminine nouns and pronouns. However, it does not have a neuter. Thus, in the plural ellos is masculine and literally means, “Those men/boys/males” but more often than not just means, “They/them” without being gender specific. Likewise, the common term for parents is padres which literally means, “Fathers.” Nevertheless, the term is almost universally used to refer to both parents at the same time.

Notice that we don’t suggest that translators are distorting the message of a Mexican speaker writer when they translate ellos as “They” and padres as “Parents.” Neither should we automatically suggest that the TNIV and others distort the message of Scripture with gender inclusive language.

Cautions for Using Gender Inclusive Language

All that having been said, I do not want to suggest that I advocate gender inclusive language in all instances. While our culture has become more sensitive to such issues, we must admit that the Bible was not. There is no getting around the fact that the Bible is very andro-centric (male-centered).** The Bible is an ancient text, not a modern one. We should not force it into our image.

For instance, at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, James stands up and says, ανδρες αδελφοι (”men, brothers!”) This text must be translated in the masculine. It is clear from the context that only the elders and apostles were present for this council, not women. Gender neutral language here would obscure the text.

Furthermore, we must be careful so as not to distort theological meanings of the text. Some passages may look like appropriate for a gender neutral translation, but because the text has a certain theological (e.g. messianic or Christological) implication, it ought to be translate as masculine.

The Church throughout the centuries has seen Psalm 1:1 (above) as refering to Christ Himself. Christ is the blessed man who does not walk in the counsel of wicked, stand in the way of sinners, or sit in the seat of mockers. While this allusion could be made using gender inclusive language, this interpretation can become somewhat shrouded by such inclusiveness.

Similarly, we must realize that God is described mostly in masculine language. God is Father and Jesus is Son. Because of the cultural world in which the Bible was written, these terms have significance beyond most glosses (e.g. Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer, etc). The role of a father in Israel included procreation, provision, discipline, relationship, etc. Other modern glosses simply don’t capture this full range of meaning.

Conclusion

Therefore, gender inclusive language on the whole does not distort the biblical text, and we should not fear or oppose it unilaterally. Nevertheless, we must let the ancient text be an ancient text. If and when we use gender inclusive language, we must be very careful to avoid changing or shrouding meanings (theological or otherwise) implied in the original, masculine language.

*While we shouldn’t doubt that women throughout history doubted that God speaks to them through His Word, translations like the TNIV and others have tried to make this more explicit.

** Note: Andro-centrism does not necessarily imply misogyny. I am certainly more feline-centric (I prefer cats), but that does not mean that I am misocanine (I don’t mistreat dogs).

In words that I would never have been capable of articulating, this is why I am a biblical scholar.

Sacred Scripture so incomparably transcends all human knowledge and learning that I am reduced to silence. It proclaims the truth; calls to the heavenly fatherland; changes the heart of the reader from earthly desires to embracing higher ones. It challenges the strong with its more obscure expressions, while attracting little ones with simple speech. It is not so inaccessible that one should be frightened, nor so obvious that it becomes cheap. Familiarity with it takes away boredom; and the more one meditates on it, the more one loves it. It helps the soul of the reader with simple words, raises it with sublime meanings. In a certain sense it grows with the one who reads. The uneducated, in part, appraise it, while on the other hand the learned are always finding new things in it.

- St. Gregory the Great, Moral Commentary on Job, XX.1 (circa 600).

I am so privileged to be able to spend my time studying the Sacred Text. I only wish that my admiration for it and for the God it proclaims were greater. I agree with Gregory that the Bible is both simple and extremely complex; shallow and very deep. May the Lord speak to all of us, as we read, study, and learn from His Word.