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).

A friend just told me about a group of conservatives who are putting together a new translation of the Bible. This project, called The Conservative Bible Project, aims to correct and surpass all of the “liberal” Bible translations (ex: NIV and ESV) in our pews.  Please take the time read about the CBP using the link provided before you continue here.  You may also want to read the reviews by Mark Shea and The Huffington Post.

The Positives of the Conservative Bible Project

The CBP is right to understand that translation implies interpretation. This is denied by virtually no one. Indeed, it is impossible to translate a text, especially a religious one, without inserting one’s own bias or preferences.  Thus, the CBP is correct that a liberal minded translator (or group of translators) may intentionally or inadvertently impose a liberal agenda on the interpretation, which certainly should be avoided.

A decent example might be the modern move to include only gender inclusive language (ex: “people” instead of “men” or “children” instead of “sons”). This can result in Old Testament foreshadowings of Christ (ex. Psalm 1:1) being lost in translation. Clearly, such would be a move away from traditional Christianity, and hesitancy here is understandable.

Furthermore, the CBP is right to suggest that there are false teachers and bad theologies within our churches.  As there is no perfect church, there is no perfect translation.  If a translation leads to erroneous conceptions of God, sin, man, Hell, Jesus, etc., then it should be rejected. 

Ambiguities within the Conservative Bible Project

Nevertheless, I firmly believe the CBP to be ambiguous on certain accounts and down right wrong on others. First, the CBP defines neither “conservative” nor “liberal”. It is completely unclear what is being criticized and what is being upheld. Are they dealing with theological conservatism/liberalism or political conservatism/liberalism?

For instance, the CBP claims that the word, “government,” is a liberal word. However, there is no explanation as to why government is inherently liberal. Is this a theological issue or political issue? The same ambiguity applies to words like comrade, laborer, and fellow. Even God’s name, Yahweh, is considered “liberal wordiness”, and no defense is given. This is confusing to the say the least.

Second, the project is unclear as to whether it desires to present a entirely new translation or build upon the existing King James Version. The project cannot do both, because there are well attested problems with the underlying Greek text, Textus Receptus, of the KJV (see Bruce Metzger’s Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament and Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration).

The CBP seems to understand this, but it fails to commit to a new translation. It is unclear how the CBP will decipher which verses/words/sections of the KJV are “defective” and which are not. If the CBP bases its work upon the Textus Receptus, then they will be off to a poor start.

Third, the CBP seems to occasionally not like the Greek itself! In Luke 16:8, the CBP is dissatisfied with the word “shrewdly” because of its “connotations of dishonesty.” They prefer to use “resourceful.” The problem is that the Greek, φρονιμως (phronimos), means, “Shrewdly, wisely, or prudently,” not “Resourceful.” Are they claiming that Luke’s words are too liberal?

Errors of the Conservative Bible Project

Furthermore, there seem to be places where the underlying philosophy and practice of the CBP is in error. The most obvious example is that the CBP equates “conservativism” with God’s truth. However, it is possible – indeed, probable – that the theology behind the CBP is flawed, at least on points. If this is the case, their theology should not be the guiding principle in translation.

Instead, they should acquire serious Greek philologists, linguists, textual critics and grammarians to translate the text as literally (whether word for word or thought for thought) as possible. Then, the CBP should conform its theology to the Biblical text, not the other way around!

For instance, topics such as social justice, which the CBP rejects, are present within the Bible, especially in the OT prophets (ex: Jeremiah and Isaiah). God cares about poor, oppressed, and exploited people. Simply because the CBP is cautious about promoting the “Christian social justice movement” – how they define this is unclear – they should not alter the text.

In short, the CBP seems to be driven by agenda, which is exactly the critique they use against their liberal opponents. Yet if God’s Word actually differs from the CBP’s theology/philosophy, the CBP should alter their philosophy not the Biblical text. The “conservative” agenda should not be allowed to alter God’s Word any more than a “liberal” one should. This is, perhaps, the most serious problem of the CBP.

Furthermore, the CBP appears deficient in its knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. For instance, they claim that the use of “word” in John 1:1 has lost its meaning in modern society – fair enough. Thus, they suggest using “truth” instead. However, the Greek is λογος (logos: word) not αληθεια (aletheia: truth). The former simply does not mean, “Truth,” (see BDAG, 2000, pp. 598-601), and to translate it as such is just wrong.

Finally, the whole project appears to be condescending and pejorative. Anytime there is a potentially liberal word or concept (remember that this includes “Yahweh!”), it is considered a distortion or intrusion. They paint of picture of pseudo-christians infiltrating the church with their radical agenda and who can only be stopped by a conservative vocabulary.

This gives no credit to the politically or theologically liberal scholars who are more qualified than CBP members in understanding Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic language, grammar, morphology, and literature. Even if we assume that the CBP’s theology is perfect, this does not guarantee that they know how to translate and understand ancient texts. Credit should be given where credit is due, but the CBP seems unwilling to acknowledge the skill that so-called “liberals” might possess. This reeks of arrogance and condescension, which is always a bad starting ground for doing the work of God, as the CBP is clearly motivated to do.

Conclusion

I appreciate what the CBP is trying to do. St. Paul was correct in predicting that there would be many false teachers in the church universal, and there certainly are today. However, stamping a movement or translation “conservative” does not solve this problem, and it may even foster it by confusing theological problems with political ones.

I agree with the CBP that new translations of the Bible are needed, especially as modern English changes with time and culture. Nevertheless, new translations should be governed by what the texts actually say, not by what a group wants them to say. Once the meaning of a text is understood, translators should seek to communicate that meaning in the vernacular, as best as possible. Sometimes this might mean using “liberal” vocabulary or even – God forbid! – promoting social justice, because that is what the texts say and mean.

In the end, since the CBP seems more motivated by agenda than faithfulness to the text, I am inclined to see it as biased, unhelpful, flawed, and even misleading. It’s not the kookiness Mark Shea suggests, but it’s not a good idea either.