This article in yesterday’s USA Today had an interesting article on a new translation of the Bible which is coming out. According to the article, some Christians are upset because it’s removing gender specific language, such as “he” and 'his" with more neutral language. To give a specific citation from the article, after Jesus says to Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life” the next verse is translated as
in the New International Version or
in the King James Version.
In this new translation (it’s being called Today’s New International Version), this passage will be translated
Now, I’m a devout Episcopalian Christian, a feminist, and a translator. I am not a Biblical literalist, among other things, because I’m reasonably sure Christ did not speak English during his lifetime. Apparently, though, there are some Christians who are very upset because of this tampering with the language of the Bible. Why? Christ, as I read things, was inclusive, if not outright feminist, and yes, I’m afraid saying “he” and “his” has been used to exclude my half of the species, whether the intent was there or not.
What specifically makes the Todays New International Version gender accurate? I can’t read hebrew, latin, or greek so I’m not sure how the earliest copies of the bible were written. Were they written without gender specific pronouns?
And next, in order to include vegans, every reference to a meal , unless it mentions a specific cut, will say “food” rather than “meat.”
Maybe people object to re-translating texts for what they see as trivial and trendy purposes.
(This ties in with a minor campaign of mine for language reform. I feel we should keep the he/him/ Man formulation as the generic for people, but we should develop and install a new pronoun/noun combination which refers specifically to male persons. This way, all the prior references to Man or “he” which include female persons could stay, while current writers could easily say “women and pemen” or “she or phe” if the need to differentiate genders arises.)
Pronouns are one thing, nouns are another… specifically, Greek (the langauge of the New Testament) draws a distinction English does not, between aner (=“man”), meaning a male human being, and anthropos (=“man”), meaning a human being, gender unspecified. So, replacing specifically male references with gender-neutral ones may actually be closer to the original meaning of the text (though you’d have to check the original Greek to make sure). And anthropos, being a grammatically masculine noun, might well be the implied referent of grammatically masculine pronouns…
(Same applies to Latin; I know no Hebrew.)
In short, there is no reason to suppose that the NIV is any less accurate as a translation, and it may well be more so. As for the whole issue of gender neutrality in general… God accepts and loves all of us, regardless of sex.
As I think I’ve said before, I like the King James version… but let’s not forget that the whole point of doing it was to bring as accurate as possible a translation of the Bible into the common speech of the people. Since the seventeenth century, the standards for translation have risen, and the common speech of the people has changed - so, a new translation is a good thing rather than a bad one.
For whatever it’s worth, the New International Version is the translation of choice for many very conservative and/or fundamentalist Christians and churches. I belonged to the Church of Christ for a while, and just about everyone there used it.
So the people who use this translation are the ones most likely to have a problem with non-gender biased language. They would tend to see feminism as a Very Bad Thing, one that encourages women to act in ways other than their interpretation of God’s will, and this change just reeks of the act of a feminist to them.
Actually, I became a feminist in large part as a result of attending that church.
When langage can be made inclusive without sounding clunky and without changig the essence of what Jesus said, ot of us DON’T object.
Problem is, it’s not easy to make gender neutral language sound natural, and many translations I’ve seen DO chge he nature o ha Jesus said.
Now, changing a phrase like “He who believes in me shall not die” to “Whoever believes in me shall not die” doesn’t bother me. It sounds perfectly natural and doesn’t change Jesus’ meaning in any significant way.
On the other hand, I’ve seen translators who objected to calling God “Father,” who try to say “Father and Mother,” or “Parent.” This kind of thing is FAR more objectionable. When translators do that, they’re saying, in effect, Jesus was a exist pig and we have to “fix” his flawed words. And I have a BIG problem with that.
If you think you’re smarter and wiser than Jesus, you MAY be a decent person, but I don’t think you’re much of a Christian.
The phrase cited in the OP (from John 11:25 - 26) that is rendered “he who believes” or “anyone who believes” does not have a strong argument foe “he” from the Greek.
The actual phrase is 'o pisteúwn. 'o is the definite article and pisteúwn is the nominative singular masculine present participle from the verb peíthw: to believe or to be assured or persuaded.
So one translation could easily be “the believing one [maculine]”.
Since in Greek, as in English, masculine is the default for mixed groups and the statement goes on to say “kai pas” (“and everyone”), the “whoever” translation for this verse seems quite appropriate.
The issue becomes rather more sticky if they really did translate “sons of thunder” as “children of thunder.” James and John are clearly male and changing “sons” to “children” actually hurts the text. “Children” implies that they are still kids while “sons” simply indicates the joking reference to their apparent heritage.
So, in general, I don’t oppose the concept of rendering generic masculine as generic human, but I do have a problem with making the whole text gender-neutral. If the text was written in the context of a clear patriarchal society, it makes more sense to me to teach students that many comments arose from the cultural mindset rather than trying to hide that mindset (only to have the student be confused when they encounter a more “natural” translation, later.)
(Are they going to replace both “husbands” and “wives” with “spouses”? That would give some interesting twists to various passages in Paul’s letters.)
Y’know, sometimes gender-inclusive language just plain sounds bad. One can use one too often, making one’s writing boring and embarassing one’s self. Others alternate between he and she, a practice that I find confusing.
To be honest, I don’t understand the whole gender-inclusive language thing. When I see “he” being used as a gender-neutral pronoun, I don’t feel discriminated against. I think that most thinking feminists have more important things to worry about.
I do think that if it’s possible to use gender-inclusive language without losing the meaning or disturbing the flow or screwing up the grammar–then, hell, go for it. This phrase, however, is just wrong:
Anyone is singular. They is plural. “They” is not supposed to refer to “anyone.”
Come on people; it’s your holy book. At least let it be gramatically correct.
My sociology professor wanted me to write my papers with more gender-neutral language. I made an effort to do so but it felt so awkward that I just want back to using he.
I don’t see myself getting a copy of this translation. But then, I like the KJV (I know that it has problems, very well aware of it’s many many problems, but it reads beautifully.) And when I do read a modern translation, it tends to be the NRSV.
I would like to borrow someone else’s copy though, and look through it. I am not usually bothered by non-inclusive language in works that are older (in more modern books, I do notice, and it does rub me the wrong way - but in older books, I skim right by it). I wonder what changes they made from the NIV… how they re-worked sentences to still flow (well, as well as the NIV flows), but eliminated he, his, sons, etc.
According to the article, the translators substituted “they” and “them” for many places where the word being translated was singular. That does bother me.
With actual people, did they correctly identify gender, or did they eliminate those references as well? (I once ran across a gender inclusive hymnal that in their fervor to rid the hymns of non-gender neutral language re-wrote the hymns that referred to Christ as having been male. I did have problems with that as well.)
As usual, USA Today proves a little slow on the uptake. Gender-neutral translations of the Bible–even of the NIV–have been around for years; my ex-wife bought one years ago. I remember, though how difficult it was for her to find one, even in Oxford. The only “new” thing about Today’s NIV is that it’s probably going to be more widely-available.
One of the dominant factors in any vernacular translation from Tyndale onward is how, even though the translation is taken from the original Greek and Hebrew, previous vernacular texts affect the process of translation. Tyndale was affected by German and French translations; the KJV is nearly 95% concordant with Tyndale’s work; and subsequent English editions are obviously affected, more or less, by the “Authorised Version.” It seems clear to me that one of the objections that many Christians, perhaps subconsciously, have to gender-neutral Bibles is that they subvert this textual inertia.
One must also examine the way in which many Christians read the Bible. Although it’s a less-common practice now, there is a strong tradition of memorising the scriptures as a means to devotion. I examined this practice in 15th- and 16th-century England in the D.Phil thesis I recently finished, and I know many Christians who still memorise portions of the Bible today. Even if Christians don’t go that far in their devotion, there are always some parts and phrases of the Bible which are familiar. Christians in general are wary of any Bible which “doesn’t sound right,” meaning, more specifically, a Bible which is unfamiliar in tone and word. I think many Christians brought up on the “traditional” NIV who attack the gender-neutrality of Today’s NIV dislike the “unfamiliarity” of the text.
There must be a sense among many conservative Christians as well that some translators are “using” Today’s NIV as a political tool, to foster “liberal” or “politically-correct” thought. Whatever one might think of this belief, it is hardly far-fetched. Henry VIII used the Great Bible as a tool to advertise the Royal Supremacy. James VI and I used the KJV as a means to enforce religious uniformity on an increasingly fractious Ecclesia Anglicana. Every translator and sponsor of the Bible carries a specific agenda, whether conscious or subconscious. Whether it’s PC to say it or not, it’s clear that the translators of Today’s NIV have an agenda with which many conservative Christians disagree.
Just for fun, here’s John 11:25-26 in Tyndale’s New Testament:
One word’s difference from KJV. The makers of the Authorised Version should be thankful Tyndale’s estate didn’t file a plagarism charge!