Bible Translation Debates: The Challenge of Changing Language

Have you ever noticed how every day language is used to manipulate and shape rather than describe reality? Here is one example. I used to swim several mornings a week, and as I walked from the locker room to the swimming pool, I encountered a large candy machine along the way. It wasn’t enough to have to walk around this temptation in an effort to gain physical exercise. But, to make matters worse the candy machine was lit up with huge words that read “Nutritious Food.” Of course, the machine did not dispense food but candy, and it was far from nutritious! The language used to sell candy was deceptive and harmful. I once complained, but realized that my objection was less persuasive than the profit from candy sales.

The stewardship we give words is a moral responsibility that either furthers or diminishes the purposes of Christ and the cause of justice, truth, and love of neighbor. Hence, precision with words is integral to our work as egalitarians. The meticulous use of language is, in my opinion, at the core of the TNIV debate, which is perhaps one reason the debate over accuracy in Bible translation has been so heated.

Using words accurately is challenging, not only because language is living—it is always changing—but also because of the effort required to give words their real meaning, when personal gain is always a temptation. Chandler McEntyre notes in her recent Christianity Today article, “The practice of precision requires not only attentiveness and effort: it may also require the courage to afflict the comfortable and, consequently, tolerate their resentment. The practice of precision is a spiritual discipline that requires courage. Precision is an aspect of the ‘renewal of mind’ that Paul commends.”

To be renewed in mind is to use language accurately and in ways that impart dignity and respect to all people. Here is one example. During the Civil Rights movement, men of color, regardless of their age, were referred to as “boys” while adult white males were referred to as “men.” Adult females have encountered the same hurdle in that they are often referred to as “girls,” when in fact they are adults and therefore women. And, of course in Bible translation and every language, when the context includes women what prevents us from making their gender visible? For example, in Romans 3:28 Paul said that an “anthropos is justified by faith.” The Greek word anthropos means “person” (not man) in this context, and so most translations read, “For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law (Rom. 3:28, NRSV). Certainly, we want all readers to understand that both men and women are saved by faith in Christ which is why the biblical author selected a gender-accurate term.

In the same way, candy is not nutritious food, nor are adult men boys, nor are women men. Let us use language accurately as a spiritual discipline and a form of moral integrity that reveals the love of God, the fruit of Calvary, and the stewardship of the gospel.

—-
Mimi Haddad is President of Christians for Biblical Equality



Print Friendly

About the Author

Mimi HaddadMimi Haddad is the president of Christians for Biblical Equality.View all posts by Mimi Haddad →

  • Pingback: Red Letter Christians » Bible Translation Debates: The Challenge of … | biblicalscholarblog.com

  • http://ihopetomorrowisbetter.blogspot.com Molly Bandit

    Glad to see the comments section isn’t overrun by negativity and legalism.  (I kind of want to put a “yet” at the end of that sentence, but I’m being hopeful)

    Good post.  The UCC gets a lot of flack for presenting the gospel as gender-inclusive.  It’s easy to say “what’s the big deal? Men = people” when you haven’t been catcalled or passed up for a promotion or denied access to a group or shamed simply because you’re a woman.                                

    • Benmanben

      You don’t want negativity? Are you CERTAIN of what that means? Isn’t that being legalistic? Do you have a problem with your own comment?
      Or is this about not liking conservative Christians?

  • David Turner

    clarifying point: there really *is* no TNIV debate anymore. It’s the 2011 NIV debate now.

  • http://www.fivedills.com Greg Dill

    It is worth noting that not every use of the masculine word for man, he, men, etc. is used as a general term for all people. There are many gender specific terms used throughout Scripture that should not be altered or changed. This is perhaps most important when referring to God our Father and Jesus the Son. But, it is also vital when reading Paul’s instructions about church leadership and family head of household where the term is very specifically relating to that of a male.

    • Peter Garcia

      I would agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence, Greg, but we obviously differ on what those proper hermeneutics are. I would say that the context in which the Bible was written was deeply and unquestionably patriarchal and the biblical authors would not have regarded women as fully equal to men and writing anything that would imply that would not have entered their minds. The Bible is very much a product of the ancient near eastern and first century Greco-Roman worlds. Therefore, their writing reflects a gender inequality that our hermeneutics require us to see, approach such gender exclusivity with suspicion, and honor women and men equally.

      That Evangelicalism largely holds to a view of inspiration that denies the influence of culture and the humanity of scripture prevents the dialogue from progressing forward.What I was trying to state in my reply was that biblicism accepts historical and socio-cultural context for biblical interpretation UNTIL it comes to gender. This holds true for how we view men and women and also how dominant Christianity exclusively views God as “Father.” 

      • http://www.fivedills.com Greg Dill

        I disagree Peter. Seeing how well Jesus treated women, it is assumed that God, the source of inspiration for the authors of the New Testament would have carried this same treatment of women over throughout the rest of the New Testament. God does not discriminate. And His mandate for specific roles amongst men and women are very intentional. And I would add the New Testament transcends all time and cultures, not restricting its relevancy solely to 1st century Palestine. I believe we can still accept the humanity and culture of the time at which Scripture was written without dismissing its cultural relevancy to 21st-century post-modernism.

  • Peter Garcia

    For every Romans 3:28 there is another verse in which the author uses gender exclusive terminology. And you have women being saved through bearing children. And God establishing a covenant with Abraham on the condition of circumcision of all males.

    It isn’t about just doing a find/replace with “men and women” or “person”. The problem lies more with biblicism than with gender inclusivity, and that is why there has been such a stir. Because a biblical author uses the word for “man” it must be interpreted accurately as such and preserved as man because “that is how God wanted it to appear.” To appeal to anything else is to assume you know better than God. Possibly more than anything else, unwarranted views of biblical inspiration prevent gender inclusive translations and egalitarianism.

    How do we lovingly challenge and deconstruct the biblicism of Evangelicalism and fundamentalism in our communities without it being interpreted as a complete affront to faith? When we do that we will be able to move forward.

  • Jim Fisher

    As Tony Campolo has often pointed out, the NIV changed Junia’s name to Junias (adding a masculine ending). She is the only female apostle mentioned in the Bible (Romans 16:7). In the KJV and NRSV she is still Junia. In the Codex Sinaiticus, her name undeniably ends with alpha (her name is at the end of a line). To me, changing her name isn’t a hermeneutical issue. It has more to do with the gender bias of the translation committee. I think removing that bias is most important.

  • Jim Fisher

    I would love someday to see a Bible where the gender of the Holy Spirit is female. Both Ruach (Hebrew) and Pneuma (Greek) are female nouns.

    • http://www.fivedills.com Greg Dill

      Actually, “pneuma” is a neutral noun.

      http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4151

      And, although “ruach” is a feminine noun it is always used as a pronoun with the masculine noun of Elohim.

      • Jim Fisher

        You’re right. I should have said “neither … are masculine nouns”. As for as Ruach, look at Numbers 11:17,25,26 and others. It appears without “of the Lord”. (After following the link, turn on the Strong’s numbers) http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=spirit&t=NASB&sf=5.

        • http://www.fivedills.com Greg Dill

          Nevertheless, it is ALWAYS used synonymously with the Lord, when He speaks, acts, or moves. Even in Numbers 11 it is the Lord speaking about His Spirit and placing it upon the elders of Israel. It is never used alone like we see in the New Testament, as in the day of Pentecost (see Acts 2).

          • Jim Fisher

            All good stuff. What I absolutely love is that it is now so easy for all of us to dig into the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek roots that grow beneath our English translations and interpretations. My study Bible is now online and I seldom use my hard-copy ones. Apart from all that, the Holy Spirit more often than not, reveals Herself to me as female. I have written a fun little piece about that here: https://sites.google.com/site/holyhugs/dream-house. Enjoy.

          • http://www.fivedills.com Greg Dill

            Jim – Your article sounds nice, warm, and fuzzy. But, I’d still be very careful to make the Holy Spirit into something you want. You’re in danger of recreating God into your image, much like Eve in the Garden of Eden. Even Jesus applies a masculine identity to the Holy Spirit. Why would you, or anyone else, want to change that? Simply because you are in egalitarian? We can be egalitarians without changing the identity of God.

            “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all
            truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears,
            and he will tell you what is yet to come.” (John 16:13)

          • Jim Fisher

            Jesus most certainly did not speak English. In this quote recorded by John, he was probably speaking Aramaic and he would have used the Aramaic pronoun which agreed in gender with the noun it referred to — and the noun is feminine. This discussion highlights the problem — our NT translations are often two layers of interpretation beyond the language of the original speaker and we must keep that in mind — not blindly making assumptions or drawing conclusions from our English texts without considering the original context in which they were spoken/written.

            God created us, male and female, in His image. If the Holy Spirit wants to show itself to me as female, that most certainly is in its power to do that.

          • http://www.fivedills.com Greg Dill

            To presume Jesus spoke English is ludicrous. Indeed, He spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. However, some of today’s modern English translations are translated from the Greek text from which the New Testament was written. And, the Greek text assigns a masculine identity (Greek: eke or ekeinos) to the article in question. However, the person of the Holy Spirit (pneuma) we can both agree is gender neutral. Therefore, for the sake of unity we can leave the discussion as is. Peace.

  • Benmanben

    Is there really anyone confused about whether Jesus wants ALL people to be saved? Don’t you know through the Trinity what the truth is?
    And isn’t it rather plain to see all of this? 
    I have a bad feeling this is just to try to push the whole homosexuality debate,  and is going to end up in arguments suggesting that the Bible is too “complicated” to quote from.

  • Ryan Nix

    I agree & I disagree, let me explain why. We can’t just be concerned with the accuracy of bible translations as it applies to gender, we have to give way in our hearts to the beauty of poetry and parable of scripture. A poetic section of scripture, a scripture that contains a song or a parable and the other forms of communication through verses needs to be handled like art. Like someone who is a lover of art goes to a museum and one time he stands close & for a moment he steps back and takes in the emotion of the work and with a breath explains the meaning of the artist. Ask the person gazing what it means on another day you might get something different. If it looses this quality of art then we reach a literal and legal realm where words are so sanitized that we can easily sanitize anything out of the kingdom. So, the problems isn’t just with translation, the problem is also with the tone in which we receive these words of art.

  • Erik Dell

    Things about language that haven’t changed:

    Every act of communication, whether using gestures or
    words is an approximation.  More or less
    meaning is transferred between the one who produces the signs and the ones who
    interpret them.   Notions of accuracy and
    precision are admirable goals in communication. 
    Nevertheless, language being what it is, definitive and exhaustive
    comprehension (an exact transfer) of complete “authorial intent” is an elusive
    “holy grail”: apt to be sought but never found. 
    Translating as exactly as possible what a person said is not the same as knowing exactly what they meant. 
    For many ideas (especially the most significant ones such as beauty and
    love) the choice of words or other language signs is simply too limited for the
    task.  I am sure God doesn’t expect us to
    read the scriptures as if this isn’t true. 
    Our discussion about words and meaning and translations is important, but
    our attempts to thereby reach into the heavens (like the tower of Babel)
    in order to bring Christ’s (exact meaning) down (Romans 10:6) are perhaps apt
    to result in our confusion. 

×

TRENDING: Five Reasons Christian Parents "Lose" Their Children