Talk:Gender in Bible translation

Three tags

Three tags have just been added to the page, which really should be backed by specific points for improvement on the talk page. Since I agree with the tags, I'll just note that here.

The specific tags that have been added are:

• Lead too short.

This, of course, is not a minimum word requirement, the problem is that the lead currently only paraphrases the title of the article. Instead, a summary of content is needed. This need not await a finished product in the rest of the article, it can be written in such a way as it actually describes a framework for the rest of the article.

I propose something like:

• The biblical languages are inflected in ways that specify gender of referents.
• On the one hand, many people who regularly use the Bible believe in a doctrine of divine inspiration of the original texts.
• On the other hand, there has been widespread prescription of gender neutral language in government, academic and other institutions, particularly in English speaking countries, since the late 20th century.
• This has produced debates within Bible using organizations regarding which ideal is higher — precise rendering of original gender marking, or realistic rendering into modern language.
• Moral arguments are also offered for and against each option — inclusiveness versus complementarity.
• Bible publishers have found themselves responding to a changed market, one in which there is demand for both kinds of translation.

Regarding original research and essay tags, I think POV could be added to this. There is a long and sustained advocacy of gender neutral Bible translation, which is unsupported by references and misleadingly described as though it is the only view. In fact, it is possibly the minority view (I'm not sure unless I see stats).

Much of the text is repetitive opinion, so I expect I shall delete most of it at some point, now it's been tagged. But I'll leave sufficient to cover single statements of each opinion, and add a "cite required" tag. If no-one else supplies those cites, I'll get around to it eventually myself.

Anyway, there's a plan for this article. Looking forward to any help others may offer.

• The gender neutral Bible controversy is a book that gives an inside look at how some denominational leaders and publishers addressed the issues in an early 1990s US context.
• The front matter of many versions of the Bible explain the publishers' rationales in gender related translation issues.
• There are many sources on Bible translation principles articulated independently of this issue
• Likewise there are many sources regarding rationales for gender neutral or inclusive language (and these last two terms are not synonymous).

If I don't get around to doing all this work myself, I hope the information above can be useful for improving the article. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That is simply not true. Multiple points of view are given. If you think significant points of view are missing, then please add such points of view, with verifiable references. This is standard Wikipedia procedure. By all means, please provide what you feel is missing, but note these guidelines:

• Wikipedia:Cite sources - Provide references that help the reader to check the veracity of the article and to find more information.

• Wikipedia:Verifiability - The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and accurate encyclopedia. Verifiability is an important tool to achieve accuracy, so we strongly encourage you to check your facts.

• Wikipedia:Notability - Not everyone's point of view can be, or even should be cited. Encyclopedias, by definition, only cite notable points of view.

I have just made some edits on the article myself. RK (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Next time you edit here, I suggest you follow your own advice. Additionally, I recommend you cite sources if you wish to contradict another editor. Finally, I note a second warning for personal attacks. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is simply incorrect. This has been a growing issue throughout much of Catholic Christianity, Protestant Christianity, and in all denominations of Judaism, for nearly 40 years. Perhaps you haven't just read enough about this phenomenon. RK (talk)

Indeed, it appear from your posts here and elsewhere that if you have read anything in the area, you are holding out on us in actually sharing what you've read. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A problem with this article

The article title states that this is about gender in Bible translations. But it was really cut and pasted from the article on Gender of God, and in that context:

• this text was not solely about Bible translations. It was also about translations of God's name in Siddurim, Jewish prayer books - and also in Christian prayerbooks.

• the text originally was focused on translating Hebrew names of God into English, not about translating all gender terms in general.

• The Gender of God article now has few examples of what it supposed to be talking about, now that so much text has been removed from it.

I thus will be restoring some of the text within this article back into the main article, and wish to hear from other editors about what we should do with this article. Rename it? Rewrite it? Split it into two articles? (Perhaps creating a Gender of God in prayerbooks article?) RK (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In its current revision, this article is simply awful, but leaving that aside I think I hear what you're saying. You want coverage of the Gender of God in official and/or liturgical works, including (but not limited to) the Bible.

For the sake of the Wiki Bible project, I want an article on the broad subject of gender in Bible translation, including (but not limited to) the gender of God. The namespace Gender in Bible translation is linked to from Wiki project Bible. It is a subject area with its own primary and secondary literature. Renaming doesn't seem the way forward. Rewriting certainly does, and is actually one of several priorities I have for the coming year (and a high one).

As far as I can tell, many people are interested in the actual gender of God (I've seen newspaper articles on that, but not your issues or mine).

I can imagine your material being an asset to the Gender of God article and to this one. I see no reason why it couldn't be repeated in both, be featured in one or the other, or have its own article, referenced from these two articles.

Is there any reason why Gender of God in prayerbooks couldn't be featured within Gender of God, and similar material specific to the Bible be featured in both? When last I checked, saving space is explicitly not to be a consideration in editorial decisions. Alastair Haines (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Feminist Bible vs. LGBT Bible

If we already have Bibles that are adapted to feminist ideologies, why not have Bibles that are better suited for LGBT people ? [1] The problem is that at one point, every imaginable sociological or ideological clientele will have their own adapted version of the Bible and the original meaning of the sacred text will be utterly lost to a culture that seeks to adapt everything to itself. ADM (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Miscontruing the gender-neutral case

While appreciate Alistair's efforts to fairly represent the "gender neutral translation" POV, I think he misses the mark. He certainly missed the mark for where I stand. The article says,

"From the point of view of the gender egalitarian, the biblical text is conveyed in human languages that reflect human prejudices, not divine perspective. For example, "you shall not covet your neighbour's wife" shows a conceptual (not merely grammatical) androcentric social background. The gender egalitarian argues that modern attempts to promote gender equity in language provide the opportunity to render the biblical text more clearly, and without corruption from the host societies and languages of its original composition."

However, I would argue that a belief in gender egalitarianism is not the same as a belief in gender neutral translation (though the ideas are related). I would argue - contrary to the paragraph above - that gender neutral translation seeks only to correct grammatical androcentricism and does not attempt to correct conceptual or social androcentricism. Ironically, Alistair's example ("you shall not covet your neighbour's wife", Exodus 20:17), illustrates my point. The NRSV still translates that verse as "wife".

The point of gender-neutral translation - from my POV - is that English has changed. Consider "Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked" (Psalm 1:1, NIV). When this was originally written, "man" meant "man or woman". In 1950, "man" here still meant "man or woman". But since about 1980 (give or take a decade), "man" in common English does not mean "man or woman". It simply means "man".

So the NRSV (and presumably the TNIV, though I'm less familiar with it) is not attempting to minimise the patriachal culture of the Bible. It is merely trying to render accurate 21st century English. I think that is reflected by the explanation offered in the NRSV preface:

"During the almost half a century since the publication of the RSV, many in the churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text. The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture."[2] (bolding is mine).

In contrast, gender egalitarianism is an application issue, not a translation issue. Egalitarians freely admit that there are "sexist" commands in the Bible, and do not translate them otherwise. The issue for the egalitarian is "Are these commands universal across all times and cultures?". But the issue for gender neutral translation is, "what did the original author mean to say?". (Wow, that was much longer than I intended. Sorry). Peter Ballard (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Reading your (Alistair's) comment at my own talk page (!), maybe you;re well aware of all this and just edited the article a bit hastily. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter, don't apologize for length. You specify things very clearly and accurately ... and concisely.

I agree that there is a distinction between gender-neutral translation and gender egalitarianism--a point very well made by you.

Indeed, there is a distinction between gender-original translation and complementarianism also. Ultimately this article should be about the translation positions, not the ideologies. But I doubt other editors would be satisfied with that, and they have a point, ideology overlaps with translation in this case in a rather unmistakable (though not simplistic) way.

I didn't edit in haste. The section (which is a draft), deliberately presents two ideological viewpoints first. The people most likely to get emotional about text in this article are people who have deep, responsible, ideological perspectives which are very relevant to the debate. I suggest it may be wise to start this article in such a way as adherents to either POV are both satisfied their position is understood and articulated well. It also helps interested outsiders be clear about "human interest" issues.

But my draft does not stop with ideology, it goes on to introduce that plenty of people (who actually include Christians like you and I) are perfectly capable of leaving ideology aside and tackling an issue of linguistic accuracy: both author's intention and receptor language issues.

Actually, in that debate, Colorado Springs reflects an agreement between people like you (who think generic he in English is no longer appropriate) and people like me (who think that it is) regarding what sort of Hebrew and Greek constructions typically involve a grammatical encoding of a masculine example that was actually significant in the author's intentions, and hence best retained in English by similar structures in Bible translations, whatever else we may do in writing English outside the Bible. It also includes specification of places where grammar would suggest the original does not require such a masculine example, however theoretically "word-for-word" such a rendering might be: adelphoi (in some contexts) it was agreed, in no way presumes masculinity of the siblings.

The CSG represent a (lopsided) attempt at dialogue between people like you (the minority at that meeting) and those like me. They represent a very large and very influential proportion of US Christians. They do not represent Australians like us.

Anyway, I take your well made point that GNL and egalitarianism are distinct. The former is not argued for in the draft section because it is argued for in the bulk of the article. The contrary position (gender-original language) is currently unrespresented in the article, despite very substantial publication outlining that position. I do hope you'll be around to interact with things when I finally get around to writing it into the article (unless someone hopefully beats me to it). Alastair Haines (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I missed some details in the article. I sort of latched onto the paragraph I quoted above, then wrote my little piece. But I'm sure you'll agree the article is a bit of a mess at the moment!

I wonder if we should leave out the whole "gender egalitarian" bit on the basis that it's a distraction, UNLESS we can find concrete example of a gender egalitarian translation - e.g. which totally rewrites Genesis 2 so that man and woman are created at the same time, or completely skips 1 Tim 2:11-15. It wouldn't surpise if it's been done.

Interesting your comments on the CSG. I thought the Colorado Springs Guidelines were solely from the "gender-original languague camp", primarily as a reaction to the NIVI and the fallout from the 1997 World Magazine article criticising it. Given that you seem to have read more widely on it, you may want to look over my recent edit to the CSG article. Although, given the publication of the TNIV then, it seems to me there are plenty of US evangelicals who disagree with them. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ken Barker, Ron Youngblood, Lars Dunberg, Bruce E. Ryskamp represented the translators and publishers of the NIVI at the Colorado Springs meeting. It was a meeting to discuss differences, not a gathering of the likeminded to issue an ultimatum.

I read a great deal about it all when the news was fresh, i.e. at the turn of the millenium. In fact, I think Cardinal (now Pope) Joseph Ratzinger beat US evangelicals to the punch with Liturgicum Authenticam.

I agree the article is a mess, but mainly I think it is because it is written from the gender neutral and the gender egalitarian POV. The UK and Australia are pretty uniformly culturally disposed to those PsOV, but the US is much more mixed. It's not simply a religious or political divide there as far as I can tell. But then, there's also the rest of the world, and many other languages...

I do hear what you're saying about egalitarian v complementarian being a distraction. I agree. Those issues are interpretation issues, not translation issues. However, my draft section is not "starting as I think it should go on", but rather stating as simply and briefly as possible the "human interest/politics" bits that everyone knows about, so we can leave them and get down to boring bits of language data and language theory.

Ultimately though, we do have to return to ideology from time to time, because that is explicitly the motivation that many gender neutral translations appeal to in their prefaces.

Two books from opposite sides by evangelicals are:

• Don A. Carson. The Inclusive-Language Debate: A Plea for Realism. Baker Books, 1998. ISBN 080105835X
• Poythress, Vern Sheriden and Wayne A Grudem. The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God's Words. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000.

See also Gender-Neutral Bible Versions @ Michael D. Marlowe's Bible-Researcher.com

There's heaps of other books of course. Again, from both sides.

Lots of books, but always exactly the same issues.

Don Carson is possibly the ideal example of a non-egalitarian, pro-inclusivist evangelical.

Normally I'm with Carson agin Grudem (when they differ, which is rare), this case is an exception for me. Best Alastair Haines (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Gender of the Holy Spirit

Part of this debate seems related to the question of the gender of the Holy Spirit. Most biblical translations explicitly use the article He when refering to the Holy Spirit, even the ones that would qualify as modern or modernist. Given that most mainstream Christian theologians agree that the Holy Spirit is truly God, and given that contemporary translations haven't changed at all with regards to the Spirit, it could perhaps be agreed among translators that the Holy Spirit attests Himself in a way that truly preserves the sanctity of the Word of God. ADM (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So? This discussion page is about how to edit this encyclopedia article, not to make proposals to religious leaders who create translations of the Bible, and of prayerbooks. RK (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Mankind

Another issue in this debate is whether the term mankind includes women. In classical language, it certainly does, although many modern women would probably have problems in coming to terms with this perspective. The logic behind this is that there is only one human species, the homo sapiens, and not two human species. If women were not part of mankind, then they would be a whole different animal, which is a logical absurdity. This topic was actually discussed in the Middle Ages, there was a synod of Mâcon in the year 585 that mentioned the issue gender in Bible translation. There is also a myth surrounding this synod, namely that women were not included in mankind, when in fact the synod only asserted that the word mankind also comprised of the female sex. ADM (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that is, with the supporting sources, an excellent topic to cover in this article! Basileias (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

From merging article (Gender-neutral Bible)

A Gender-Neutral Bible is a translation of Christian scripture that minimizes the original language's emphasis on gender. Such translations have become controversial in some circles. Conservative theologians believe that minimizing gender through translation alters the meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek text, which they believe is perfectly inspired by God. Others argue that gender-neutral translations simply update the ancient text for modern English speakers.

• http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-11-19-newbible_N.htm
• http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20044722.html
• https://www.cbmw.org/the-gender-neutral-bible-controversy/
• http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/georgia-purdom/2012/07/17/gender-neutral-bibles%E2%80%94bad-for-women/
• http://sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=284
• http://womensenews.org/story/commentary/020529/new-gender-neutral-bible-stirs-controversy
• http://bible.org/article/do-gender-sensitive-translations-distort-scripture-not-necessarily

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gender in Bible translation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100206062332/http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/reader.html to http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/reader.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)