NRSV: is it truly gender-inclusive?

I’ve just found some unnecessary gender-exclusion in the translation of the apparantly gender-inclusive NRSV. This is very annoying. I had considered them perhaps the best version for gender-inclusive language.

Luke 28:29-30: “… there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not get back very much more…”. It is obviously intended to refer to women as well. And it doesn’t seem fair that leaving brothers behind is considered painful enough to mention but leaving sisters behind is not, so I shall add sisters in.

This is what I think the NRSV should chnage it to, “… there is no one who has left home, wife or husband, sisters or brothers, parents, or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not get back very much more…” (or alternatively, “… there is no one who has left home or spouse or siblings or parents or children…”).

I need a study bible: which translation and version should I buy?

The bible I currently use is a 1984 NIV (therefore a gender-exclusive translation). I use it because it is a study bible with good-sized font. I have a gender-inclusive NLT (New Living Translation 1996) bible as well, but it is not a study bible, and I don’t enjoy reading it because the font is too small to read easily.

Things I am looking for in my ‘new’ bible: study bible; reasonable sized font; gender-inclusive language; well regarded/accurate translation. It can be big and bulky, I don’t care. My options:

TNIV = I would love to get one of these but apparantly the ones on the market have small font. Even the allegedly “larger-print” version is only about 9-point font and it doesn’t come with study notes.

NLT study bibles = a possibility. I am fairly cautious with their translation (it isn’t regarded as ‘as’ accurate as TNIV or NRSV). However I do find their translation is easy to read.

NRSV study bibles = possibly my current preference. The Harper Collins version has good commentary notes apparantly (not too conservative). It is considered quite an accurate translation of the bible. My only real problem with the NRSV is that I find it not that easy to read. It doesn’t flow nicely like the NIV or the NLT do.

I’ll show some differences between the NIV and the NRSV below, from Luke 18:20 (The Rich Young Ruler): the NRSV translation says, “… you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder…” (the NIV says, “do not commit adultery, do not murder”). The NRSV says “sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor”; the NIV says “sell everything that you have and give to the poor”. Fairly minor differences in translation, I guess, but it does make the NIV easier to read.

Is it Feminism’s fault? The need for Gender-Inclusive language in the bible

Below I shall dissect two prefaces for gender-accurate versions of the bible. First I dissect the preface for the NLT 1996 (New Living Translation) which is a perfect example of what gender-accurate bibles should not do in their preface (in the preface they completely excuse past male-oriented translations of the bible, and lay the problem not with sexist language but with Feminism). Then I shall dissect the preface for the NRSV 1989 which is a wonderful and humble example of what gender-accurate bibles should do in their preface.

THE NEW LIVING TRANSLATION 1996 Preface includes:

-         “One challenge we faced was in determining how to translate accurately the ancient biblical text that was originally written in a context where male-oriented language terms were used to refer to humanity generally. We needed to respect the nature of the ancient context while also trying to make the translation clear to a modern audience that tends to read male-oriented language as applying only to males”

Ø     So… 1. the male-oriented language of the past was okay: there was nothing wrong with it. 2. the only reason we have to change the bible’s male-oriented language to gender-accurate language today is because the silly modern audience is too illiterate/dumb to understand male-oriented language nowadays. 3. the reason for the modern audience (read: “modern young females”) not understanding male-oriented language is because of the stupid feminist movement creating problems where there were none before.

Ø     This preface denies any inherent wrongness with using male-oriented language (and thus manages to remove any blame for past male-oriented translations of the bible). The preface lays the source of the problem (and blame for the problem) not in past sexism but in the Feminist movement (which has taught modern young women to not understand male-oriented language).

> I am offended by this preface. It assumes that the only problem I personally could have with male-oriented language is not understanding that it was meant to include me also. It assumes I have to be close to stupid to have a problem with male-oriented language. I’ve grown up in Christianity, in the church, and with male-oriented language in the bible. I completely undertand that it impliedly includes women too. But I still think male-oriented language is inherently wrong.

- “we should emphasize, however, that all masculine nouns and pronouns used to represent God (for example, “Father”) have been maintained without exception. We believe that the essential traits of God’s revealed character can only be conveyed through the masculine language expressed in the original texts of Scripture”.

> So we should only see God as ‘male’ but not ‘female’? So God is not genderless?

 

 

NRSV 1989 (New Revised Standard Version)

-         “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… 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”

Ø     this is a wonderful preface about why the bible committee for the NSRV chose to use gender-inclusive language. The committee is humble. It accepts the faults/sexism in it’s previous translation of the bible (RSV). It does not blame ‘modern’ women, or feminism, for suddenly needing to change bible language to be gender-inclusive. Instead, it realizes that the English language has an inherent masculine bias/sexism, which was played out in translations of the bible. The bible should always have been translated in a gender-inclusive way. Translators screwed up by not doing so. They accepted the linguistic sexism/male-bias of the English language. They didn’t change this until the late 1980s.

Ø     As a side note, the NRSV preface says that their bible committee comprised about thirty members “both men and women”. By specifically mentioning this, I know that they saw the need for women to be included in the bible committee, and I appreciate this. This translation (with it’s humble preface that blames past sexist society not modern women for the recent change in gendered language in the bible) is fast becoming my translation of choice for my new planned non-sexist bible purchase.

Would describing God as FEMALE in the bible make the bible FEMINIST?

Mark L. Straus (discussing the choice to use gender-accurate language in the TNIV translation) on the NIV website wrote: “This kind of gender-related language has nothing to do with Godlanguage. None of these versions introduce feminine language for God or eliminate masculine terms used for God in the Bible. They introduce inclusive language only with reference to human beings and only when the original author intended to include both sexes. These are not “feminist” versions of the Bible.”

Yup: my response:

1.      Apparantly a feminist version of the bible would be so bad. [If the feminist movement hadn’t begun, when would translations of the bible have started using gender-accurate/gender-inclusive language?] Also, definition of feminism = working for a gender-equal world (including gender-equal representation in the world). Where is this out of joint with Christianity?

2.      Apparantly it is okay to continue exclusively portraying God as more ‘male’ than ‘female’, and to do otherwise would be sacrilege. Funny. I always thought God was genderless.

If God is genderless s/he is as much female and mother as s/he is male and father. If so, we are missing an important part of the identity of God when we continue portraying God as exclusively male. It’s funny that these translators (almost all are male) can’t even fathom the thought of portraying God as female occassionally – you know, for a change. They could write God as female in alternative chapters/books in the bible, and God as male in the remaining chapters or books. This would accurately reflect that God is as much female and mother, as s/he is male and father. [But nooooo, say these bible translators, we can't have that... that would be too feminist, that would].

Even the KJV sometimes changed gender-exclusive language to include females

Quoting Mark L. Straus (Ph.D) from the NIV (New International Version) website on the use of gender-accurate language in bible translations:

 “Most Bible versions produced or revised in recent years—including those done by theological conservatives—have adopted this kind of gender-accurate language. Some of these are the New Living Translation (1996), God’s Word (1995), the Contemporary English Version (1995), the Good News Bible (revised 1992), the New Revised Standard Version (1990), and the New Century Version (1987). In fact, the use of such language is nothing new, and all translations of the past have used some inclusive terms for masculine generic terms in Hebrew and Greek. The King James Version often used the inclusive “children” for masculine generic terms sometimes rendered “sons.” Matthew 5:9 KJV reads:“Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God.” The KJV translators correctly recognized that though the Hebrew and Greek terms (banim, huioi) were masculine in form, their meaning in context was generic and inclusive.”

Thank you, Mark Straus. Mark is a self-proclaimed conservative on the issue of women in ministry. [I very strongly disagree with him there, and I shall deal with this issue in a later post]. But Mark accurately views the issue of whether to use gender-accurate language in bible translations as separate from the issue of women in ministry. According to Mark, gender accurate terms should be used (and are used in the NLT) “only with reference to human beings and only when the original author intended [the term] to include both sexes”.

Is God Male? (Ask the NLT translators).

I quote from NLT website (as of October 2008): 

After they ‘justify’ their reasons for using gender-accurate language within the bible they go on to say;

 “It should be emphasized that all masculine nouns and pronouns used to represent God (for example, “Father”) have been maintained without exception. The translators believe that essential traits of God’s revealed character can be conveyed only through the masculine language expressed in the original texts of Scripture.” 

What these translators mean when they say this:

Basically they are saying that God is better described as “Father” than as “Mother”; and is better described as “He” rather than as “She”. Describing God as “Father” and as “he” best portrays the essential traits of God. They are saying that our understanding of what “he” means and of what “Father” means is closer to who God is than our understanding of what “she” and “mother” mean. They aren’t quite saying that fathers are more like God than mothers. But they are saying that our understanding of fathers and mothers means that we consider fathers to be more like God than mothers. [By not addressing this problem better, and by not even considering translating the bible in a way where 1/2 the time God is described as female; these translators also seem to be saying that there is nothing wrong with us thinking fathers/men are more like God than mothers/women are].

Two reasons why these translators believe God is more like “father” than like “mother”:

1. These translators are 94 percent male.

On their website the NLT lists a total of 73 people as being the translators. Of these, I don’t know the gender of 4 (although it is likely that they are male: D. A Carson; Elmer A Martins; R. K. Harrison (deceased); and Terry Eves). Of the remaining 69 translators which I could know the gender of, 65 were men and 4 were women [in addition, 6 of these men are labelled "Senior Translators" but none of the women are]. So the NLT has been translated by a team that is 94 percent male and 6 percent female [and led 100 percent by males]. This is worst than the proportion of elected females in governments globally (88 percent male and 12 percent female).

It makes sense that a large team that is 94 percent male, and headed entirely by men, could decide that the essential traits of God were best portrayed by using male terms.

2. We consider the ideal “Father” to be more like God than the ideal “Mother” because he can be everything an ideal mother is and more:

We consider the ideal father to be everything an ideal mother is and more (eg. loving, forgiving, nurturing, strong, powerful, sense of justice). In contrast we find it hard to fit notions of power, dominance, leadership and strength into our understanding of what the ideal mother should be like. Our idea of the ideal mother is less powerful, and is more restricted/narrow, than our idea of the ideal father. Therefore we consider an ideal father to be more like God than an ideal mother.

Problems with thinking of and describing God solely as “Father” and what bible translations should do to remedy this:

I think this definition of ‘mother’ or of ‘ideal mother’ really lets women down. It also restricts our understanding of God. The idea of ideal mother should fit into our understanding of who God is as much as our idea of the ideal father does.

We need to redefine what traits an ideal mother should have to include traits such as leadership, power, sense of justice and authority.

One way to do this is to translate parts of the bible in a way that makes God female/mother (eg. chapter for chapter alternating in the bible between God as “male” and God as “female”). 

Another way to do this is to casually talk about God sometimes as mother/female in conversations (instead of God always being referred to as ‘male’).

This will do two things:

1. develop and broaden our understanding of ‘God’ and God’s traits (how is our understanding of God different when we see God as mother?) and

2. develop and broaden our understanding of ‘woman/mother’ and her traits.

TNIV and the NLT bibles use “Son of MAN” to mean Jesus = not gender-accurate

TNIV (Today’s New International Version, 1996)– is it really using gender-accurate language?  I quote ^{Matthew 19:28} Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne…”      - – -  son of man??

I Just looked at the same verse in my 1996 version of the NLT (NEW LIVING TRANSLATION) (also supposedly using gender-accurate language) and this says “Son of Man” also (as well as repeating the phrase several times elsewhere in the same section).

So for some reason the translators of both the NLT and the TNIV decided that “Son of MAN” was appropriate to describe Jesus, but “Son of HUMANKIND” or “Son of PEOPLE” was not…?

“Son of MAN” is supposed to mean ‘Jesus; born human to human parents’. I don’t think the phrase “son of man” was intended to have the smallest bit more to do with men per se than with people in general. 

I would like to know the translators reasons for not making “son of Man” gender-inclusive/gender-appropriate.

Custardy Blog thinks the phrase “Son of Man” would be better translated as “Human One” when referring to Jesus.

Modern Translations of the Bible that are “Gender-Accurate”

1987 – New Century Version (okay – I’ve  never, ever heard of this translation)

1990 – NRSV (New Revised Standard Version)

1992 – The Good News Bible

1995 – Contemporary English Version and God’s Word

1996 – The NLT (New Living Translation) and the TNIV (Today’s New International Version)

For whatever reason, I have grown up in a strongly Christian household and have always gone to church but I don’t remember ever reading any of the above translations apart from the NIV and sometimes the NLT. Only the NIV was commonly read in my church.

It surprises me that it took the NIV and the LT so long to become gender-accurate/gender-inclusive.

Initially the NIV published it’s first gender-inclusive translation – the NIVI – in the UK, but that translation was met with a lot of criticism. Dr James Dobson and fellow supporters were strongly against it being published in the USA too, so Zondervan didn’t publish it there. Instead, they made the TNIV gender-inclusive translation and published this in the UK and USA. It changed some of the controversial parts of the NIVI. That translation was also met with some very strong criticism. The TNIV is the only widely published version of the NIV that is gender-inclusive (as of today).

The 1996 version of the LT – the NLT – was generally well-received. The NLT was later improved and a more recent and contemporary (still gender-inclusive) version was published in 2004.

And what about the bibles on my book-shelf? The one next to my bed is the 1984 version of the NIV (the most recent translation published before the gender-inclusive 1996 translation). I also have a 1996 version of the NLT in my bedroom, which I prefer to the 1984 NIV, but the words are small and tricky to read so I usually read my 1984 NIV bible instead. 90-95% of the other bibles in my house are gender-exclusive (we have a lot of bibles: at least 30: in our house because I live in a big family and my father used to be a Pastor and a bible college lecturer).

I need to get myself a TNIV bible (or similar gender-inclusive version). I am reluctant to do this though because I still think the TNIV affirms men more than women in it’s translation (“brothers” always comes before “sisters”; and the phrase “Son of Man” is used in the New Testament to refer to Jesus). The TNIV translation is still partly male-centric instead of people-centric. And I don’t want to pay for a bible like that.

Is the Bible sexist? If so, can a sexist Bible still be inerrant (without error)?

 In this post first I will discuss what inerrancy means. Then I will demonstrate why I believe parts of the Bible must be sexist. Lastly, I shall discuss whether it is possible to reconcile a sexist bible with the concept of an inerrant bible.

1. Is the bible “inerrant”?

Christians believe the bible is inerrant (‘completely without error’) because the men who wrote it were inspired by God when they wrote it. Christians give the concept of inerrancy different meanings.

Most of us believe the principles of the Bible are inerrant (we reject certain parts of the Bible that were culturally relevant then but are no longer relevant in our society today; culturally specific principles).

Even thinking about the Bible in this way I find parts of the Bible really hard to swallow without bitterness. I have to believe that the authors of the Bible were partly sexist. They were men living in an extremely sexist society. If they weren’t sexist how could they have written “the man is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man… “ (Paul, from 1 Corinthians 11) ?

2. Is the Bible Sexist?

People have tried to reconcile these seemingly sexist passages with the inerrancy of the Bible and the concept that men and women are equal. Their efforts seem very, very strained.

I think, if the Bible’s authors were not partly sexist they would have focussed more on the female characters in the Bible (that they didn’t shows male centricity in their view of the world).

They also would have qualified their statements like “a woman must not have authority over a man” with real reasons (eg. ‘it is inappropriate at this time’), rather than with reasons that seem inherent (‘because Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner’ 1 Timothy 3:11-15). Some have argued that Paul (probably the author) was simply quoting a well known concept at that time, but not endorsing it. I disagree. That viewpoint is so hard for me to believe that I find it impossible. To me, in that statement, if I was a jury in a Court I would have to find that Paul was sexist well beyond reasonable doubt (perhaps even beyond a shadow of a doubt).

Paul must have endorsed the sexist reasoning he gave for his statement that women should not be in authority over men. He would have known exactly how his statements would have been understood by Christians at the time. Therefore if he wasn’t sexist, Paul would have made it clear that his reason for why a woman shouldn’t be in authority (because “it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner”) was just a popular view and one that he did not personally support.  

3. If the Bible is Sexist, is it still Inerrant (without error)?

Because I don’t think some Bible passages can be reconciled with the concept that the author was not sexist, I find those passages extremely difficult to reconcile with the idea that the Bible is inerrant. If God had inspired every word that those men wrote, then the Bible couldn’t have had sexism in it (in my opinion). Therefore I don’t think that God inspired every single sentence that those men wrote. People say that those “sexist” Bible verses were appropriate at the time they written. Those Bible passages were sexist even in the time that they were written - just because it was ‘normal’ or a ‘tradition’ in no way made it right or ‘okay’.

I still believe the principles of the Bible are inerrant. These can be hard to pin down. I feel like a bit of a hypocrite because I believe the principles of the Bible are inerrant, but I reject the principle proposed by Paul, that woman should not be in authority over man. I reject this principle applying either at the time it was written, or today, and I don’t support the reasoning Paul used to back up his proposition. So I am ‘picking and choosing’ my principles.

The principles I agree with wholeheartedly are usually the ones that the majority of Christians today support, but not always. To determine which principles of the Bible I find to be “inerrant” and which are not, this is the test I use:

I ask, would the God I know (all-loving, all-powerful, merciful/forgiving; non-sexist) have made that a principle to live by?

Non-sexist but still non-Godly Bible Principles? (eg. Homosexual sex):

There are “principles” given in the Bible that are non-sexist but still seem like God couldn’t have agreed with them (eg. the ‘rule’ that men should not have sex with other men). I know Christians are divided on this issue.

Many of them are struggling to reconcile the concept of the bible being inerrant with the seeming unreasonableness of this ’rule’ in the Bible. We are not given a ‘reason’ for why someone born with homosexual desires has to refrain from having an intimate homosexual relationship. 

To many of us, the ”reason why” a writer in the Bible said homosexual sex was in itself necessarily and always morally wrong is completely unclear).

To me, this issue seems to fail my test for an “inerrant principle” because I can’t see why every single act of homosexual sex could be wrong in the eyes of God. And until God clears with up for me I cannot accept this as an inerrant principle in and of itself.

More Links:

Was Jesus Sexist? Was he racist? (Mark 7:24-29 discussed)

Old Testament – women are inferior passages

Old Testament – passages where women are given special punishment; treated as equals; seen as leaders

Statements by Christian Leaders 2-20 BC (Martin Luther:“If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that’s why they are there.”). Pope John Paul II offers a nice alternative to this view. Jerry Falwell has his pants in a knot.

Reversing the words “man” and “woman” in the Bible

In some of my posts I reverse the words “man” and “woman”. I don’t do this to be sexist to men. I don’t do this because I think the Bible is better this way. I do this to get people to think, what if this passage had been written like this? Is it relevant to us (in our society today) that it was written the other way, or can the genders be switched?

I believe that for the most part us woman have as much to learn from the male characters of the Bible as we do from the female characters (and the same is true for men). I don’t think that the ’sexist’ Bible passages should be read as meaning that women must have a certain role – and men a certain other role – in society. If anything, this was true in the sexist culture of the day, but it is not true now. I want to reflect this (the idea that gender doesn’t matter in our understanding of the Bible today) by reversing the gender roles sometimes.

Is the Bible written in a sexist way? I believe so. I attempted to reconcile a sexist bible with the idea that the bible is inerrant (without error) here.

Reversing the words “male” and “female” in some of these sexist bible passages is a way for me to have a laugh at just how ridiculous and unfair the original passage in the Bible was, and is. There’s nothing much else I can do, and no way I know of to fully redeem those passages. All I can to is divorce them from their sexist meaning and make them meaningless, by reversing the sexism, by reversing the genders.