299 - Translators and The Gender Gap

Translators and The Gender Gap
By Herbert G. Grether

At least some of the passion and power behind the concern in our time for greater justice for women has surely been inspired by the Bible. This fact is not without irony and a measure of wonder for the Bible reflects the male-oriented "world" out of which it came. Further, to a significant degree, male bias for centuries of English Bible translation has resulted in the frequent use of gender exclusive that is, masculine-renderings of certain terms that are in fact gender inclusive and should be so rendered for faithful translation.

I

Recently, I surveyed twelve English versions of the Bible to see what was done in each with selected examples of terms that, in my judgment, should be rendered inclusively to be faithful to the original language. These versions included both older and more recent ones, Protestant and Catholic translations, and versions and editions done in American as well as British English. The sampling was admittedly small, limited to four terms as found in a total of 50 passages in the Bible. The results varied widely, from one version that was according to this analysis gender inclusive 78% of the time (Good News Bible) to another that was inclusive only 14% of the time (New American Standard Bible). But more than half-seven out of the twelve-were gender inclusive less than half of the time.

Now the picture is changing. In the last few years, four of those twelve versions of the English Bible have appeared in new editions that pay deliberate, and more or less systematic, attention to gender inclusive rendering, where the original language is believed to require it. These are: The New Jerusalem Bible of 1985 (a revision of the Jerusalem Bible of 1966), The New American Bible New Testament of 1986 (a revision of the 1970 edition), The Revised English Bible of 1989 (a revision of The New English Bible of 1970), and the New Revised Standard Version of 1990 (a revision of the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971). So the problem is being dealt with on both sides of the Atlantic, and in versions both Protestant and Catholic. For comparative purposes, the present article focuses most of its attention on the New Testament, since a revised New American Bible Old Testament has not yet appeared.

Herbert G. Grether served for seven years in Thailand as Principal of the McGilvary Theological Seminary in Chiang Mai and as Chairman of the Thai Bible Revision, sponsored by the American Bible Society for fifteen years. Dr. Grether has taught New Testament at the Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, California, and was a member of the translation team that prepared the Old Testament portion of the Good News Bible.

300 - Translators and The Gender Gap

In the prefaces to all four new editions of the Bible, along with other reasons for revision, there are statements noting the concern for gender-inclusive language. Here are selected sentences from these prefaces:

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…. The mandates from the Division [of Education and Ministry of the National Council of Churches of Christ] 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 (NRSV).

The use of male-oriented language, in passages of traditional versions of the Bible which evidently applied to both genders, has become a sensitive issue in recent years; the revisers have preferred more inclusive gender reference where that has been possible without compromising scholarly integrity or English style (REB).

The primary concern in this revision is fidelity to what the text says. When the meaning of the Greek is inclusive of both sexes, the translation seeks to reproduce such inclusivity insofar as this is possible in normal English usage, without resort to inelegant circumlocutions or neologisms that would offend against the dignity of the language (NAB Revised N.T.).

Considerable efforts have … been made, though not at all costs, to soften or avoid the inbuilt preference of the English language, a preference now found so offensive by some people, for the masculine; the word of the Lord concerns women and men equally (NJB).

The difference that attention to gender inclusiveness has made in the four new editions of the Bible, even with the reservations noted in the prefaces, is striking. For example, consider the Greek word anthropos, which occurs in the New Testament about 550 times (more than that, if one includes derivatives and compounds using the same root). In the older, traditional versions of the Bible, and in some more recent ones as well, it is usually rendered "man," " a man," "the man," or "men." There are some instances where the reference of the word is to specific male persons, in which cases "a man," "the man," or "men" may be valid renderings. But at least 325 times in the New Testament as a whole the term anthropos really means "a human being," sometimes in a weakened sense that is almost the equivalent of the indefinite pronoun "one." Where the reference is to human beings, the rendering should reflect that for faithful translation. In some such cases, the rendering "man" or " men" is used, intended in a generic sense. But at present, this usage is widely rejected, and readily avoided by using the unambiguously gender inclusive renderings available.

I chose from the occurrences of anthropos in the New Testament 100 instances that, in my judgment, must be translated in a gender inclusive way for faithfulness. On examining them in each of the four editions of the Bible under review, here is what I found, comparing each version in its newly revised form with its latest previous edition. The percentages in

301 - Translators and The Gender Gap

each case refer to the number of gender inclusive renderings found out of a possible hundred:

Jerusalem Bible (1966)-48%; New Jerusalem Bible (1985)-93%
New American Bible (1970)-40%; New American Bible (1986)-95%
New English Bible(1970)-31%; Revised English Bible (1989)-69%
Revised Standard Version (N.T., Second Edition, 1971)-14%; New
Revised Standard Version (1990)-100%.

A noteworthy fact about the renderings is their great variety. Taking the four versions together, I found 28 ways of translating anthropos as gender inclusive. A few of the more common renderings are: "human being(s)," "human," "people," " person," "mortals," " one, " " others." One rendering in the Revised English Bible is "men and women."

In the New Testament, human beings-not just men alone-are the recipients of divine grace and the objects of God's judgment, participants in human endeavor and behavior (both good and bad), observers of the behavior of others-and rather often seen in contrast with God or angels. In these four editions of the Bible, women are included in all this much more explicitly than in other editions of the New Testament, hundreds of times.

II

Another term that has often been rendered in a gender exclusive way, but which in some of its meanings and uses is, in fact, gender inclusive, is the Greek term huios. In some contexts, the word means quite literally " son, " or in the plural "sons," and should be so rendered. But the word, especially in the plural, also has some metaphorical, or modified, meanings that are usually gender inclusive, yet often mistranslated in a gender exclusive way. Basically, there are three sorts of such meanings: (1) descendants; for example, "(Israel)ites," rather than "the sons (of Israel)." (2) people who stand in a special relationship with God, as expressed in the metaphor "children of God," rather than "sons of God." (3) people who are characterized in some special way, in accord with a well known Semitic idiom, for example, "children of light," rather than " sons of light."

Sampling 50 instances of such gender inclusive uses of huioi (the plural "sons") as translated in the four versions under review produced the following percentages of gender inclusive renderings:

JB-38%; NJB-72%
NAB-44%; NAB Revised N.T.-88%
NEB-52%; REB-64%
RSV-4%; NRSV- 100%

Once again, the ways of handling these instances of the metaphor or modified meaning of huios/huioi are numerous. I found 19 varieties. The most frequent: "children," "people," "(Israel)ites." A few of the more unusual renderings, reflecting Semitic idioms, are: "those [who are disobedient]," "those [who are born to the kingdom]."

302 - Translators and The Gender Gap

Wherever "sons" is rightly rendered in a gender inclusive sense, women are included as part of God's people and special family in Christ,

as " children of God" and "children of light." Of course, they are also included (where it fits) among "the disobedient" and "the rebellious," or "the children of darkness."

III

Another term may, in its various new renderings, cause some controversy. This is the word adelphos, in both singular and plural forms. In the New Testament, it sometimes means a blood brother or brothers, male children in relation to other children of the same parent or parents. In such cases "brother" or "brothers" is the right rendering. Or it may mean "kinsmen," "kinsfolk," or "relatives." But there is also a special sense common in the New Testament with reference to a group, or a member of a group, formed by common spiritual interests or ties. In the New Testament, adelphoi, "brothers," often means the community of Christian believers. That community includes both men and women (evidence of this is found in Rom. 16, Phil. 4, II Tim. 4, and in many other passages), and renderings of the term referring to it should clearly show that reality. The gender inclusive meaning of adelphoi has lexicographical support in Walter Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

The revised New Testament of the New American Bible in its preface acknowledges that "the translation of the Greek word adelphos, particularly in the plural form adelphoi, poses an especially delicate problem." But the revisers seem to think that with such notice in the preface, "brothers" can be retained in the translation and understood inclusively. The hope, apparently, is that the problem will just go away, but for many this is not good enough. Similarly, the New Jerusalem Bible does not attempt to provide genuinely inclusive renderings. It also retains "brother" and "brothers."

Out of 50 selected instances where the Christian community is intended, here are the percentages of gender inclusive renderings of adelphos that we find:

JB-O%; NJB-O%
NAB-O%; NAB Revised N.T.- 0%
NEB-26%; REB-66%
RSV-O%; NRSV-100%

I have counted 160 instances of gender inclusive renderings of adelphos in the NRSV, but may have missed some. In each case, a footnote identifies the places in the English text where a gender inclusive rendering of adelphos or adelphoi is found, thus: Gk brother or Gk brothers. But if the intention in these instances is gender inclusive, is "brother" or "brothers" what the Greek really means? It seems that the use of these footnotes could serve to cast some doubt in the uninformed reader's mind on the validity of the rendering.

303 - Translators and The Gender Gap

Once again, the ways of translating the terms are numerous, and what we find in the NRSV and the REB add up to 30 varieties. Most often used are: "brothers and sisters," (or "a brother or sister"), "believers," " friends" (is this too general, leaving out the component of fellow believer?), "beloved." Among the more interesting and revealing renderings are: "another member of the church," "the community," "those who are members of my [Jesus'] family." As might be expected, the REB uses not only several of the many renderings found in the NRSV, but some others as well: for example, "fellow Christians," "the Christians." In these two versions, the NRSV and the REB, especially in the former, women are consistently and specifically included by these renderings in the Christian community of believers.

IV

Another term that invites and requires gender inclusive rendering is the third person masculine singular pronoun "he" ("him" and "his"), when it is used not with reference to a particular male person, but in a generalizing sense. A good example is I Jn. 2:9-11. In the RSV we read:

He who says he is in the light and hates his brother is in the darkness still. He who loves his brother abides in the light, and in it [Footnote: Or him] there is no cause for stumbling. But he who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

Believing that "he" and "his" here really point to both men and women, the revisers who produced the NRSV have rendered this passage as follows:

Whoever says, "I am in the light," while hating a brother or sister, is still in the darkness. Whoever loves a brother or sister lives in the light, and in such a person there is no cause for stumbling. But whoever hates another believer is in the darkness, walks in the darkness, and does not know the way to go, because the darkness has brought on blindness.

The NRSV maintains gender inclusiveness by several means: "He who" is changed to "Whoever." Direct discourse ("I am in the light") is used instead of indirect ("he is in the light"). Instead of "his brother," the rendering is "a brother or sister" and "another believer." Reading the footnote "him" in the text rather than "it," the rendering then becomes "such a person." The clause "where he is going" is rendered by a phrase instead, "the way to go." In I Jn. and elsewhere in the NRSV such changes are numerous, ingenious, and creative, a marvel of the translator's art.

One is reminded here of an expression that is common in both the Old Testament and the New: "Blessed is the man who…" or "Blessed is he who …" Our four versions deal with this in different ways. Taking Psalm 1: I as an example, we find the following results: both the NJB and the NSRV use gender inclusive renderings for "the man": "anyone" and "those" respectively. Both also use gender inclusive forms and devices to represent the resumptive pronouns "his" and "he." The REB, on the

304 - Translators and The Gender Gap

other hand, while using "the one" in place of "the man," retains the traditional pronoun forms in what follows. The NAB (which is still unrevised) has the traditional renderings throughout. In the new NAB New Testament, we find mixed results. In Rom. 4:7-8, where Psalm 32:1-2 is quoted, we find the following: "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not record."

The question of what to do with the resumptive third person singular masculine pronoun, when the reference is to a gender inclusive noun, is troublesome for translators. It has been dealt with most successfully and thoroughly in the NRSV. In the other versions, the results are more mixed. Notice what happens to Matt. 18:15-17, as we go from RSV to NRSV:

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Finally, in some currently used versions of the New Testament, male-oriented bias is revealed in the gratuitous introduction of masculine terms where the text itself provides no basis for it. An example is found in II Cor. 5:12, 17. Here is the RSV rendering, with the terms introduced underscored:

We are not commending ourselves to you again but giving you cause to be proud of us, so that you may be able to answer those who pride themselves on a man's position and not on his heart…. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.

Here "on a man's position" renders en prosopo; "on his heart," en kardia; and "he is a new creation" is in Greek simply kaine ktisis. There is no reference to "a man" or to "he" and "his" here. The NRSV renders the verses as follows:

We are not commending ourselves to you again, but giving you an opportunity to boast about us, so that you may be able to answer those who boast in outward appearance and not in the heart…. So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!

In the versions of the Bible under review, not everything is new, but something important has happened. Gender inclusive wording in the original language has now been so rendered in literally hundreds of

305 - Translators and The Gender Gap

places where it was not so translated before. In the process, the gender gap has been greatly narrowed in the New Testament, which includes this word: "In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female," for all are one in him, all are "children of God"-not "sons of God," as some versions have it (Gal. 3:28). Women are more clearly seen in the New Testament as joint heirs of the grace of life under God, and as full partners in the human adventure.