 |
| Source: Wikicommons |
The Limits of Every Language
“Then I saw another angel flying in mid-air, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people.” (Revelation 14:6 )God's greatest desire is to see the gospel proclaimed in every human language, and although English is today the global language of business and politics, God is not demanding that we teach the world English, but that we translate the Bible into the world's languages. That is a mind-blowingly difficult task, especially when you start to understand how bewilderingly different languages can be.
For example gender pronouns such as he or she do not exist in the Yoruba language spoken in Nigeria. Words like brother, sister, and son /daughter also do not exist. The most important organizing category is age. Therefore, people are classified by whether they are egbun (older sibling) or aburo (younger sibling). In order to say brother, one would need to say aburo mi okunrin ( this roughly translates to my younger sibling, the male). Hungarian also does not have gender-specific pronouns. In Hungarian, the pronoun " ő " means "she/he" or "person". In other words, if you read a sentence in Hungarian which said, "ő was walking," you couldn't tell if it was a man or a woman walking.
English is not Yoruba, and Greek and Hebrew are not Hungarian. Each language is full of surprises, idiosyncrasies, strengths and weaknesses. It should not surprise us that God chose more than one language to reveal His perfect will to all of humanity. Hebrew is a Sematic language, Greek is a European language and neither of them use our alphabet. Both are the products of fallen and often sinful cultures, yet God chose to embrace all of these strengths and weakness and use them to perfectly express His infallible, inerrant Word to us. The fact that we are going to take this seriously does not give us the excuse to pretend that these languages are any more perfect than they really are, nor that they are any more deficient than they really are. It should also humble us not to jump to any hasty conclusions. We should not pretend that we can have more certainty about some issues than God was willing to give to the original readers in the original languages and in their original context.
A more complicated culture today
Since the NIV was translated in 1984, America has seen the rise of what they call "the culture wars" between conservatives and progressives. Progressives have sought to create a fair and just society by changing everything in society, (including the definition of marriage) in a quest to liberate oppressed people. The goal of progressives is to have equality of outcomes. For them a just and fair society would be one where the vast majority of people have similar levels of education and prosperity.Conservatives in America have been fighting just as hard to create a fair and just society by seeking to conserve the traditional definition of marriage and focusing on equality of opportunity rather than of outcomes. A just and fair society for them would be one where everyone, regardless of sex, class or race has equal access to the law, to the education system and to jobs. If this creates an unequal society, that is attributed to the fact that people are not equal because people are not the same. Some people are tall, some short, some clever and some less so, some are focused on material gain, others are focused on non-material goals. However, by seeking to provide equal access to the law, to education and to the free market, everyone is supposed to have the same opportunity to fulfil their potential, if they choose to.
A practical example of these profoundly different ways of looking at the world has been the desire of both progressives and conservatives in America to see African Americans escape poverty. Progressives have sought to achieve this by requiring universities to meet quotas and accept lower grades from African Americans to be admitted to their courses. American conservatives, on the other hand, have been arguing that justice and fairness are better served by treating African Americans in exactly the same way as non-African Americans.
Why talk about America and controversial things like this? Partly because virtually all English Bible translations are started, funded and lead by Americans, and partially because British culture has been wrestling with similar issues and is deeply influenced by American culture. As a result, the majority of people are bringing questions to the Bible which were only being asked by a minority in 1984 when the NIV was first translated. Both American and British society has much stronger views about these issues than it did in the 1980s.
Part of this cultural shift has been the desire to avoid excluding women in language. In 1969 Neil Armstrong gave one of the most famous quotes in the English language: "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.” If the first moon landing happened today he would have to say, "That's one small step for a human, one giant leap for humanity.” or face a barrage of criticism in the media. Some of us may agree that this is an important principle of fairness, others of us may dismiss it as just being a bit silly, but we all must acknowledge that it is very much a part of our culture today.
It would be remiss of any Bible translator to just ignore this reality. Paul says in Romans 14:13, Rom. 14:13 "Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.” (1984 NIV). As we seek to reach out with the gospel to this unbelieving culture we also need to make sure that we do not place an unnecessary stumbling block in the path of unbelievers on their journey to Christ.
We now need to weigh up the pros and cons of using a gender-inclusive language Bible translation.
Gender Inclusive Language and the Bible
Unlike Hungarian, English, and both Hebrew and Greek have gender-based pronouns. When it comes to translating those pronouns, we have more opportunity to have an English translation that reflects the original languages than is possible in Hungarian.For example, the word-for-word NKJV captures the Hebrew of Genesis 19:26 well in English:
“But his wife looked back behind him, and she became a pillar of salt."Now read this in "Hungarian" (or rather in English using Hungarian gender neutral pronouns):
“But his wife looked back behind ő , and ő became a pillar of salt.”Does this mean:
“But his wife looked back behind him and he became a pillar of salt.”Or does it mean:
“But his wife looked back behind her and she became a pillar of salt.”Or even:
“But his wife looked back behind her and he became a pillar of salt.”If you look at the context you can work out who became the pillar of salt, but it isn't obvious in the sentence all by itself.
Changing a language is a very difficult thing. Verbs, nouns, adverbs and adjectives do change over time in English. Think of what gay used to mean, what it means now a nd the new meaning children sometimes give it in the playground; (weak, or contemptible). But the basic structure of a language and internal logic of a language are much more difficult to change.
Recently, Guardian columnist Lucy Mangan called for a new gender-neutral pronoun to be created and used:
"The whole pronouns-must-agree-with-antecedents thing causes me utter agony. Do you know how many paragraphs I’ve had to tear down and rebuild because you can’t say, “Somebody left their cheese in the fridge”, so you say, “Somebody left his/her cheese in the fridge”, but then you need to refer to his/her cheese several times thereafter and your writing ends up looking like an explosion in a pedants’ factory? … I crave a non-risible gender-neutral (not “it”) third person singular pronoun in the way normal women of my age crave babies." (The Guardian, July 24, 2010, p. 70)
"It never ceases to infuriate me, for example, that in this cornucopia of a million words, there’s no simple, gender-neutral pronoun standing for ‘he-or-she’. That means we either have to word our way round the problem by using plurals – which don’t mean quite the same thing – or we’re reduced to the verbose and clunking construction: ‘If an MP steals taxpayers’ money, he or she should be ashamed of himself or herself.’ (‘Themselves’, employed to stand for a singular MP, would, of course, be a grammatical abomination)." (London Daily Mail, June 13, 2009)
The internal logic of English means that pronouns must agree with the nouns they stand for both in gender and in number. In other words, the singular "someone" should agree either a singular "his" or "her.” Despite this, the plural pronoun “their” is being used increasingly with singulars to avoid being gender specific, much to the distress of people who like good, clear grammar. This is why professional writers like Tom Utley and Lucy Mangan struggle with this issue and find using the plural "they" to refer to a singular "he" or "she" is not an acceptable alternative either.
To overcome this, people have been trying to invent a new gender neutral singular pronoun that means “his or hers” since the 1850s! See here. Although it has failed to catch on, there is increasing pressure in universities to cater for “queer, non-binary and gender fluid” people in language. Since the campaign to avoid using language that excludes women has been so successful, there is now enough momentum to try to avoid using language that excludes every other minority group. For example the The University of Tennessee has told its staff and students to stop calling each other 'he', 'she', 'him' and 'her' - and to start referring to one another with terms like 'xe', 'zir' and 'xyr' instead. See here. This may seem crazy, but so did affirming being “queer, non-binary and gender fluid” forty years ago.
Gender Inclusive Language and the 2011 NIV
The 2011 NIV fully embraced the use of gender-inclusive language. Here are a few examples:‘What is mankind that you are mindful of them, a son of man that you care for him? You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honour and put everything under their feet. In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them. (Hebrews 2:6-8)
Compared with the more literal 1984 NIV:
““What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honour and put everything under his feet.” In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him.” (Hebrews 2:6–8)
The passage is controversial. Some people argue from the context that by quoting Psalm 8, the writer to the Hebrews was quoting Psalm 8 as an exposition of the dominion mandate of Genesis 1:28, "And God said to them, [Adam, Eve and their descendants] “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”" The writer to the Hebrews then contrasts the failure of Adam and Eve with the success of Jesus in the following verses. Others argue that the 'man' of Psalm 8 is Jesus Himself. The 1984 NIV allows for both interpretations, reflecting the ambiguity of the Greek text. The 2011 NIV settles the matter on our behalf and tells us which option is they think is correct.
The 2011 NIV is obviously concerned about verses which have "he" or "him" or "his" in them as it could imply that only men are being addressed and not women. As a result they often translate "he" as "they", etc.
For example:
2011 NIV John 14:23:
"Jesus replied, ‘Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them."The 1984 version more accurately translates the Greek of John 14:23:
“Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. "Of course, the obvious objection to this verse in the 1984 NIV in our contemporary culture is to ask, "Well, does that mean that Jesus won't make His home in the lives of women?" However, at least the 1984 NIV makes the promise personal and individual. The 2011 version confirms that Jesus will dwell among his people, but the 1984 version confirms to us that Jesus was promising to dwell within our individual hearts. The Greek simply assumes that a female Greek-reading believer will apply this promise to herself as well.
The 2011 NIV gives a new slant on the familiar verse of Revelation 3:20:
"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me."The 1984 NIV sticks with the more familiar promise, and the literal Greek:
"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me."Again, the obvious objection to this passage in our contemporary culture is to ask, "Well, does that mean that Jesus is not willing to knock on the door of a woman's life?" But again the imagery of the 2011 version is very different, with a crowd of people standing behind the door, rather than an individual.
Another example of the 2011, John 13:10:
Jesus answered, ‘Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.’And 1984, John 13:10:
“A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.”The 2011 places the emphasis on being a corporate member of a clean people with a warning to an unclean individual. The 1984 places the emphasis on the individual to examine his or herself to make sure that he or she is not the individual referred to at the end of the verse.
2011, John 14:23
"Jesus replied, ‘Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them."1984, John 14:23
"Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him."So, is it more important to be a member of a body of people who collectively want to love Jesus and obey His commandments, or is this both an obligation and a promise for every single individual believer? Does the 2011 NIV confirm that God loves you as an individual or that He loves His people as a whole and in general?
Obviously, in some languages, it is impossible to avoid ambiguities like this. But English is not one of those languages. The English language has enough similarities with Greek to remove misunderstandings like this and can express the clarity of the Greek on these issues.
"son of man"?
Jesus is well know in the gospels for referring to Himself as the ‘Son of Man.’ There are several reasons for this. One is that the Jewish people were expecting their Messiah to be a revolutionary warrior king who would wage war on the Romans, so Jesus would use the term ‘Son of Man’ to make it more ambiguous about whether or not He was referring to Himself or someone else yet to come. Another reason was to point them to the Son of Man that Daniel wrote of:““I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.” (Daniel 7:13–14) See Matt. 13:41, 16:27-28, 19:28, 24:27, 25:31, 26:64.A third reason was to point people back to the Old Testament, where it is used to emphasise how weak and vulnerable mere human beings are. See Matt. 8:20, 17:22, 26:2, 24. This is obvious in the OT of the 1984NIV, the ESV, HSCB, etc., but would be completely lost on anyone who was only familiar with the 2011NIV.
1984 NIV Job 25:6 “how much less man, who is a maggot, and the son of man, who is a worm!”
2011 NIV Job 25:6 “how much less a mortal, who is but a maggot – a human being, who is only a worm!”
1984 NIV Ps. 8:4 “what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?”
2011 NIV Ps. 8:4 “what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?”
1984 NIV Ps. 144: “O LORD, what is man that you regard him, or the son of man that you think of him?”
2011 NIV Ps. 144: “Lord, what are human beings that you care for them, mere mortals that you think of them?
1984 NIV Is. 51:12 “I, I am he who comforts you; who are you that you are afraid of man who dies, of the son of man who is made like grass,”
2011 NIV Is. 51:12 “‘I, even I, am he who comforts you. Who are you that you fear mere mortals, human beings who are but grass,”
"Brothers" or "Brothers and Sisters" or "Brethren" or even "Siblings"?
Another example of "sexist" language that often comes up in the Bible is the use of generic use of "brothers" to refer to both brothers and sisters. This is very common in the Epistles.Here is a list of just one verse (out of many more) from nearly every letter in the New Testament that uses the term "brothers" and assumes that "sisters" are included as well:
Rom. 14:10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.The Greek language has a dual form for some words. So it was possible for each of the apostles to have chosen to write " adelphoin" which we would accurately translate as "sibling", but they never once used this word. They also had the option of writing " adelphos kai adelphē" i.e., "bother and sister". Paul and James did this once each and did Jesus did it several times:
1Cor. 1:26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called....
2Cor. 8:1 And now, brothers, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the Macedonian churches.
Gal. 1:11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.
Eph. 6:23 Peace to the brothers, and love with faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Phil. 3:1 Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord!...
Col. 1:2 To the holy and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae: Grace and peace to you from God our Father.
1Th. 1:4 For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you,
2Th. 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
1Tim. 4:6 If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus,
2Tim. 4:21 Do your best to get here before winter. Eubulus greets you, and so do Pudens, Linus, Claudia and all the brothers.
Heb. 13:1 Keep on loving each other as brothers.
James 1:16 Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers.
1Pet. 3:8 Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble.
2Pet. 1:10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure.
1John 4:20 If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.
3John 5 Dear friend, you are faithful in what you are doing for the brothers, even though they are strangers to you.
Matt. 12:50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Matt. 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.
Mark 10:29 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.
Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.
1Cor. 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.
James 2:15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food.
"Adelphos" = Brother or Brother and Sister?
The question now must be, should the Greek term " adelphos" (brother) be translated as "brother and sister" in English? The New King James Version gets round the problem by using the antiquated term "brethren." In today's language "brethren" is almost exclusively used as a religious term rather than to describe family relationships and so to some people it is a gender neutral term. Another option some translations have chosen is to ignore the obvious translation and paraphrase it as "believer" or "friend". However, this gives us access to the translator's opinion more than what the inspired apostle actually wrote.1 Corinthians 8:11-13 repeats the Greek word "adelphos" four times, as the ESV makes clear:
The ESV 1 Cor. 8:11-13
And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.The 2011 NIV 1 Cor. 8:11-13
So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.
The ESV uses the gender neutral "this weak person" to translate "ho astheneo" or literally "this weak ____" ('person' is implied in the Greek, not written). Notice how Paul repeated the word "brother" four times in these three verses. It is as if Paul wanted to emphasise the intimate personal relationship; "the brother! your brother! my brother! my brother! This is a member of your own family you're doing this to!"
The NIV paraphrases the sentence and introduces the term "sister" to make the language more inclusive. However, to avoid the clumsy repetition of "the brother or sister! your brother or sister! my brother or sister! my brother or sister!" it only repeats this phrase twice and Paul's emotional appeal is somewhat blunted. Finally, by translating the final "adelphos" as "them", the 2011 NIV pictures a group of people being offended, when Paul is making it clear that we should even try to avoid offending individuals.
What the Scholars Say
Just so that you have access to the same authorities that Bible translators use themselves, Here is what they say about the Greek word "anthropos", (think anthropology, the study of humanity) and "adelphos" (think, Phil adelphia, the city of "brotherly love").
Lowe and Nida is a Greek to English dictionary (lexicon) used by people translating the Bible into other languages and often has notes about how to deal with the difficulties of translation into non-European languages.
Lowe and Nida
8.3 anthropos. masculine noun: (an idiom, literally ‘the outside person’) the physical nature or aspect of a person — ‘body, physical form.’ ‘but if indeed our bodies perish’ 2Cor 4:16. The phrase ho anthropos is to be understood in direct contrast with the spirit or soul in the same verse, which refers to the psychological or spiritual nature of human personality (see 26.1).
9.1 anthropos. a human being (normally an adult) — (in the singular) ‘person, human being, individual,’ (in the plural) ‘people, persons, mankind.’
It is not uncommon in languages for a term which is often used to refer to an adult male to be employed also in a generic sense of ‘person.’ This is especially true when such terms are used in the plural form. In a number of instances, generic meanings of receptor languages have not been recognized as such, since translators have assumed that such receptor-language terms refer only to members of a particular tribe or group (because they have been found only in specific contexts), while in reality such terms often designate people in general. One must, however, be on the alert for seemingly generic terms which refer only to the so-called ‘in-group,’ that is to say, members of a particular tribe, society, or community.
10.49 adelphos masculine noun: : a male having the same father and mother as the reference person — ‘brother.’
11.23 adelphos v m: a close associate of a group of persons having a well-defined membership (in the NT adelphos refers specifically to fellow believers in Christ) — ‘fellow believer, (Christian) brother.’ ‘my fellow believers, be joyful in your union with the Lord’ Php 3:1. The masculine form adelphos may include both men and women, but see also 11.24. Though in a number of languages it is possible to use a corresponding term meaning ‘brother’ or ‘brothers’ in the sense of fellow believers, in some languages this cannot be done, and one must employ other types of expressions. In some instances it is possible to generalize a term meaning ‘relative’ and therefore to address or to speak of fellow Christians as ‘relatives’ rather than specifically ‘brothers and sisters.’ In most instances, however, one may only employ a phrase such as ‘those who also believe’ or ‘those who believe in Christ even as we do.’
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
444. anthroœpos, anthroœpou, ho (perhaps from aneœr and oœps, i.e. man’s face); man. It is used1. universally, with reference to the genus or nature, without distinction of sex, a human being, whether male or female.
2. indefinitely, without the article [“the”], anthroœpos, a. someone, a (certain) man, when who he is either is not known or is not important.
3. in the plural hoi anthroœpoi is sometimes (the) people.
5. ho anthroœpos, with the article, the particular man under consideration, who he is being plain from the context.
80. adelfos, adelfou, ho;
1. a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother):
4. a fellow-believer, united to another by the bond of affection; so most frequently of Christians, constituting as it were but a single family: Matt. 23:8; John 21:23; etc.; in courteous address, Rom. 1:13; 7:1; 1 Cor. 1:10; 1 John 2:7. It has reference to the new life unto which men are begotten again by the efficiency of a common father, even God: 1 John 2:9ff; 3:10, 14; etc.
“Brotherly”?
One of the great themes of the New Testament is that God is our Father and we are His family. In other words, we are brothers and sisters to one another because we all share the same Father. As a result, many of the New Testament writers use terms encouraging us to have “brotherly love” for one another, rather than just the sort of love that exists among the friends. By avoiding this sort of gender specific language, the 2011 NIV has to avoid this type of ‘family’ language.1984NIV Rom. 12:10 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honour one another above yourselves.
2011NIV Rom. 12:10 “Be devoted to one another in love. Honour one another above yourselves.”
1984NIV 1Th. 4:9 “Now about brotherly love we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other.”
2011NIV 1Th. 4:9 “Now about your love for one another we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other.”
1984NIV 2Pet. 1:7 “ and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.”
1984NIV 2Pet. 1:7 “and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love.”
Conclusion
As 1 Corinthians 8:11-13 teaches above, we definitely need to be sensitive to the consciences of individuals, in the way we use language just as much as in the food we eat. We also need to recognise that by trying not to offend one fellow Christian, we can sometimes end up upsetting two or three others. The only thing that can hold us all together is for us all to develop a common desire to be faithful to what God is teaching us. We obviously cannot compromise what the Bible teaches about theft just because it may hurt the feelings of someone in prison for robbery!Since there are concerns about how the 2011 NIV distorts the meaning of these passages by imposing gender-inclusive language onto the text, yet gender-inclusive language is an un-ignorable reality in our culture now, we need to see if the ESV is a realistic alternative. To determine this we need to have to look at how the ESV’s translators handle this issue, which we will do in the next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment