From:  (Andrew Bromage)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: NIV - gender-specific (pity!)
Date: 29 Nov 1998 00:13:20 GMT

G'day all.

Oh, a warning before we start.  I speak in nested parentheses and
footnotes.  You have been warned.

 () writes:

>What I hear you saying is that previous language, once appropriate for
>describing all humanity (man) is now deemed inappropriate and newer
>more relevant words are required for those words.

I'd put it even more strongly than that.  When someone of my age hears
the word "man", they think "male".  That is what my generation
understands that word to mean.  Questions of appropriateness are
somewhat subordinate to getting a correct message across.

>Additionally, I hear you saying this is different to gender
>inclusiveness and attempts of some people (not men!) to change gender
>specific language in the original texts (languages) and so neuter
>and/or feminise God and way He choses to reveal Himself to us.

Yes and no.

First off, it's not just some women who advocate these changes, but
that's a small point.

Secondly, it _is_ easy to get into the trap of thinking of God as
"a man", which he is not.  God has neither DNA nor genitals.  It's also
easy to miss the fact that God has some definitely feminine qualities.
Women are equally "made in God's image".  In this sense, a move to
change gender specific language to refer to God is not a completely
pointless exercise.

Thirdly, to remove pronouns to refer to God makes God seem much less
personal.  Paul was known to take the word for "spirit", which is
neuter in Greek, and add a gender-specific ending (in his case,
masculine) to strongly emphasise that God is personal.  So avoiding
pronouns altogether seems counter-productive.  (But do keep in mind
that "spirit" in Hebrew is a feminine noun...)

Fourthly, using "she" to refer to God in Bible translation[1] misses,
as you suggest, some very important theological and exegetical points.

One example is monotheism.  Most cultures at the time of early Israel
had polytheist religions, involving both gods and goddesses.  The God
of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob used only one pronoun and stuck to it
consistently.  That, in context, is an extremely strong statement.  Is
it a statement which needs extraordinary emphasis today?

On the other hand, should we be encouraging people to make exegetical
decisions like this from English translations?

It's for these reasons that I hope that "gender inclusive" translations
(as opposed to "gender accurate" ones) don't make it into pews and Bible
study groups, though I don't rule out the possibility that they may be
useful for other purposes.  I'm on the record as advocating a variety of
English Bible translations and using different translations for different
purposes.  I also believe that we have an excellent set of English
translations, but believe that the job of translation is never finished
as language and culture are in a constant state of change.

I am annoyed that the NIrV was dropped.  I'm not a fan of the TEV ("Good
News"), and I think that the NIrV could have filled the TEV's place quite
nicely, as a translation for people with a smaller-than-the-average-adult
vocabulary such as young children.

>Am I on track with this?  Any other ideas and feedback would be
>appreciated.

I think you're on the right track.  I'd encourage you to look further.
I've only scratched the surface on this topic myself.

>Why do you think the generalist translations are no longer
>appropriate?

I've never heard the word "generalist" in this context before.

>Is it as a result of feminist activism in society and
>the Church?  If so, is that a good thing, and why and in what ways?

Once again, as we've discussed recently, feminism is many things to
many people.  There are as many brands of feminism as there are
feminists.  Pretty much all feminists that I am aware of advocate
gender accuracy.  Some advocate gender inclusion, some do not.

It may be my biassed sample, but based on people that I know, those who
occupy more "Biblical language scholarly" positions tend to advocate
accuracy over inclusion.  This is even more true of women in such
positions.  My unscientific conclusion from this is that a quest for
accuracy is probably what makes you want to go into Biblical language
scholarship in the first place.[2]

Cheers,
Andrew Bromage

  [1]
We'll leave the question of using such language in other

contexts, e.g. in public worship and prayer books, to another

time.  For now, we'll just note that it is a _different_ (but

not unrelated) issue.

  [2]
Anecdote time.  A friend of mine who is a professor of New

Testament believes that we shouldn't be translating words like

"pedagogue" where there are no suitable English translations,

but rather leaving them in and sticking in a footnote explaining.

It is left to an exercise to the reader as to whether or not this

is a good idea.


She also complains about the NRSV, saying that in the previous

RSV, she could "hear" Greek verses that she knew while reading the

English, but couldn't do it with the NRSV.  Exactly what the

implications are for the field of Bible translation, I haven't

put much thought to.