P.C. Bibles
AMDG at Christendom Blogosis today blogs on Political Correctness in Bible Translation. He wonders what the big deal is about gender in Bible translation.
Questions I would ask in response would be: How do we determine if anyone has translated a Bible version to be "politically correct"? How can we know the motives of others? What standards of proof should be required before suggestions of political correctness (or heresy, or any other claim) are justified? Might the legal standard of "innocent until proven guilty" work? Will Christians require any kind of accountability and empirical proof for the claims that are made under their banner? Or do we revert to an Old Testament standard: Every man did that which was right in his own eyes?
For myself, I wish for a higher standard. I wish for empirical support for any claim presented. If we claim to know why someone has done what they have done, then we should provide some kind of proof to justify our claim. Without such proof we revert to subjectivism, a form of relativistic humanism which is often decried so strongly by those who themselves practice it, perhaps unknowingly, for what they sincerely believe to be righteous causes.
Frankly, I am tired of hearing years of generalized, subjective accusations made against various Bible versions:
"This one is too liberal."
"This one is too literal."
"This one is bowing to feminist concerns."
"This one is just a paraphrase."
"This one doesn't deserve to be sold in Christian bookstores."
"This one is dumbed down."
"This one leaves out entire phrases or verses."
Let's give details and support for our claims. And let's make sure that any support we do give is based on the realities of the biblical languages and the languages we are translating to, not simply our opinions, however sincere, about what a translation wording should be.
Questions I would ask in response would be: How do we determine if anyone has translated a Bible version to be "politically correct"? How can we know the motives of others? What standards of proof should be required before suggestions of political correctness (or heresy, or any other claim) are justified? Might the legal standard of "innocent until proven guilty" work? Will Christians require any kind of accountability and empirical proof for the claims that are made under their banner? Or do we revert to an Old Testament standard: Every man did that which was right in his own eyes?
For myself, I wish for a higher standard. I wish for empirical support for any claim presented. If we claim to know why someone has done what they have done, then we should provide some kind of proof to justify our claim. Without such proof we revert to subjectivism, a form of relativistic humanism which is often decried so strongly by those who themselves practice it, perhaps unknowingly, for what they sincerely believe to be righteous causes.
Frankly, I am tired of hearing years of generalized, subjective accusations made against various Bible versions:
"This one is too liberal."
"This one is too literal."
"This one is bowing to feminist concerns."
"This one is just a paraphrase."
"This one doesn't deserve to be sold in Christian bookstores."
"This one is dumbed down."
"This one leaves out entire phrases or verses."
Let's give details and support for our claims. And let's make sure that any support we do give is based on the realities of the biblical languages and the languages we are translating to, not simply our opinions, however sincere, about what a translation wording should be.
posted by Wayne Leman at 11:12 AM
17 Comments:
I blogged Sunday a perfect example of a political-correctness motivated translation.
http://petrosbaptistchurch.blogspot.com/2006/02/theologians-criticize-new-translation.html
Jim
The only English translation I know of (and I have a lot of them!) that I would truly call poltically correct is the New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version released in 1995 and edited by Victor Roland Gold.
I wrote a blog about this translation, along with confirmation from Gold that the project would NOT culminate in an edition of the entire BIble back in November of last year. That blog can be found at http://homepage.mac.com/rmansfield/thislamp/files/archive-23.html#unique-entry-id-161
Certainly, to label anything "politically correct" is to make a pejorative statement against it. And, Wayne, I agree with the spirit of your post in that such claims usually cannot be backed up. From what I've read of the translators of the TNIV, I have no reason to believe they were trying to create a politically correct translation, despite their detractors' accusations. I honestly believe they were trying to accurately translate the Scriptures in a manner that will clearly communicate to current culture.
However, I would still view the Inclusive Language Version (which is what Gold called it) as politically correct since they seem to go out of their way not to offend anyone. Not only do they make gender inclusive in most references to humans (in FAR more instances than the TNIV or NLT), they also make references to God gender inclusive (something no evangelical or mainstream translation has ever done). The Lord's prayer in the ILV is to "Our Father-Mother in heaven."
Consider the other changes made:
- "Sovereign" or "Ruler" in place of "King" as a metaphor for God.
- Satan, angels, and demons are all represented gender-neutral (at least they were consistent).
- The metaphor of darkness for sin or a lack of the presence of the Gospel has been removed so as not to offend people with dark skin. So now, John 1:5 which traditionally reads: "And the light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not overcome it" is made to read "The light shines in the deepest night, and the night did not overcome it." I guess no one told them that it gets dark at night.
- In the genealogies, when known, wives' names have been added to their husbands. So, now where Matt 1:2 originally read "Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers," it now reads "Abraham and Sarah were the parents of Isaac, and Isaac and Rebekah the parents of Jacob, and Jacob and Leah the parents of Judah and his brothers... ." Whoops, shouldn't the last phrase have included "and sister, Dinah"? And what about Jacob's other wife Rachel, and his wives' two concubines? I mean, if we adding, let's add everybody!
-References to Jesus as "Master" in Luke's Gospel are deemed too harsh, so the less offensive "Teacher" is used.
- "Slaves" are now "enslaved people."
- Since John's Gospel is often criticized as being anti-semitic (in spite of the fact that the writer was almost undisputedly Jewish himself), references to "the Jews" become "the religious authorities" in the Fourth Gospel.
- No longer is Jesus the "Son of God," but now is the "Child of God."
- "Your right hand upholds me" in Ps 63:8 becomes "Your strong hand upholds me" lest any left-handed readers be offended by this oft-used biblical metaphor.
These are but a few examples. Personally, I'm thankful that this one didn't catch on.
Yes, but I don't care much for slippery slope arguments. I think that Wayne is right that you have to have positive evidence of "political correctness" before such labels should be thrown around.
When you look at the list of TNIV translators (http://www.tniv.info/story/cbtmembers.php), neither poltical correctness nor any liberal agenda comes to mind.
The inclusive gender debate is not one of liberal vs. conservative or even complementarian vs. egalitarian. It's a disagreement over translation philosophy, pure and simple. To ask "where will it stop?" is to ask the wrong question.
The real question to ask of any translation is whether or not it accurately communicates the original author's message (as best we can tell) to the secondary language. Any translation should be judged by that. And communicating to one language is more than just matching words in one dictionary to another. A culture's understanding of certain words has to come into play as well.
Rick, who needs to compose posts for this blog when we have such great comments as yours?!!
Now get back to writing on your dissertation.
:-)
Rick, I would agree that the Oxford Inclusive translation was intended to be politically correct. You have given evidence of it. I don't think that the anti-TNIV camp has given evidence that there was any p.c. motivation involved. Each verse needs to be considered on its own merits, and each wording decried in the TNIV has good exegetical support for it, from all the study I have done. It is wrong, IMO, to call an exegetical difference a "translation inaccuracy" or a sign of some kind of impropriety.
It's fine to debate differences in exegesis or translation philosophy, but it's not fine to claim that those with whom we disagree do so for improper reasons.
As the Good Book says, "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart." It seems to me that divining the motives of others is looking on the outward appearance. But God is the one who knows their hearts, not us.
Jim, I saw your post on Sunday, I think, but, alas, although I can do fairly well with several languages, I am German-impaired. I was hoping you could provide a German translation, also. The Internet Babelfish translator just doesn't do your excerpt justice:
"Theologians criticize the project "Bible in fair language", supported by prominent Evangelist church representatives. It is to make among other things a working of women more strongly visible and provide in such a way for more sex justice... The president of Canstein institute for Bible and professor for new will, Andreas's lime tree man (Bielefeld), criticizes that some that admits so far become translations the Biblical text falsified. If in the Matthaeus gospel against Pharisaeer one polemisiert, it is inadmissible to want to place this correctly with a "fair translation". Lime tree man considers it inadequate to transform the Matthaeus text in such a way by the translation that it meet today's insights. There were no Pharisaeerinnen. As example he states a verse in the Matthaeus gospel (23,2), Luther with "on the chair of the Mose sits the writing scholars and Pharisaeer" shows. In the "Bible in fair language" it is to mean: "on the chair of the Mose sit Tora scholars and pharisaeische men and women." It surely did not give Pharisaei women on the chair of the Mose however. Until today give it also no orthodox Rabbinerinnen. The Tuebinger Alttestamentler Bernd Janowski is according to the FAZ the opinion that the re-translation the spirit of the time delivers itself and is a "document of the scooping out protest anti-mash". It called it "shaming" that the project is promoted by church-leading side."
See what I mean?!!
:-)
Brian said:
However, I can tell you that it is taking place. People are changing the gospel in the name of making it more "understandable".
Brian, just as in your blog post, you are making another claim without including any evidence to support it. This would not be allowed in court. And we are dealing with matters concerning the Bible which are even more important.
On this blog we ask that if you state an opinion you also provide empirical data to support your claim. Simply stating something does not establish it as being true.
What evidence can you provide that anyone has changed the gospel, as you claim? Give us an example, a real example from somewhere so we can consider whether your claim is true or not.
Thanks.
Brian said:
To comply with your guidelines I will retract the following statement:
However, I can tell you that it is taking place. People are changing the gospel in the name of making it more "understandable".
...and I will cease commenting on this blog entry as well.
Brian, I should apologize to you. We have asked that blog comment claims, such as the one you just retracted, be supported by evidence. But we have not required it, nor do we require it now. And there is no mention of it on our posting guidelines at the top of the right margin of this blog.
I believe that I came on too abruptly to you. I did not intend to be lacking in grace but I was and I'm sorry. There was pent up frustration within me, built up from years of hearing unsubstantiated claims made against various English Bible versions. I simply think that as believers we can do better. We owe it to each other to do better, I sincerely believe. I have seen sincere comments against Bible versions or their translators which are, in spirit, slander, even if not intended to be slander, and maybe not legally so, in a court of law. That grieves me deeply. We can do better. I need to do better. I try to practice what I preach. Sometimes, because of that, it takes me several hours to compose a blog post in which I am trying to present evidence as clearly and exhaustively as possible. But I also have a day job, so I have to balance the need to provide supporting evidence each time with the fact that all of my blog posts are still on the blog, and there is evidence in those archived posts.
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the input from everyone here on the blog. It is far better for us to debate with each other than to burn each other's Bibles (some of this has been done), threaten translators with boycotts of Bible version sales, or actually help carry them out, etc.
This is how the world will know that we are are his disciples, if we have love for one another.
Speaking the truth, in live.
I want to do better.
Wayne wrote: "As the Good Book says, "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart."" Mine doesn't, Wayne. At 1 Samuel 16:7, which you are trying to quote, it says הָֽאָדָם֙ יִרְאֶ֣ה לַעֵינַ֔יִם וַיהוָ֖ה יִרְאֶ֥ה לַלֵּבָֽב׃, (note the gender generic הָאָדָם ha'adam) which in my preferred translation (TNIV) is rendered as "People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
Brian made a few specific claims. I will not attempt to defend the Inclusive Version or the Anointed Standard. But I do want to look at this (hypothetical) claim, which does deserve an answer:
I could have made a claim that the TNIV's translation of Pslam 34:20 is PC and it changes the true meaning of the verse (PC still being subjective there).
I will not answer the nebulous suggestion that this "is PC", but only at "it changes the true meaning of the verse". This suggestion depends on one's understanding of the true meaning of this verse. If one understands the Psalms as a collection of proof texts about Jesus, and this verse as one of those proof texts, then TNIV does indeed not support this understanding, because it states that this promise is not for a singular "A righteous man... he" (vv.19,20, NIV) but for a plural "The righteous... they". However, if the psalm is understood in its original context, as David's prayer, and if v.20 is understood in its context as related to the unambiguously plural vv.15,22, it becomes abundantly clear that vv.19-20 refer to "the righteous" in a collective sense. This is God's promise to all those who are righteous. As such David could claim the promise for himself, it could be applied to Jesus (John 19:36), and it can be claimed as a promise by believers today. The versions which change the true meaning of this verse are those which try to restrict the applicability of this wonderful promise to just one man, Jesus.
See also the TNIV translators' own comments about their rendering of this verse.
In regard to Psalm 34:20 in the TNIV:
"he protects all their bones,
not one of them will be broken."
I have remarked before elsewhere that I feel that this is an unfortunate translation choice on the part of the TNIV translators that brings them unnecessary criticism--that is, criticism that could have been avoided.
I understand why they translated the passage as they did, but it needlessly obscures the reference to John 19:36.
[Side comment: I don't think this is the same as say the Isa 7:14 young woman vs. virgin issue (and incidentally, the TNIV reads "virgin"). What I mean to say by that is that I don't believe that when the NT quotes the LXX instead of the Hebrew text that the translators should attempt to make the OT sound like the NT text in retrograde. However, that's not what's at play in a verse like Ps 34:20.]
In this case, it makes the TNIV translation of John 19:36 to be a rather odd connection, especially when John 19:36 in the TNIV reads "Not one of his bones will be broken" (emphasis added).
This is strictly my opinion, but if I were drawing up my own guidelines for translating an inclusive gender version of the BIble, I would recommend that verses that fall within the traditional group of prophetic statements about the Messiah, and especially those quoted in the NT, should be left as they are--that is, as in the case of Ps 34:20, left in 3rd person masculine singular.
Again, I understand why the TNIV translators made the choice they made with Ps 34:20; I just don't think it was a good decision. It would be one thing if this were a decison made by the Jewish Publication Society for a translation strictly of the Hebrew Bible. But for Christians, who have two covenants in their canon, I believe there's a responsibility to keep these kind of connections intact.
Rick wrote "it needlessly obscures the reference to John 19:36". No, this is not a needless change in TNIV. It is a result of a deliberate policy decision (a significant change from the NIV in fact) to translate the Hebrew Bible as a set of books in Hebrew from their own time. That is the right and proper way to translate them. NIV rightly received a lot of criticism for reading the NT into the OT, especially in its use of capitals e.g. in Psalm 2:12 "Kiss the Son" (TNIV "Kiss his son"), but also I understand for making the some parts of its OT correspond to the NT quotations. Well, the only example of this which I know of is the infamous "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14, which TNIV does not correct (although it does add a footnote "Or young woman"), but then there is a minority exegetical opinion supporting this one. It seems to me that the TNIV team have instead aimed to do the right thing by translating the Hebrew Bible as Hebrew books, even if at times they have lacked the courage of their convictions.
Rick, don't you see that your proposed guideline "I would recommend that verses that fall within the traditional group of prophetic statements about the Messiah, and especially those quoted in the NT, should be left as they are" amounts to understanding the Hebrew Bible as a compilation of proof texts rather than as a work of literature and scripture in its own right? Anyway, what do you mean by "left as they are"? Left in Hebrew? Whatever translation choice is made, it is an interpretive decision, there is not one a priori preferable "unchanged" translation.
And don't you see that the promise in Psalm 34:20 applies to all women as well as all men who are righteous? Your principle implies that its application should be restricted to Jesus. That is to steal out of the scriptures one of its most precious promises. And all for the sake of trying to clarify what is already a rather obscure allusion (not a direct quotation) at John 19:36, which can be and is adequately signalled with footnotes etc.
Peter, another Hebrew Bible verse that is sometimes highlighted in translation as messianic is Ps. 8:4. The TNIV is criticised for translating its NT quote according to the Hebrew, in Heb. 2:6. There are several similar passages where the TNIV translators chose to translate, esp. the Hebrew Bible passages, in a way that does not Christianize them. They leave the Christianizing for the NT quotes of those passages.
Peter, you make some excellent points. Thank you. What I meant by "left as they are" was left non-inclusive, as they have traditionally been translated. No, my desire would not be to see the OT as a series of proof texts for Jesus' messiahship. These particular texts, if left as they would correspond to the NT use of them (again, not as a retrograde refitting to force them to match--I wouldn't want that) would be a small overall percentage of the OT. I'm merely suggesting it as a purposeful translation choice in light of the unity of the Canon as a whole.
I certainly understand the value of reading a text in its original context. In any class that I teach, I always start with that original context (as best as it can be determined) before the passage is viewed in light of any other context, NT or personal. When I was a first semester student in seminary in 1991, this was something pounded into us by John D. W. Watts who actually counted off on our exegesis papers if we made any reference to the NT!
But even in light of that, ultimately, I want to read the canon as a unity in a manner that gives justice to both testaments. I don't have my copy of the TNIV in front me, but I don't believe Ps 34:20 has any footnote on that particular verse. At the very least, because of the way it is used in John's gospel, there should at least (in my opinion) be an alternate translation listed.
Please hear me that I'm not opposed to inclusive language being used in a translation when the intended referent is both male and female. I would just make exception for the traditional messianic references noted by the NT authors. In the overall of scriptures, that's a small number of texts. At the very least I would suggest an alternate translation in the footnotes for a passage such as Ps 34:20.
Rick, you wrote "In the overall of scriptures, that's a small number of texts." Yes, but I don't think there can be any excuse for allowing deliberate inaccuracy in the translation of even a small number of texts. If they have a generic meaning, they should be translated as generic. A footnote would be appropriate only if it mentioned the NT, as apart from the NT there is no justification for the gender specific translation even as a footnoted alternative. And John Watts' excellent rule would count out any mention of the NT in the OT even in footnotes. Yes, this is something which should be footnoted, but the place for the footnote is at the NT quotation, where there is indeed a footnote in TNIV.
I understand your point, Peter. These are all challenges we face in light of our culture's changing language. While I accept the idea of inclusive gender translations, and even acknowledge the accuracy inherent in such in light of current English language usage, perhaps I am merely slightly more conservative in how I would approach it in the above-mentioned examples if I were head of a translation committee.
But I'm not... not yet :)
Straylight, you bring up some interesting concerns here. If I had time I would love to answer them in a new posting, which is what they deserve. Maybe I will sometime. If so, may I quote your comments in my posting?
As a quick answer to the immediately relevant point, if a translation team believed that the best interpretation of the Hebrew text of this psalm was a Messianic one, to the exclusion of a wider reference to all righteous men and women, they should be consistent and translate the whole psalm as Messianic. They would not be justified in chopping and changing to translate the one half verse (arguably) quoted in the New Testament according to different principles from the rest of the psalm.
But I think you exaggerate the closeness between the OT and NT authors, and exaggerate the extent to which modern scholarly understanding of the OT is based on anti-Christian Jewish exegesis. Yes, scholars should certainly take into account the understandings of the NT authors and their contemporaries when interpreting and translating OT books. But they also need to remember that the purpose of the NT authors was not exegesis of the OT in the modern sense, i.e. not explaining the original meaning of the text, but rather applying that text to the different situation in which they found themselves. Thus in John 19:36, even if it is quoting Psalm 34:20, the NT author is by no means trying to claim that the OT author was writing about specifically Jesus, but rather that this promise to all the righteous was fulfilled for Jesus as it is for all other righteous men and women.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home