New Berkeley Version: the human being

If I appeared a little frustrated in the last three posts, it was simply this. I wanted to start right away to mention what I have found on the history of using 'human' instead of 'man' in a Bible translation. I always feel a little tired when given to Sisyphean tasks such as the former 3 posts.

The Berkeley Bible, translated by Gerrit Verkuyl, started in 1936 with the NT published in 1945, wins the prize so far on 'human being'. The significance of this is that it was actually completed before Simone de Beauvoir posited that most treacherous notion, that woman should be considered a fellow human being! Her treatise was published in French in 1949.

This is from Philippians 2: 7-8

he came like human beings, so recognized in looks as a human being... Berkeley Bible

Maybe someone can supply more information on the Berkeley Bible and help us assess this translation in terms of its 'feminist' agenda.

However, the New English Bible, 1961, leaves us in no doubt about its credentials! Here is 1 Cor. 14:35,

It is a shocking thing that a woman should address the congregation. NEB

Lively and colourful it is; feminist it is not. Here is Phil 2:7-8,

Bearing the human likeness, revealed in human shape. NEB

I have not, so far, found a trace of a fuss over the expression 'human shape'. I have not found a statement declaring that there is no such thing, only a male shape or a female shape. I suspect that the translators of the NEB, who were accused of many things, were not accused of feminism.

It is interesting to note also that the NEB is responsible for the expression 'himself ----' as in 'himself human'. Here is 1 Tim. 2:5,

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus, himself man. NEB

This expression 'himself ----' was remarked on by both Dr. Köstenberger and Adrian as unusual, not accurate and not proper English, supposedly a phrase invented for the purpose of introducing 'human' instead of 'man, thus helping to 'neuter' the text.

Oddly, no such thing, this is simply not true. For some people, there is a bogeyman hiding under every bed. Unfortunately, with the NEB and the Berkeley Version, it is not possible to do as I did with the ESV, go and ask the editor. Not believing in bogeymen, I try to interact with real people.

This discussion has spread a little in the blogosphere, in one case, we get this contribution,

TNIV

Aaarrrrrggggggg!!!

And elsewhere, Henry Neufeld is kindly taking some of my ideas and rendering them in more articulate English. Henry also asks,

Now whether it was feminists who got it started or not, I think using “human” is a much better idea, and makes the second sentence clearer.

So, Henry, I hope this post helps to answer your question. It doesn't look like feminists to me.

Update: Our anonymous commenter points out with reference to 'himself man',

Alas, no, it appears to be due to the 1881 Revised Version -- which was, in fact, not particularly noted for the strength of its English Grammar. It is also found in the American revision of the RV, the ASV.

Some kind of latent slur against its grammaticality. Hmm. But tangential to feminism, nonetheless.