(16 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)
Loading...The policy of the NRSV translation committee on inclusive language was sensible, in my view. It involved a three-pronged approach.
- Any passage that was referring to both men and women was to be rendered inclusively, even if the original language (Hebrew or Greek) used masculine terms (“men,” “man,” “brothers,” “he” etc.).
- Any passage that was explicitly referring only to men, or only to women, was to be left as referring only to men or to women.
- All references to the Deity that in the original used masculine terms were to be left masculine.
Here I will say a few things about each of these policies, in reverse order. First, the deity. No one on the committee thought that the deity actually has male genitalia or other sexual distinctions. But …
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN! It costs less than a coffee at Starbucks a month, and every penny goes to help the needy. You get a good deal, they get a good deal, the world gets a good deal. It’s a good deal.
The gospels show us a Jesus who clearly cared just as much about reaching women as men–atypically so, for a rabbi of that time. Nobody can read the entire story and think he only wanted to ‘fish’ for men. So if the meaning gets conveyed, how is anyone hurt by the phrase ‘fishers of men’? We all know what he means. Those who don’t will not be convinced by changing the language–if anything, they’ll be enraged and go into full reactionary mode, like the people complaining over “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.’ If it doesn’t materially advance the cause of gender equality, how is it useful to turn an elegant phrase into a clumsy one?
The word ‘fisher’, in English, also refers to a member of the weasel family (which rarely eats fish) I don’t suppose the committee got into that at all? Thought not. 🙂
It’s not just a question of knowing what he means. It is a question of whether we allow language to reinforce and even project male dominance in a world where we claim that men are inherently superior or to be preferred. (Turn your question around: would people object to translating the text as saying “I will make you fishers of women” so long as we said, well, yes, but he meant men as well!)
What’s a good English translation of the Bible that doesn’t strive to serve as a theological conveyance (and thus engage in a thankless task of mapping social norms of two and plus millenia ago to contemporary social norms), but instead seeks to translate the Bible per a purely historian’s perspective?
I think the NRSV is one of the best, probably the best. All committees, of course, try to be accurate, but some of them (such as the NIV, e.g.) do allow theological views to interfere with accurate translation. (OK, they all do this to some extent, even the NRSV — but some do it more than others)
The need for gender-inclusive language was introduced in the seventies by women who criticized male chauvinism and wished to emancipate themselves. Unfortunately the solutions they proposed were not based on any linguistic knowledge or on psychological studies concerning the way we perceive ourselves. The women’s liberation movement did not come with any sensible solutions.
Many male writers use “she” as inclusive pronoun. This is just as bad as having females use the pronoun “he” as gender unspecific. We have here linguistic monstrosities that are not any better than the “he/she” alternative. Men should not speak as if they were women, and women should not speak as if they were men. Our gender determines not only the way we feel about ourselves, but also the way we think and express ourselves.
Linguistically speaking, the particles “he, him, his” as well as their feminine counterparts “she, her, hers” can refer to the subject or to the object of the statement. The speaker/writer is the subject of the statement. The person about whom we are speaking is the object of the statement. The same pronouns “he” as well as “she” can be used as gender specific in reference to the subject, and as gender unspecific in relation to the object. A male speaker would use “he” in reference to himself as subject of the statement, and as gender neutral in relation to the object. He would write: “The reader should understand that “he” must use “his” judgment in reading me, and understand that my use of the masculine forms “he-his” are gender specific in relation to me, the writer, but that they are used as gender unspecific in relation to the reader”. If the writer of the same statement is a woman, she would use “she” and “her” in the same statement. This means that there are two different ways of using gender-sensitive pronouns and adjectives, according to whether we are male of female. Male chauvinism consists in insisting that women should speak as if they were male, and female chauvinism consists in having men speak as if they were female.
This is an area where English can be a difficult language to work with. I’ve seen conservative Christians bolster their arguments for the superiority of men with passages that sound gender exclusive in English but are not in Greek or Hebrew.
I think the NRSV committee has done a very thoughtful job on this complicated problem. I don’t have a good solution for the Mark passage. I kind of like Eugene Peterson’s rendering: “Come with me. I’ll make a new kind of fisherman out of you. I’ll show you how to catch men and women instead of perch and bass.” But that won’t do for NRSV. Peterson is doing a paraphrase version (IMO a very good one) and a translation can’t take that much license.
It irritates me that there are a number of people who criticize the NRSV for what they perceive as a lack of “doctrinal purity.” You can’t do that in an honest translation.
Mark 1:17 is also awkward for other reasons. The line “I will make you become fishers of men” does not sound Semitic at all. Indeed, my knowledge of Greek is very limited, but that phrase sounds VERY Greek to me. Trying to express it in Hebrew or Aramaic can be headache inducing. That isn’t to say that Jesus didn’t express something to that effect. I mean, it is a very clever turn of phrase, and I would think Jesus had a knack for such word play.
For starters, the Greek “poieso” doesn’t have a Semitic equivalent. The Aramaic or Hebrew equivalent of Greek’s “I will make” — “e’asah” — can’t be used with the same connotation as it is used in the Greek. That is, talking about “making” someone into something sounds very weird in the Semitic. It sounds kind of like saying in English “I will do you into fishers of men”. The same goes for the Greek “to become” — genesthai. That’s a very, very Greek concept. Semitic speakers would never use such a term. (Greek philosophers were obsessed with parsing the difference between “being” and “becoming”, a distinction with which Semitic speakers didn’t concern themselves.)
As a matter of fact, Semitic languages like Aramaic and Hebrew tend to be far more economical, and so if Jesus did, in fact, express such a clever, metaphorical turn of phrase that would make sense and roll off the tongue, it was probably very tightly constructed. So tight, in fact, that it would sound almost ambiguous to the Greek ear, which is why the Greek translation was made so relatively verbose. If I were take a stab at reconstructing that Jesus might have actually said, it would be:
באו אחרי וגדו אנשי
Ba’u achari wa-dagu enashi
“Follow me and fish men!”
Now THAT sounds like a Semitic expression. Pithy. Simple. Poetic. And just ambiguous enough to sound profound.
To clarify a point of technicality, I should also add that in Hebrew and Aramaic, the (future) imperfect and the imperative are closely related enough so as to not always be distinguishable. So in the reconstruction I provided above, Jesus could be saying (in the imperfect): “[If] you come after me (i.e. follow me), you will fish [for] men.” Or Jesus could be saying (in the imperative): “Come after me (i.e. follow me) and fish [for] men!” In the first interpretation, it’s passive, conditional and attempting to persuade. In the second interpretation, it’s active, decisive and authoritative. I think the latter, more commanding version was the original intent, but the Greek translation — “I will make you to become fishers of men” — captures the first, less domineering interpretation.
How about “fishers of your own kind”?
I can’t help but think this sounds like “close encounters of the third kind” lol
Respond in an appropriate way to my leadership going forward and I will implement a change to your target harvest species from the present situation to homo sapiens.
You lost me!
He’s saying: “Respect my authority and I’ll save you.”
I heart that! You can bypass the civil service exam, ready at minimum for an under-secretariat. Thanks.
Heck, that’s brilliant!
Dear Bart,
As regards to the non English words(Mk 15:34, Mt 27:46, etc) what take do the committee had to leaving it in the written language and follow it up with the Translation?
It’s because the words are Aramaic/Hebrew and they would have been “foreign” to the original Greek readers, so they are left foreign in the translation.
Why not “fisher of souls”? I’ve often thought about the disservice Jesus did to the family members who were counting on his recruits to help keep food on the table. I’m pretty sure they weren’t happy to see their sons/brothers go off galavanting with an itinerant preacher.
That’s not bad…
Reminds me of the 12 siblings of my mother’s Brethren family quipping about the brethren and c(s)istern.
“make you fish for people” ? Grotesque. This is one of the loveliest passages in the NT, and the inclusive substitution simply destroys it.
What was the objection to “fishers of mankind”?
Two things. First is that it doesn’t have much of a literary lilt. Second is that it is not inclusive, since it has a female alternative, womankind.
“Fishers of men” may flow better and have more literary merit than the others but personally I’ve always thought it sounded awkward and abrupt. It seems to me there are too many one syllable words. I think something like “I will send you fishing for men and women” sounds better – though I defer to your expertise about what is most accurate and literarily pleasing.
Lately, one of my problems with monotheism has been the gender issue. It’s partly because it’s sexist but even more that it also makes God seem even more unreal. We try to understand the idea of God by analogy with human beings. But every human being we know is either male or female – not both. On the other hand, maybe almost all humans have both male and female traits – at least as such traits have been traditionally understood. And, perhaps, a small of percentage of humans are best considered androgynous – but that’s atypical and maybe it’s better to think of them more like a third gender than as an integration of male and female. I guess it’s just one more thing about God that makes him seem unreal.
“Fishers of souls” … although I guess in the original, this more spiritual rendering is not really what is meant.
Not bad though…
Is there an attempt in the Bible to balance the maleness of God with the femaleness of creation – or the femaleness of the nation of Israel in relation to God? Or, for that matter, in Genesis, the maleness of God acting on the femaleness of the deep/waters/chaos to bring about creation together – with God the active (male, as usual) principle fashioning something out of the passive (female, as usual) “stuff” — rather than creation out of nothing?
In the OT isn’t Wisdom sometimes referred to as female? And isn’t the Holy Spirit sometimes thought of as female – as analogous to OT Wisdom? Is the femaleness of Wisdom or the Spirit a very strong theme or just a minority view? It would seem that in the Trinity there should be room for one of the three “persons” to be imagined as female. I’ve read that part of the very strong Catholic emphasis on Mary is a subconscious attempt to capture the female side of God. And the Catholic Church is sometimes accused of trying to make Mary the “4th” member of the Trinity?
Sometimes I hear that one of the most important theological points behind the idea of the Trinity is that God is a “community” rather than a single being. Maybe the oneness of God is best thought of as an attempt to unify the divinity of the multiplicity of all reality.
Why not just “fishers of people”? Didn’t the original Greek include the word for “fishers” or “fishermen” – I.e a noun, not a verb?
Yes, it’s a noun. But translators cannot always render nouns by nouns, verbs by verbs, adverbs by adverbs, adjectives… well you get the point. THe idea is to get the same meaning across in the target language, not necessarily to replicate the parts of speech.
> No one on the committee thought that the deity actually has male genitalia or other sexual distinctions.
Perhaps no one on the committee did, but what about the original writers? That is, are there any terms in the Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek that indicate that Yahweh had such, ah, distinctions?
I have the impression that the original authors just assumed that the manifested deity would have the necessary male parts.
None of them says anything about genitalia!
Any passage that was referring to both men and women was to be rendered inclusively, even if the original language (Hebrew or Greek) used masculine terms (“men,” “man,” “brothers,” “he” etc.).
That comes across as manipulative. Even if with good intentions. Changing it may make it correct but doesn’t make it the *right* thing to do. I could understand if they translated the original words that were intended and written as inclusive, but changing it? No.
If the original language used masculine terms, how do you know it was intended inclusively?
I just want to be clear here:
The original wording was intended inclusively, originally written inclusively, but translated exclusively? or
It was intended inclusively, written originally exclusively, and translated exclusively?
Intended inclusively, written exclusively, and translated inclusively.
They aren’t changing the words. They are translating them. If Paul speaks to men and women and calls them ADELPHOI, to render that as “brothers” in modern-day English suggest that he was addressing only men, and that’s what would be inaccurate.
But in the post it says that if the intention of a passage was inclusive then it was written inclusively by the translators even if the original language (Greek & Hebrew) was written in masculine terms.
I’m interpreting that as meaning– a writer, such as the author of the Gospel of Mark, wrote a passage in exclusive male terms even though its intentions were inclusive. Whereas, Paul had both the intention of inclusiveness and also wrote using inclusive words like ADELPHOI.
Am I not understanding that correctly?
Not quite. ADELPHOI is masculine in gender, “brothers” (as opposed to “brothers and sisters”)
Dr. Ehrman, I was wondering what your opinion is of Revelation 21:3′ s “Mortals” in the NRSV. Theologically speaking, it has to be the most unsatisfying inclusive word choice you can possibly get. In Revelation 20:14, just four verses prior, death is said to be done away with. So why choose an inclusive term that defines humanity by its mortality? Any Christian who believes in some concept of eternal life could see that word choice as something of a slap in the face.
When the NRSV uses “mortal” in books like Ezekiel, it does seem really appropriate, so I can see why it could work elsewhere in the Bible. But in Revelation 21:3 it just doesn’t seem appropriate.
Good point. Unless he’s referring to those who have been resurrected for life in the city (so they were mortals). But otherwise, you’re right!
Is “I shall make you fishers of men” a pun in Greek, meaning, “I shall make you who are currently ‘fishermen’ into ‘fishers of men'”? (I didn’t get the pun until now.)
I think the word “fisher” is quite awkward. I can’t think of anywhere else where “fisher” is used without the addition of “man,” or “men” — or, less frequently, “woman” or “women.”
No, I’m afraid the Greek word for “fishermen/fishers” does not have the word “men” in it.
What do you think the next iteration of Bile translation will look like?
Will Adam be made inclusive for men, women and transgender? That could be fairly easy as Adam has been hermaphrodite in some sect of mysticisms for ages.
Will marriage become inclusive for same sex? This could work as well because Matthew 19:5 says “a man [anthrōpos] will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife” if anthrōpos could referring to both “men and women” and wife could be translated into “partner”.
At least it’s hard to think that the parts condemning homosexuality would be included in new revisions of Bible translation in the future.
This isn’t criticisms – just curiosity.
I suppose it’s hard to predict what future sensibilities will be.
I think I am going to start over here. The other day you said–
“They aren’t changing the words. They are translating them. If Paul speaks to men and women and calls them ADELPHOI, to render that as “brothers” in modern-day English suggest that he was addressing only men, and that’s what would be inaccurate.”
Today–“ADELPHOI is masculine in gender, “brothers” (as opposed to “brothers and sisters”)”
In the post, it says that the NRSV committee translated passages to read inclusively even if the original text (Greek & Hebrew) was written in masculine terms. Their reasoning was that it was *intended* to be inclusive. My point was that I see that as manipulative. Why didn’t they translate it as it was written with a footnote explaining the intentions? Or, at least, translate it inclusively with a footnote explaining that the original word was masculine.
I believe some others here have mentioned that an annotation may not be seen, but that doesn’t matter because it’s at least been disclosed to the reader. I’m finding this very frustrating right now.
ADELPHOI:
Is it masculine, feminine, transgendered or what?
Every noun in Greek is masculine, feminine, or neuter (EVERY noun — even those referring to chairs, rocks, or boats). ADELPHOI is masculine.
I’m obviously not communicating very well here. If Paul is talking to a mixed crowd of men and women, and calls them ADELPHOI, the literal translation of the term is “brothers.” But in English today, “brothers” refers only to people who are male. And so translators are reluctant to give the impression that he has only males in mind, and translated the term as “brothers and sisters” to clarify that women are in view as well.
Ah okay, I see what you mean now.
I guess the only way to know whether a word is inclusive but originally written as masculine is to have a parallel comparison of two different translations; one written in masculine terms and one written inclusively.
Actually the only way is by studying the passage, preferably in the original language!
Right.
But still… isn’t that an interpretation (a correct one, but an interpretation nonetheless)? Since ADELPHOI is masculine rather than neuter, then the translation ought to be “brothers” (which should then be interpreted as “brothers and sisters”). It’s like when someone says to a married couple (man and woman) “it was good to see you ‘guys’ the other night.” This is quite common. Yet most people instinctively know the masculine “guys” means “guy and gal.” A true translation of ADELPHOI would be “brothers” it seems… making it say “people” or “brothers and sisters” seems like an interpretation more than a translation to me… where am I going wrong here? I like the NRSV a lot… and I don’t think it’s some massive problem… but it does seem like a capitulation to the political correctness that’s destroying gender pronouns in Canada right now (cf. Jordan Peterson).
Yes, it is definitely an interpretation. But so is all translation. There can be no translation without interpretation — can’t happen! (It’s one of the things that most people don’t know about the endeavor.)
I can’t help saying all this fuss would seem like nonsense to people who’d never think of actually *reading* any part of the Bible. Their numbers may not be increasing in the U.S. *yet* – but I’m sure they will.
Was any consideration given to writing Yahweh or Jehovah (or even YHWH and leaving it to readers to supply their own pronunciation) rather than LORD?
They did not consider writing Yahweh or YHWH — or rather than dismissed the option, since it has been offensive to Jewish piety for many centuries to pronounce the name and they did not want offend these sensibilities. Jehovah is a made up word and they decided not to go that way, but to stick with the rather confusing all-cap LORD. I’m not sure there’s a good solution to the problem.
I can’t help it, but I don’t like some of the inclusive language. Maybe even most of it. I feel as though something has been lost. For example:
NRSV; John 14:23 Jesus answered him, “Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.
NKJV; 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.
One thing that bothers me is the use of plurals. “Those” and “them” is not very personal. Everyone is lumped together. “We will come to *him* and make Our home with *him* connotes a personal relationship with the individual on a deeper level. That’s much different than being one of many.
I’ve been trying to pinpoint why this bothers me so much. It’s not the inclusive language itself. I mean, why should it? I’m a woman after all. What bothers me are the specific directions of the National Council of Churches given to those on the Translation Committee–the direction to eliminate sexist language. If the text naturally lends itself to inclusive language, then that’s great! But when a group of people are given specific instructions to do something, then that’s what they do. They’re keeping that in mind as they’re working, and I can’t help but think that the translation is tainted.
I don’t care about linguistic sexism and its dangers. What I care about is the truth. Everything I’ve read about the NCC has been excellent, but I am unsure of their motivations behind inclusiveness. I can’t read Koine Greek. Neither can most people, so we must put our trust in people and committees we don’t know. That’s a huge deal.
As Bart noted, every translation is also an interpretation, and that entails, I suppose, the notion that “the truth” about a text, particularly an ancient one, is in part a function of how one conceives of truth. When I translate a Greek or Latin text, I generally try to render it in a way that preserves its historical context, and allows it to be seen as an artifact of a particular time that is not our own. So looked at in that way “the truth” about the text is a matter of (more or less) pure historical accuracy. It does not particularly matter to me–as a historian of ideas–that a text reflects patriarchy or racism or something similarly at odds with my own sensibilities. In fact, that makes the study of the text a good barometer of the cultural distance between me and the text, a distance that must be respected and learned from. I think what you’re getting at is that in the case of the Bible, a different lens comes into play, namely the fact that many people wish this book to be in some way normative for how one should live and what one should think or believe–in a way that is generally not true for Thucydides or Caesar’s Gallic Wars. So “the truth” of the text takes on a layer of meaning that doesn’t stop at simply laying bare the framing of the language in patriarchal terms; rather, it attempts to span the cultural/linguistic gap, even at the risk of effacing some of the presuppositions and power structures that present themselves on the surface of the language. My two cents. 🙂
You put it much more eloquently than me.