Loading...More of my reflections from years ago about working with the New Revised Standard Version translation committee in the early 1980s. (With a few updates in brackets [ ])
One of the problems the committee had to address involved the use of gender-inclusive language. Part of the problem was that this issue was not a generally recognized issue (by the wider reading public) when the translators began their work, but was very much an issue when they were already finished with a large chunk of it. [And oh boy is it a big issue now…] The translators were mainly senior scholars who had acquired their linguistic skills before virtually anyone in the academy knew (or at least said) that there even was a problem with inclusivity, and so they themselves were learning how to communicate in the new idiom. And it took a while before they figured out how exactly to handle it.
I myself was first introduced to the problem when I entered graduate school, and like a lot of people from my generation (especially, but not only, us males) at first I thought it was a fairly ridiculous much ado about nothing and that writing inclusively simply threatened to destroy the beauty of the English language. But at Princeton Seminary, when I arrived in 1978, it was already a hot issue. There I learned that there were people who did not think that the term “men” referred to “men and women” but to “adult males,” that “man” did not refer to the human race but to only half of it, that the pronoun “he” did not refer to someone
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Like you, I came out of a very fundamentalist/conservative christian background, and yet I never saw this as an issue. It was assumed without even discussion that anywhere the generic ‘man’ was used was automatically extended to women (and children for that matter if the context fit). Everyone understood it to be an anachronism and it was just read over without needing any explanation. The language in general began to move toward the pluralistic ‘they, their, them’ usage and it’s good to see the translators doing the same. But I think you pointed out in a previous post that in some places the NRSV-UE committee actually changed the intent of a passage by incorporating the inclusive language where it should not have been. Perhaps you can comment on that again (sorry I don’t recall the exact blog post, but it was sometime in the past 2 years – or perhaps it was one of your video blog episodes). I am curious – in your fundamentalist past, was this ever an issue?
No, never as a fundamentalist. But now I’d say that it’s not an accident taht the male term is used and females are subsumed under it. It it doesn’t really matter because “man” means both men and women, then I should think we could say “woman” to mean both women and men. But, yikes, no one would like *that*. And it’s not because they are invested in the purity of the English language. Most people don’t give a hoot about the purity of English (think split infinitives; dangling modifiers, it’s vs. its, which vs that, etc etc); they get nervous when *gender* is an issue. In my view it’s more about ideology than linguistics.
…also, putting ‘s on plurals…I die just a little bit inside every time I see that. It’s so common now that I fear the language will adapt to accept it. I generally enjoy British TV programs because they use a large vocabulary. If you want a treat, check out the TV program “Dickensian” and pay particular attention to the character of Inspector Bucket. I know you can just read the original Bleak House by Dickens, but Stephen Rea’s delivery is just so delicious.
There are few books better…. And yes, I die inside too. But I’m a dinosaur in a lot of ways.
Thank you for this post. As a professor of Women’s, Gender, & Sexuality Studies, I deeply appreciate your nuanced take on these issues–that’s why I became a member recently and watch your podcasts every week (having read many of your books when I first had to teach a Great Books course that included the Hebrew Bible and New Testament).
One comment: for me and many of my students and colleagues (and for a growing number of the general population), the option “For what will it profit anyone [or a person] to gain the whole world but lose their soul?” reads as completely grammatical given the growing acceptance of they/them/their as a singular, gender neutral pronoun (in the style of you/your replacing thee/thou). I’d love to see even a partial translation of some books/passages like that, especially in these times of such hate directed towards the trans community. Do you know if any such translation exists?
I also want to thank you for your podcast commentaries on academic freedom. They have provided me with talking points in a state (Montana) that has passed anti-trans laws which make what I teach (unfortunately) even more controversial but also that much more important.
Oh boy do I agree. And other options usually aren’t good either “For what will it profit people to gain the whole world but lose their soul.” It’s correct grammatically and not grating — but it robs the question of its piercing individuality, as if we’re talkin’ group behavior here…
Many years ago there was some attempt to create a generic pronoun “e” to replace “he” and “she” both, but it didn’t get anywhere. I think the world is open to suggestions! But the reality is that singular possessive pronouns are probably just going to bite the dust, just like (non-)split infinitives and the distinction between “that” and “which” etc.
Re: The supreme divine being is not male with male genitalia.
But wasn’t he? ( Or “He”, I suppose.) I note the recent work of Francesca Stavrakopoulou, and earlier work by Benjamin Sommer and Mark S Smith.
Shouldn’t modern readers, especially those who ascribe spiritual import to these texts, be made to confront ancient viewpoints without being “let off the hook”, so to speak? (Prof Ehrman , I’m not suggesting that you are doing this. On the contrary.)
I remember first truly recognizing the prophet Ezekiel’s seething misogyny through Robert Alter’s recent translation of the OT. In his commentary Alter speculates that Ezekiel might have been mentally ill!
I’m speaking my personal opinion. If there is an Almighty Creator of the universe, that Being, in my view, does not have a penis.
But yes, I’m entirely in favor of keeping the patriarchy of the original text (that’s one of my points)
Personally, when I am reading a historical document I want to know what the author actually wrote, warts and all, not what a later translator thinks he/she should have said or what was really meant; introductions and footnotes can be used for clarification. And what makes you think God (Yahweh) doesn’t have male genitalia?! When Moses asked to see Him God only showed him His backside (Exodus 33:18); I take that as being too modest to show off His genitalia!
I”m saying that *I* don’t think so. The author of Exodus did I suppose. And the Seraphim (made in the image of God) arond the throne in Isaiah 6 are covering their “feet” with their wings. I don’t think that means the limb that has toes.
Off Topic: If John’s gospel covers the same territory as the synoptics, why isn’t there more commonality between them?
My view is that John didn’t know the Synoptics. They have roughly the same outline, and some common stories (almost all of them in the Passion narrative), but even these are told extremely differenlty. Such stories were told by word of mouth for decades, and John simply inherited (and revise) distictive versions of them.
The whole time I was reading this post, I was thinking the very thing that you ultimately got to in your last bullet statement, i.e., if you render the Bible *inclusively* aren’t you mistranslating it? So, generally speaking, what would be the result of a literal translation based on the etymology? You say that “obviously Jesus was not speaking only about a male human”, but how is that made obvious? By the etymology of the original words used? By the context and evidence of popular word usage that was common at the time (irrespective of the literal meaning)? Or are we indeed projecting our modern values on ancient authors who did not share those values?
Every translation requires an interpretation of what the author means — there is no option. The only way to tell what a nauthor means is by studying the text intently in its own literary and historical context. That takes years of training for any specific text, especially ancient ones. You just ain’t gonna understand Plato’s Timaeus by reading it a couple of times. Etymology is widely known by translators to be a highly problematic (well, completely faulty) way of rendering a term into a different language. Almost no one who says “dandelion” thinks that what needs to be weeded out of the yard are a bunch of lion’s teeth (if you see what I mean). So a “literal” translation itself (if it’s even possible) can’t be based on etymolgy. So yes, we look for common usage at the time of writing and make decisions, without trying to import our values on them. If an ancient language uses a male plural pronoun to refer to a group of both men and women, in our modern context rendering it as male in fact would be *mis*leading, making readers think that only men were being referred to.
I frequently have breakfast with a group of friends who are very invested in their respective churches. As the sole agnostic of the foursome, I tend to listen a lot but comment infrequently. I’m not there to rattle cages. The topic of inclusive language took center stage a few months back. All of us are former literature teachers, so I suppose it’s no surprise that their consensus was that the elegance of Scriptural language is sacrosanct. These are, after all, the same guys who consider reading Shakespeare in anything other than the original Elizabethan text is a mortal sin. I’m a bit more pragmatic. If the language is a barrier to reader comprehension, how relevant can a work be to the average reader? But changing language for inclusivity’s sake presents additional problems. I most often think that a 2000 year-old book will sound like what it is, even if we are reading a translation of a translation on back to the original. There’s plenty there that we find incompatible with current thought. Slavery? Sanctioned tribalism? Tolerance of oppression? Absorb what is timeless; ignore the rest.
I was once on a committee to produce a gender-neutral Friday evening (Shabbat) prayerbook. We did it so subtly that one expert was 3/4 of the way through before he realized it was gender-neutral. And our work was rejected for that reason: people wanted it to be obvious.
1 Corinthians 8:6 says
yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
Does Paul call Jesus Lord? If so, does it equal to Yhwh?
Yes, Paul frequently calls Jesus Lord. “Lord” is a tricky term in Greek, because it is used of the master of a slave, an employer, a husband, a person you respect, someone of a higher class, a ruler, the emperor himself, an angel, some other divine being, or Yahweh himself (by Jews). So calling Jesus’ Lord is significant, but it does not make him equal with YHWH.
Bart,
I’ve registered for your upcoming sponsored cruse, Historic Cities and Sacred Places of Western Europe. Truthfully, I’m not really interested in making this trip for personal reasons. In March I made a trip with Dr. James Tabor to Israel, and it turned out to be less informative than I had expected and anticipated. To avoid similar results, I was hoping there might be a way to communicate with you on a personal level concerning a couple of subjects. One of which is what seems to me like a potential conflicting view of yours as it relates to the Talpiot tomb. It’s only been in last 2 or 3 years that I’ve deconstructed from Christianity so you may have already addressed this issue and I’ve overlooked it. Please advise the best way you prefer to be communicated with by me.
Thanks and Best Regards,
William
Great! It’s gonna be a fantastic trip. I’ll be there the whole time and available for discussion. Apart from the trip, questoins on the blog are the only way I can respond to questions (literally the only way, so long as I’m alloted only 24-hour days. I simply can’t answer email questions or do phone conversations etc; I get so many requests. And I regret having to turn them down… Sometimes it’s very sad: today I had to say no to a group of 7th graders wanting to Zoom about Christianity’s role in the fall of Rome! ARG!!!). Specific questions are the easiest for me to deal with rather than general open ones.
Hello Bart. First of all, a healthy and happy new year to you and your family!
I am all for equality! But I don’t see why we shouldn’t accept the past for what is was back then. Why not just take an ancient, patriarchal text for what it is, understand it in its ancient context and let the reader translate all the general stuff for him/herself? (that was inelegant :-)) I think your last 2 points make a thoroughly inclusive translation impossible! I think the bible will lose is’t original character and meaning; you simply make it say what it didn’t say. However, I don’t think it will be a problem to add ‘woman’ or ‘women’ in places where the author addresses people in general but uses the word ‘man’ or ‘men’. Where it does become a problem is places like Mark 6:44: “The number of the men who had eaten was five thousand.” Does this number still add up when you also mention women? Were only the men counted? I don’t know. But is it really relevant to adjust an ancient text so dramatically? It feels to me like changing ancient customs. Are we also gonna soften ancient morals?
Actually, Mark goes on to say, “not counting the women and children.” So in that case “men” is fine. But the issue is not what word Mark uses but what concept he is trying to convey. If he is speaking about a group of men and women and in English it is translated by the word “men” then it is misleading. The reader doesn’t realize it’s tlaking about women as well. (And we can’t argue that Mark used the word “men” since he wasn’t writing in English. He used a Greek word and we have to convey his meaning in a way that we can make sense of it.)
What do you think of “Coach” as a better way to address God instead of Lord, Father, King, etc. especially to address the second person of the Trinity? It goes beyond teaching and even counseling and also incudes modeling, authority, direction, motivation to action, a personal relationship and sometimes even character development.
Admittedly, coach does sound a little bit lightweight. Mentor might be close but still smacks too much of merely giving advice.
Another option is Doctor. It implies the authority of expertise, knowledge of what to do, something that’s existentially important in one’s life, and how to be cured of sickness.
Well, I always called my (first) mother-in-law Coach, so I’m all for it.
For Christians, does the NT supersede the OT not just in the sense of being more important and definitive, eg, a fulfillment of the OT, but also in the sense of resolving any inconsistencies and contradictions in favor of the NT?
Or perhaps no inconsistencies and contradictions are admitted? Or different denominations have different views of how to resolve them? Or they are just mysteries?
It depends whom you ask. There are lots and lots of different views of the relationship of the OT to the NT, going back to antiquity.
In terms of what’s considered to be special divine revelation why can’t Christian’s just be satisfied with the gospels, perhaps as understood and interpreted and passed on by the church’s tradition. If Jesus was/is God, what Jesus said and did (so far as we can trust the gospels) is the clearest, most straightforward, most authoritative revelation from God we have. The OT, the rest of the NT, and a host of other writings and traditions and concepts could still be valuable as aids in understanding the gospels. But revelation itself—at least incomparably the most authoritative part of revelation, should simply be the gospels (as qualified above).
Hmm, I myself always try to find the most literal translation, then work with the exposition that the translators provide below that. Berean Literal, I hope it does that.
There’s a place for making the Sunday School version of Jesus, but it can obscure or enhance the *progress* that humanity has made, depending on how it is explained.
Oh, segue — in my hypothesis that Moses is introducing a syncretic god that joins YHW to the secret-royal desert protector god Ha (so, like Aten is syncretic, “The Ra-Horus” is its official name. Maybe Lord God in the Bible is a syncretism too.)
This morning I found out — there’s only 1 time in the Bible where it is asserted that YHWH is 1 god. Deuteronomy 6:4. Thats when Moses separates Israelites from his mixed multidudes and announces it.
Then in the NT it begins raining down as a phrase! “One god”, I ofc think Jesus is trying to introduce the Transjordan healing god Obodas Theos.
Its like Protestants and Catholics in Ireland telling each other there is only one god.
Shouldn’t it be the obligation of the translator though to present, to the best of his or her ability exactly what the author wrote and of the publisher to provide that exact translation? Wouldn’t it be sort of papering over history to do otherwise? If the best translation is that Jesus asked “What shall it profit a man …..?”, so be it. Better, it seems to me to leave it at that and allow the scholar or the reader to reflect on it and decide if Jesus clearly meant the question to include both women and men.
Yeah, I get it. But the work of the translator is not to provide the most wooden translation of the Greek put into English. That wouldn’t make grammatical sense and, well, can’t actually be done. There’s no completely literal translation possible, of any language into another. The goal is to express the meaning of the writing as closely as possible in the recipient language. If an cient Greek uses a masculine term that refers to both men and women but the English masculine equivalent term refers only to men, then it’s not accurate to use it because it misleads the reader into thinking the Greek says something other than it does.
Professor Ehrman, I was wondering how long it took you to be confident in your current beliefs? I have a hard time dealing with uncertainty personally.
It completely depends on which beliefs you mean. Some I’m absolutely sure of, others I’m pretty sure, others I’m kind of sure, others I’m flippin’ a coin, others I’m just givin up on and hoping for the best.
Has the debate shifted at all in New Testament studies to questions of genderqueer and non-binary? The debate in many other disciplines has shifted away from traditionally feminist concerns to hyper-contemporary issues that did not seem to exist in the public discourse even ten years ago. Has that discussion begun also in biblical criticism and translation?
Oh yes.
My wife and I talked about this. The word “guys” in our social crowd could mean different things depending on the context. At family or social gatherings we greet the whole room with “hi guys”. This would include male and females.
My wife greets her group of female friends as “ hey guys” when they gather.
When me and my friends watch football “hanging out with the guys”, refers to males.
When referring to a single person like some guy walking his dog it refers to males only.
The individual term always refers to males and never female
I know. I got yelled out 45 years ago for saying “guys” to a mixed group, and have been nervouse about it ever since.
Do you think a man called Guy Chapman should change his name to Person Personperson !!!!!!!!!
Most definitely.
Do you think editing the translations of the Bible to be more inclusive hides the truth about the Bible’s writers? I get that *we* should use inclusive language but those authors didn’t and they didn’t for a reason – they treated women as property or as lesser humans. Should modern readers be shielded from that truth? I think changing their words to appear gender neutral while the authors were anything but gender neutral blunts that underlying truth about those authors. These books are used as the basis for faith and moral living by billions of people – should it be hidden from them that the writers of those books were sexist? I understand they should be judged in their own time and setting but I think this changes the character of their writing and whitewashes it a bit.
If inclusive language is used to show that the authors are talking about both men and women, then it correctly understands the text; if it imposes inclusion on a text that is clearly exclusionary, then it misrepresents the text. If the text says “a man should not divorce a woman” then it would be misleading to say “people should not divorce people.” But if the text says “man does not live by bread alone,” it’s not misleading to translated it using an inclusive term, since it is not referring only to males; it would be misleading to translate it only as masculine.
One point that needs to be stressed here, I think, is that Greek has a word, “anthropos”, that means “human being” and is not gender-specific. There is another word, “anēr”, which means specifically MALE human being, and then there’s “gynē,” which means female human being.
In Mark 8:36, “what shall it profit a *man* to gain the whole world . . . “, the word used is ANTHROPOS. Not anēr, but anthropos. So in the Greek it is quite clear that Jesus is referring to a generic human, who could be either sex (I.e., “what shall it profit someone . . . ” or “what shall it profit a person”).
The problem is that “man” in English means “male human being” but also (supposedly) can mean “human being of either sex.” But almost nobody “hears” it that way — there have been studies done showing that when small children hear a sentence such as “Man invented the wheel,” for instance, they NEVER picture a woman inventor. They assume that “man” means “male human being.” So to translate the word “anthropos” as “man” is, in fact, a clear distortion of what the Greek actually says.
I always enjoy when you write about this topic.
I grew evangelical reading the NIV. I was first introduced to the NRSV in 1996 at a mission conference as the supplied Bible for the conference. This is when I learned about the different endings of Mark. Before reading it, it was told how horrible the NRSV because of the gender-inclusive language. But I believe the fears were over hyped. However, even though I would still read this version, my main versions were the NIV and NASB. I guess due to social pressure.
As an atheist, my main versions are the NRSV and the JPS. I love how the NRSV, not only takes advantage of the English language’s ability to be gender-inclusive ( I.e. professor versus profesor or profesora), but how it maintains the Bible’s more mythical elements and how it attempts to translate the Hebrew more honestly.
I think God did originally have male genitalia.
It’s because I believe the Bible is a collection of texts about the Levant’s interaction with God-Emperors/God-Pharoahs. These are mostly men. It’d be cool if a female pharoah was in there.
Polemics in the Bible against opposition pharoahs just demote them discreetly to Pharoah or King name. There’s a Hyksos revivalist that did this on papyri. But the letters from the administrator of Jerusalem to Akhenaten called him “My God.”
Etiquette requires all Herods to be addressed as Herod. Making it appear to be one entity to establish the continuity of the office. Same with the modern “Hello Governor”, when there are many. Same with Lord and God.
After the Atenism influence, there seems to be an attempt to syncretize gender into Yahweh, too. I think that’s what the burning bush represents. Bush = Asherah, Supreme God Consort (rabbis teach that the bush is Shekina female energy) and Rays = used for Supreme Gods (El, Re-Horus, Ra). Josephus put Mount Horeb in Nabataea, and Petra was built to capture rays.
It’s not the concept of the Creator God that they are referring to (which also evolves) but revisions seemed to obscure the role of divinized humans.
Hi Bart,
Great series of posts on the issue of Bible Translation including the issues surrounding gender. Just before reading the gender post, ironically, I ran across “ THE JPS TANAKH: Gender-Sensitive Edition from Sefaria: It is described as:
“A ground-breaking partnership with Sefaria….it is now available online, along with the Preface to the translation, more extensive Notes on Gender in Translation, and sample passages comparing this new translation to the 1985 JPS version.” The Preface (link at the bottom of the sales page) provides the rational and considerations for the changes made. What are your thoughts about it given the Preface?
https://jps.org/books/the-jps-tanakh-gender-sensitive-edition/
Regards, Jessica
I hadn’t heard of it. Thanks!
What about using “human being” for a person of either gender?
In Swedish we have the word “människa”, cognate to German “Mensch”, but “human being” might sound more artificial in English….?
Yup, that works sometimes, but not always, for quality English.
being picky- the Chinese leader isn’t president, as that is not the highest rank in leadership. 2nd CCP national leader wasn’t even Premier [#2] or General Secretary [#1] Deng Xiao ping.
I hate it when the mass press goes President Xi this & that. Of course b/c Trump blocked me 1st, I never referred to him as President or Leader.
Man as used in the Bible often means humans or male. but with enough investigation: God did not tell Even not to eat the Tree of Life. & then we still screw up instructions from our bosses. So was the serpent wrong. It was just double checking her orders. & that is what the 3 World religions are based upon- lousy communication [btw how did God communicate with Adam or Cain & the serpent to eve].
Bard Ai:
Open to debate: The nature of God’s communication with humans is a subject of ongoing theological debate and interpretation.