Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism, The

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 1999 by Kostenberger, Andreas J

Chronicling the debate surrounding the 1997 revelation of Zondervan's plans to produce a gender-inclusive version of the NIV, Carson notes that complementarian scholars (such as himself) broke with the leading complementarian organization, the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, "because they disagreed with its tightly linking the issue of complementarianism to that of gender-inclusive translations" (p. 35).

Indeed, one of the more significant effects of the current debate has been the dividing of the complementarian camp into advocates and opponents of a gender-inclusive approach to Bible translation. Carson points out that at least some (if not most) signers of the CSG produced by those opposing such an approach do not have formal training in Biblical languages or Bible translation and presumably signed the statement primarily out of trust in those crafting it owing to their complementarian commitment and a concern that feminism appears to be making inroads in the area of Bible translation. I should point out, however, that there are at least a few who do have linguistic expertise (see esp. Vern Poythress, "Gender in Bible Translation: Exploring a Connection with Male Representatives," WTJ 60 [1998] 225-253, esp. 226, n. 5).

An adjudication between both sides of the debate then ensues, in which Carson concurs largely (though not entirely without reservations) with the guidelines produced by the NIV's CBT. In the slightly ponderous chap. 4 on the nature of gender in language Carson shows how translators must understand how the gender system works in both donor and receptor languages. Gender systems in two languages will be different, so that the issue is marked by considerable complexity, and there is no possibility of faithful renderings by way of formal equivalents.

For this reason "the argument that attaches a particular formal equivalent in gender assignment to faithfulness to the Word of God is profoundly mistaken in principle" (p. 98). Thus Carson (rightly, I believe) calls on Wayne Grudem to withdraw his charge to that effect (p. 206, n. 4) and on World magazine to apologize publicly for its tendentious reporting (p. 194). Overall, Carson finds the CSG "open to far more and far more serious linguistic objections" than the CBT principles (p. 111). According to Carson, the CSG frequently appeal to conservatism in language (when, according to Carson, the English language has changed with regard to gender language), and its proponents tend to be characterized by lexical woodenness (p. 120).

In his treatment of specific Biblical terms involving gender, Carson maintains that the term anthropos never means "man" (that is, a male human being), though it may refer to such a person, while the expression aner, while having "male human being" as its default meaning, also occurs in a generic sense. Those who believe that "male human being" is part of the semantic range of anthropos are charged with confusing meaning and reference (though Carson seems to leave the door open just a bit when he refers to "human being" as "the primary meaning of anthropos," pp. 150-151 [italics mine], calling this the "normal" or "default meaning," pp. 153, 160). While conceding that the inclusive edition of the NIV already published in the UK is "too loose" at times (p. 125), he maintains that it is generally on target.