Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism, The

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

Regarding the translation of adelphoi (rendered as "brothers" in the NIV) as "brothers and sisters," Carson asserts that "[this is not flawed translation: rather, the expanded English expression is including people who would have felt included in the Greek adelphos but who by and large do not feel so included in English 'brothers'" (p. 131). Strauss's argument is identical (pp. 147-151). Notably, even Grudem and the (revised) CSG concur, at least regarding instances of adelphos in the plural (though they are rightly chided by both Carson and Strauss for failing to extend the same principle to the singular as well).

In conclusion, Carson appeals for high journalistic standards, calls for the participants in the debate to slow down, encourages them to avoid impugning others' motives, to eschew entrenched positions, to shun manipulative language and to be careful what they sign on to. Carson finds the criticism of gender-inclusive translation in large part motivated by a certain social agenda regarding the roles of men and women.

What are the merits of Carson's (and Strauss') case? Space permits only a few substantive comments of evaluation. To begin with, Carson must be credited with a thorough grasp of the nature of translation and an ability to communicate often complex issues in intelligible terms to a popular audience. As one who initially shared many of the concerns of those opposing a gender-inclusive approach to Bible translation, I found myself a cautious convert to Carson's position.

I am a "convert," because Carson has, to my mind successfully, demonstrated that formal equivalence is severely flawed as an approach to translating gender language in Scripture. Thus, at least in principle, a functional equivalence approach must be used. This renders many of the criticisms set forth by opponents of a gender-inclusive approach invalid (such as Wayne Grudem's "Response to Mark Strauss' Evaluation of the Colorado Springs Translation Guidelines," JETS 41 [1998] 263-286).

I remain a "cautious" convert, because in some matters of (not insignificant) detail some residual questions remain. Perhaps the most important pertains to the meaning of anthrOpos and aner (see the perceptive critique by Poythress, "Gender" 226-227). Is the meaning "male human being" in the case of anthropos really to be consigned exclusively to the category "referent," as Carson maintains (pp. 126-127)? On this point even Mark Strauss includes "male human being" in the semantic range of this word (e.g. P. 14: "Here [in Matt 9:91 anthrOpos clearly means 'a male human being"' [emphasis mine]; P. 195: "The Greek lexeme anthropos, for example, has a semantic range that includes the various senses 'human being,"male human being,''humanity' and so on"). Andrew Perriman, who likewise shares Carson's overall view, independently asserts the same, speaking merely of "a more inclusivist semantic profile than an&" in the case of anthropos (Speaking of Women: Interpreting Paul [Apollos, 1998]215).