Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism, The

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

Are Strauss, Perriman and others then all subject to "confusion over the elementary linguistic distinction between meaning and referent" (Carson, p. 127)? Or is Carson's case here unduly dichotomous? Apart from the fact that most standard NT Greek dictionaries include "male human being" in the semantic range of anthropos, one may cite numerous passages in the LXX such as Gen 20:7; 26:11; Exod 2:21; Lev 20:10; Num 5:15; 25:8; 31:35; Deut 17:5; 20:7; 21:15; 22:16,22,24; 23:1 [22:30]; 25:7; 1 Sam 25:3; Esth 4:11; Eccl 7:28; Isa 4:1; Jer 51:7 [44:7]; 1 Esdr 4:25; 9:40; Tob 6:7 (not to speak of extra-Biblical references such as Dionysius Halicarnassensis, De comp. verb. 18.201; Dio Chrysostom, Orat. 32.89.3; or Clement of Rome, Homil. 13.15.2) where anthropos quite demonstrably stands in semantic opposition to gyne, "woman," which suggests that "male human being" at least in these instances is a semantic component of anthropos rather than merely coming into play at the level of reference (see Perriman, Speaking of Women 218). Incidentally, this is where Strauss's consistent dichotomization between anthropos in a certain context meaning "male" rather than "human being" (e.g. p. 184), based on his maxim that a "word generally has only one 'sense' in any particular literary context" (p. 99), turns out to be doubtful, because it unduly biases the interpreter against possible male connotations of anthropos in a given instance (e.g. John 10:33; see Grudem, "Response" 277-278). As Perriman notes, "It is important to keep in mind that anthropos may have masculine overtones which are lost in an inclusive translation" (Speaking of Women 217).

Likewise, in the discussion of aner, one should probably avoid placing proportionately too much emphasis on the generic sense of the term (which is suggested already by the availability of the less marked term anthropos). For instance, when Acts 17:34 is adduced as an instance where aner means "male human being" because apparent reference is also made to a woman, Damaris, we should note that standard commentaries such as F. F. Bruce (The Book of Acts [N]CNT; rev. ed.; Eerdmans, 1988] 343) take aner as referring merely to a group of men (males) including Dionysius, which are set off from other converts such as the above-named woman. This is also the interpretation underlying both the NASB and the NIV. Presumably it is for this reason that Mark Strauss wisely refrains from using this passage to support his argument (pp. 108-109).

In light of the above, care must be taken to guard against a revisionist understanding and consequent erosion in the lexical understanding of various gender-related terms used in Scripture that may result from a gender-inclusive approach to Bible translation. That such an erosion has already occurred in some circles is evident from the translation of awr as something other than man in passages such as Matt 7:24,26; Luke 5:18; 22:63; Acts 1:21; 9:7; 11:20 and 20:30 in certain gender-inclusive versions.

A second element of concern relates to the danger of downplaying the presence of ideological elements in the debate (cf. Stanley E. Porter, "The Contemporary English Version and the Ideology of Translation," in Translating the Bible: Problems and Prospects, JSNTSup 173 [1999] 18-45, esp. 32-34). In fact, apart from the fact whether or not ideology is a driving factor in gender-inclusive translation, it is undeniable (acknowledged by both Carson, p. 159, and Strauss, pp. 45-46) that such translation may pave the way for an egalitarian understanding of Biblical teaching on gender roles (see e.g. gender-inclusive translations of Acts 1:21; 20:30; Titus 1:6; cf. Poythress, "Gender" 226). While gender-inclusive translation may in a given instance be justified on general linguistic grounds, this does not necessarily mean that such is to be preferred on the basis of contextual or larger theological considerations.