Do gender-sensitive translations distort scripture? Not necessarily

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 2002 by Bock, Darrell L

The recent flap over Bible translation has the potential to split significantly the evangelical movement by introducing a kind of litmus test of orthodoxy about how Bibles are translated. A major question is whether or not the debate is being conducted in the most focused manner possible. This essay is an attempt to look at the debate at one of its most fundamental levels, the rendering of specific, controversial texts. Almost all of the examples raised in this essay are examples that have been cited as cases where improper gender-sensitive translation has taken place. I begin by explaining how translations differently approach such questions and describe themselves and then turn to look at examples of various types. Our question is a simple one: do gender-sensitive translations distort Scripture in places where those who have concerns about such translations claim they do? Is the current dispute much ado about nothing, much ado about something, or much ado about Bible translation gone astray?

The following remarks appear in a combination of outline and text. I hope to help Bible readers sort through the recent controversies tied to the discussion of gender issues in Bible translation. This discussion is not intended as an endorsement of any version. Examples focus on the recent release of the TNIV version as that version has been the particular focus of recent discussion. But other translations also make these kind of renderings and fall within the scope of this essay. The following remarks serve as an explanation of the issues tied to these recent controversies. The goal is that the reader appreciates the translation issues involved in the production of various Bible translations that relate to gender-sensitive renderings. Both sides in this debate have good intentions: each desires to render the Bible as clearly as possible to its English-speaking audience and is rightly concerned that such rendering carefully reflect the text's meaning. That commitment to Scripture is why so much emotion has surfaced in the discussion. Clearly rendering the truth of God is the goal. Each side believes they are giving proper respect to the Word of God as God's word to us. Examining the disputed texts one at a time helps us see if either goal is being unduly compromised.

I. ON APPROACHES TO GENDER-SENSITIVE TRANSLATION

1. Two approaches to basic translation theory that underlie the debate. To begin with, it is important to consider how the gender-sensitive translations relate to the bigger issues of translation theory. There are two fundamental approaches to translation theory as a whole (regardless of whether one is concerned to be gender-sensitive in the translation or not). These are "dynamic/functional equivalence" rendering and "formal equivalence." "Dynamic/functional equivalence" means translators are trying to render the force of the passage. Here one's goal is to be clear about the fuller meaning of the passage with concern for it making good sense in the "target" language (i.e., the language into which the text is being translated). For our versions, the target language is English, as the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic are rendered into English. The phrase "dynamic/functional" appears here because some call this approach dynamic equivalence and others call it functional equivalence, but the same thing is meant. In contrast, "formal equivalence" means rendering the passage as precisely as possible in conjunction with the forms and expressions of the original language of the text. Formal equivalence means making renderings that keep the gender, number, lexical and grammatical force of the originating language as much as is possible and still be understandable in the target language. This is often labeled a "literal" translation.

In general, gender-sensitive renderings tend to embrace dynamic equivalence, while those opposed to gender-sensitive renderings prefer formal equivalence in translation. Sometimes lines of difference are drawn right here at the start.

But is there one type of gender-sensitive translation or are there variations in how gender-sensitive translations are made? The short answer is that there are variations in how gender-sensitive translations are made. To really appreciate the discussion, one needs to be aware of these types of gender-sensitive translations.

2. More basic definitions: Two basic approaches to gender-sensitive translations. Descriptively speaking, there are two basic types of gender-- sensitive approaches to translation: ideological gender-sensitive renderings and translational gender-sensitive renderings. I am presenting these two terms to describe gender-sensitive renderings in order to classify clearly the variations within gender-sensitive translation. These terms are not currently in common use, but they best define what is at issue with these translations. They can be defined as follows:

a. Ideological gender sensitivity: this type of translation seeks to "degenderize" the Bible (that is remove all language that is male specific and excludes women as a result). The argument is that the Bible arose in an era of patriarchalism (where men ruled the culture and women were seen as less than equal). In this approach even male metaphors for God and/or Jesus are changed to more neutral language (so Jesus is not called "Son of Man" but "son of a human being").