The best argument I've heard for inclusive language

[TheMese]

Goodwill to all men! Surely anyone under 70 can see this statement is passe.

I personally don’t have too much problem with ‘gender-inclusive’ bible translations as long as long as there is no “Ideological Gender Inclusivity,” (attempts to remove “objectionable” elements like patriarchalism or even male metaphors for God himself.)

However, the best case I’ve heard for ‘horizontal gender-inclusiveness’ is where St. Paul cites 2 Sam 7:14 in 2 Cor 6:18 changing the Old Testament’s ‘sons’ to an inclusive ‘sons and daughters’!

Also there are similar New Testment examples where the NT writer changes the ‘he’ of the OT to ‘they’ (just like the NRSV and NAB Psalms).

Case closed surely.

 

[Newbie2]

Goodwill to all men! Surely anyone under 70 can see this statement is passe.

I personally don’t have too much problem with ‘gender-inclusive’ bible translations as long as long as there is no “Ideological Gender Inclusivity,” (attempts to remove “objectionable” elements like patriarchalism or even male metaphors for God himself.)

However, the best case I’ve heard for ‘horizontal gender-inclusiveness’ is where St. Paul cites 2 Sam 7:14 in 2 Cor 6:18 changing the Old Testament’s ‘sons’ to an inclusive ‘sons and daughters’!

Also there are similar New Testment examples where the NT writer changes the ‘he’ of the OT to ‘they’ (just like the NRSV and NAB Psalms).

Case closed surely.

Surely not.

The people of the OT and even of the new lived in a male dominated society. Changing the text can alter the historicity and historical context of scripture.

I have no problem either with replacing terms like “mankind”, except when the aforementioned problem could occur.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

If all they changed was the way Paul addresses congregations in the epistles, I don’t think anyone would mind that much.
But when they change Psalm 1:1 to “Blessed are those…”, they cross the line into damaging scripture.

 

[TheMese]

Joel Tunnah:

But when they change Psalm 1:1 to “Blessed are those…”, they cross the line into damaging scripture.

But Paul does this himself. This is my point, that I’ve found something new to say on the debate. I just discovered this:

Finally, with regard to the issue of translational gender inclusivity it is important to note the flexibility shown by the New Testament authors themselves when citing Old Testament texts. A few examples will suffice: in Isaiah 52:7 the prophet states “how beautiful on the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news”; this was incorporated by Paul in Romans 10:15 as “the feet of those who proclaim the good news.” In Psalm 36:1 the psalmist writes, “There is no fear of God before his eyes,” while Paul quotes this in Romans 3:18 as “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Again, the psalmist writes in Psalm 32:1, “Blessed is he whose lawless deeds are forgiven, whose sins are covered,” while Paul in Romans 4:7 has “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.”
Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

Furthermore, I think a literal rendering of the Hebrew would be more like ‘blessed is the one’ not him.

The problem with the Psalms of course is often the one/man referred to is specifically Christ and thus this could be ‘vertical’ rather than mere ‘horizontal gender-inclusiveness’. The Psalms needs special care.

 

[Pious_Mat]

It is one thing for Saint Paul, who in writing his epistles was divinely inspired, to change words from the OT, but quite another thing for us, the non-inspired, to presume that we can do what St. Paul did.

The reason why I’m against inclusive language is exactly because of things like this–translators do not have licence to tamper with words, or presume the meaning of what they are translating. Whether dealing with Classic works of literature or the Bible, the objectivity of the translator is imperative to a good quality.

In fact, if we translators could “assume” things, why don’t Catholic translators take similar liberities in other areas, such as the “brethren” of Jesus. A translation that fully reflects Catholic teaching on how to interpret that verse would probably include the word “relatives” in place of “brethren” but since the original Greek uses the word “brethren” doing so would be a great travesty.

Besides, who are we trying to please in producing inclusive-language translations? The answer is: people who probably aren’t going to take the Holy Scriptures literally anyway.

Bottom line: we’re not writing the New Testament.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Translators change words all the time that’s why we have so many different translations. Inclusive language per se is not wrong, its simply reflecting that certain words were from the context meant clearly to include all and should so reflect despite kyriocentric writing to the contrary. Where inclusive language is perhaps inappropriate is where it relates to a person or group and that is clearly one gendered. Example would be…"Our father…

 

[TheMese]

It is one thing for Saint Paul, who in writing his epistles was divinely inspired, to change words from the OT, but quite another thing for us, the non-inspired, to presume that we can do what St. Paul did.

My argument is with people’s (men’s?) strange attachment to 1950 patriarchal English. Often there is simply nothing in the Greek to justify using the word ‘men.’

Compare the mid-twentieth century RSV with the 21st-century ESV in Romans 10:15

And how can men preach unless they are sent (RSV)

And how are they to preach unless they are sent (ESV)

The fact is the word ‘men’ *‘anthropos’ ‘aner’ *or anything similar is entirely absent from the Greek text. Put bluntly men belongs to the patriarchal syntax of 1950 English. Period.

Furthermore, the RSV verse could be misread as implying women shouldn’t preach. Ever heard of Saint Nino of Cappadocia Equal to the Apostles and the Enlightener of Georgia, who was a woman who preached and introduced Christianity in Georgia.

 

[LilyM]

Goodwill to all men! Surely anyone under 70 can see this statement is passe.

I personally don’t have too much problem with ‘gender-inclusive’ bible translations as long as long as there is no “Ideological Gender Inclusivity,” (attempts to remove “objectionable” elements like patriarchalism or even male metaphors for God himself.)

However, the best case I’ve heard for ‘horizontal gender-inclusiveness’ is where St. Paul cites 2 Sam 7:14 in 2 Cor 6:18 changing the Old Testament’s ‘sons’ to an inclusive ‘sons and daughters’!

Also there are similar New Testment examples where the NT writer changes the ‘he’ of the OT to ‘they’ (just like the NRSV and NAB Psalms).

Case closed surely.

Not a bit. You believe that St Paul, Mr ‘I don’t let a woman teach or have authority’, Mr ‘wives be submissive to your husbands’, all of a sudden became a sensitive new age PC type? I’ll believe that when I see the original manuscript.

Probably a translation thing - at some stage, either in the translation of Hebrew OT passages into Greek NT epistles by Paul himself, or simply in later translations of the NT, someone mucked up.

 

[porthos11]

Goodwill to all men! Surely anyone under 70 can see this statement is passe.

I personally don’t have too much problem with ‘gender-inclusive’ bible translations as long as long as there is no “Ideological Gender Inclusivity,” (attempts to remove “objectionable” elements like patriarchalism or even male metaphors for God himself.)

However, the best case I’ve heard for ‘horizontal gender-inclusiveness’ is where St. Paul cites 2 Sam 7:14 in 2 Cor 6:18 changing the Old Testament’s ‘sons’ to an inclusive ‘sons and daughters’!

Also there are similar New Testment examples where the NT writer changes the ‘he’ of the OT to ‘they’ (just like the NRSV and NAB Psalms).

Case closed surely.

Not really, because the same Paul uses “son” exclusively in other passages.

For example, we have the passage where he says we have been adopted as “sons” in Galatians 4:5. The 1986 NAB changes this to “children”, only to have the Holy See bring back “sons” in the lectionary.

“Sons” is indeed very much important because it’s a relational, not gender issue. A study of Biblical culture and history tells us the role and status of the son, especially the first-born. St. Paul is telling us that our adoption entitles us to the inheritance of the Father, just as the sons of ancient times did. In that sense, all of us, men and women, are sons of God.

 

[dacoobob]

It is one thing for Saint Paul, who in writing his epistles was divinely inspired, to change words from the OT, but quite another thing for us, the non-inspired, to presume that we can do what St. Paul did.

The reason why I’m against inclusive language is exactly because of things like this–translators do not have licence to tamper with words, or presume the meaning of what they are translating. Whether dealing with Classic works of literature or the Bible, the objectivity of the translator is imperative to a good quality.

In fact, if we translators could “assume” things, why don’t Catholic translators take similar liberities in other areas, such as the “brethren” of Jesus. A translation that fully reflects Catholic teaching on how to interpret that verse would probably include the word “relatives” in place of “brethren” but since the original Greek uses the word “brethren” doing so would be a great travesty.

Besides, who are we trying to please in producing inclusive-language translations? The answer is: people who probably aren’t going to take the Holy Scriptures literally anyway.

Bottom line: we’re not writing the New Testament.

Hear, hear.

Besides, the word “man” doesn’t actually exclude women at all, any more than the word “deer” excludes does. “Man” is simply a dual-purpose word in English, sometimes referring to “males” and sometimes to “humanity” or “mankind.” The difference is always clear by context. “Inclusive” language proponents are arguing not only Scripture but with the English language itself. It’s ridiculous.

 

[TDiGaetano]

A lot of the OT scripture uses pronouns like “it” to describe something or someone only in English translations do we see “it” become “he” or “she”.

edit:
From bible.com

New International Version (NIV)

Passage Genesis 3:15:

15 And I will put enmity 
   between you and the woman, 
   and between your offspring [a] and hers; 
   he will crush ** your head, 
   and you will strike his heel."

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition. (DRA)

Passage Genesis 3:15:
15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Luther Bibel 1545 (LUTH1545)

Passage 1 Mose 3:15:
15 Und ich will Feindschaft setzen zwischen dir und dem Weibe und zwischen deinem Samen und ihrem Samen. Derselbe soll dir den Kopf zertreten, und du wirst ihn in die Ferse stechen.

Translation to english using:
ets.freetranslation.com/

15 And I want to set enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and its seed. The same one should stamp out you the head, and you will prick it into the heel.**

 

[dacoobob]

Yes, Hebrew and English (and German) are different languages and have different conventions on the use of gendered pronouns. In English “it” is inappropriate when referring to persons. Translation is not transliteration.

 

[TheMese]

“Inclusive” language proponents are arguing not only Scripture but with the English language itself. It’s ridiculous.

Modern languages are evolving and changing all the time. Hence my intitial reference to the under 70s age group.
A glance at any contemporary publications will show many changes from the 1950s norms. I commend the church in her assertion that her mission is not necessarily subject to convention. However, the worst abuses of linguistic sexism and racism are long gone. Inclusive language only oversteps the mark when exclusively male terms are made unisex.

I don’t accept that man is commonly understood as refering to males and females in normal modern usage:
Example 1: ‘men are made to think consciously about how they describe someone’
Example 2: ‘people are made to think consciously about how they describe someone’

Example 1 would not be understood as referring to both sexes in the modern usage.

Here’s an article on “men’s” rights from the conservative Fox News showing typical contemporay usage of ‘men’ and ‘women’. The deer/doe argument is totally antiquated.

 

[dacoobob]

Modern languages are evolving and changing all the time. Hence my intitial reference to the under 70s age group.
A glance at any contemporary publications will show many changes from the 1950s norms. I commend the church in her assertion that her mission is not necessarily subject to convention. However, the worst abuses of linguistic sexism and racism are long gone. Inclusive language only oversteps the mark when exclusively male terms are made unisex.

I don’t accept that man is commonly understood as refering to males and females in normal modern usage:
Example 1: ‘men are made to think consciously about how they describe someone’
Example 2: ‘people are made to think consciously about how they describe someone’

Example 1 would not be understood as referring to both sexes in the modern usage.

Here’s an article on “men’s” rights from the conservative Fox News showing typical contemporay usage of ‘men’ and ‘women’. The deer/doe argument is totally antiquated.

I agree that languages are always changing, and that norms on this issue have changed somewhat in the last few decades (partly as a result of feminist agitation I might add). But the “inclusive” language of many modernist Bible translations goes way beyond current norms. It sounds unnatural and forced-- because of course it is: it’s added not to conform to actual usage but for political purposes. That’s what I don’t like about it.

If you don’t like the deer/doe argument (apparently it’s antiquated; I thought I’d made it up! ), how about the slippery-slope argument? Once we’ve decided that we can and should modify the Scriptures to make them conform to currently-fashionable political opinions, where do we stop? No doubt this will be dismissed too, but that’s how I feel. I suppose I should mention that I’m only 23, hardly an old fogey. Maybe a young fogey…

 

[mmortal03]

Translators change words all the time that’s why we have so many different translations.

Translators create bad translations all the time, that’s why we have so many bad translations.

 

[Spirithound]

Yes, Hebrew and English (and German) are different languages and have different conventions on the use of gendered pronouns. In English “it” is inappropriate when referring to persons. Translation is not transliteration.

But if you put he or she there, then that’s an interpretation, not a translation. A strict direct translation should give us awkward Hebraisms, AND inappropriate pronouns. Or you can use “their”. That’s commonly used as the English 3rd-person singular neuter pronoun.

 

[TheMese]

I’m not a great fan of inclusive language and am a bit of a conservative but I had previously been unaware St. Paul had quoted the Old Testament in a manner apparently ‘capitulating to the feminist agenda.’ See my earlier posts.

Whilst on the subject of recent changes in our language, yes, I sure it’s been agitated for. Likewise someone will have worked equally as hard to remove racist language.Contemporary language is more PC these days that’s a fact.

A very good case can be made that adelphoi was often used in the classical world to address both sexes. So to translate this as ‘Brothers and sisters’ may well be correct.

If Paul were an English speaker and addressing a mixed church gathering would he really address them as ‘Brothers…’
Does the Pope?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Not a bit. You believe that St Paul, Mr ‘I don’t let a woman teach or have authority’, Mr ‘wives be submissive to your husbands’, all of a sudden became a sensitive new age PC type? I’ll believe that when I see the original manuscript.

Probably a translation thing - at some stage, either in the translation of Hebrew OT passages into Greek NT epistles by Paul himself, or simply in later translations of the NT, someone mucked up.

No one can get around Paul’s very mysogonistic approach but Paul must always be read in context. When you detoxify his imperial language you discover that women were of course doing some preaching and teaching. Such was causing great consternation among Gentiles who were “Greekathized” into a anthopomorphic worldview. Paul obviously thought it better to get the converts first and worry about equality later so he stepped down from his statements about equality and appears to support a continuation of patriarchial power. It’s yet unclear whether he bought into that thinking himself or just took an easy way to deal with a problem.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Translators create bad translations all the time, that’s why we have so many bad translations.

Of course they do. You have removed the context of my statement and your response in no way disputes it whatsoever, so I wonder the point you are attempting to make?

 

[dacoobob]

Of course they do. You have removed the context of my statement and your response in no way disputes it whatsoever, so I wonder the point you are attempting to make?

The point he’s trying to make (I believe) is that just because a translator or even many translators do something “all the time” as you put it, doesn’t make their actions/interpretations correct.

Spirithound:

But if you put he or she there, then that’s an interpretation, not a translation. A strict direct translation should give us awkward Hebraisms, AND inappropriate pronouns. Or you can use “their”. That’s commonly used as the English 3rd-person singular neuter pronoun.

You’re talking about transliteration, not translation. A certain amount of interpretation is an integral part of the translation process. Think about when you had to translate texts in your language classes at school. If you tried to transliterate word-by-word, not only would you find it impossible (words don’t always have a one-to-one equivalent in other languages), but many sentences would be completely incomprehensible, or convey unintended meaning-- because of differences in word order, usage of tenses/word gender/pronouns/negatives/etc, and idiomatic phrases.

As for “their” as a 3rd-person singular neuter pronoun, such usage is slangy and informal-sounding at best. It’s just not standard usage (yet?); usuing it would merely to lead to confusion with the 3rd-person plural pronoun. Take the Genesis passage you cite:
“And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
they will crush your head,
and you will strike their heel.”
Someone reading this for the first time would naturally read this as a plural pronoun.

TheMese:

I’m not a great fan of inclusive language and am a bit of a conservative but I had previously been unaware St. Paul had quoted the Old Testament in a manner apparently ‘capitulating to the feminist agenda.’ See my earlier posts.

I wasn’t aware of Paul’s apparently “inclusive” language either, I find the revelation interesting to be sure. But I think we have to keep a couple of things in mind here:

1. As stated before, WE are neither Apostles, nor Church Fathers, nor inspired Scripture authors. It’s not our prerogative to infer what St. Paul “would have done” based on these examples or to make changes beyond what he did.
2. Paul’s use of apparent inclusive language was in no way comprehensive or systematic. We can’t be sure, of course, but I strongly doubt that his motives for using such language had anything to do with politics or an attempt to reinterpret the OT understanding of the nature of God, unlike modern “inclusive” language proponents. It was simply using natural language. If anything, I believe his usage shows that St Paul clearly understood that the words “brothers” or “men” in the OT text automatically included the sense of “brothers and sisters” or “humans”.