Overview of The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy
Rob Lister
The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God's Words. By Vern S. Poythress and Wayne A. Grudem. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000, 377 pp., $19.99.
The aim of this article is not primarily to produce a full-scale academic book review. Rather, it is more simply to provide a brief overview of the contents of The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy,1 and to commend to our readership its clear-minded insights regarding the translation of gendered language in Scripture.2 Indeed, since it appears that this debate will continue into the foreseeable future, all thoughtful Christians (clergy and laity alike) committed to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture need to become informed of the issues, the arguments, and the stakes. To that end, The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy offers considerable help. Moreover, in working through the issues, Wayne Grudem and Vern Poythress also cleared up a great deal of inaccuracy and misrepresentation that has characterized much of the recent literature.
In the first chapter, Grudem and Poythress introduce the debate over gender-neutral translations, and they lay out the basic points of emphasis that they intend to pursue in the remainder of the volume. From the outset, the authors make it clear that their concern (contrary to accusations of some) centers on the matter of accuracy in Bible translation (p. 4). Accordingly, this is the primary end to which the authors labor in this book, and their fundamental contention is that in many cases the gender-neutral translations fail to present the most accurate renderings.
In laying out the parameters of their engagement, Grudem and Poythress note that they are not addressing the "radical-feminist versions" that have attempted to undermine the "Fatherhood of God" (p. 5). Rather, they are primarily concerned to interact with translations that retain the traditional language about God, but "generally eliminate generic ‘he,' avoid using the word ‘man' as a name for the human race, and systematically exclude many instances of male-oriented words such as ‘father,' ‘son,' ‘brother,' and ‘man'" where Grudem and Poythress contend that "a male component of meaning is present in the original text..." (p. 5). After arguing that the term "gender neutral" is the most accurate description of such translations (pp. 5-6), the authors demonstrate their even-handedness in the chapter conclusion by virtue of six helpful acknowledgments that offer balance and perspective to their project (pp. 7-8).
In the second chapter, Grudem and Poythress provide helpful background material that clarifies the context for and the development of the debate over gender-neutral translations. In so doing, the authors help even the uninformed reader prepare to follow their discussion on actual translation matters. The third and final preparatory chapter, then, sets the table for the discussion of translating gendered language by hitting the high points in the doctrine of Scripture. That is, the authors discuss what the Bible claims for itself in terms of inspiration, inerrancy, and authority, and then they conclude the chapter by laying out the kind of response that God's Word calls for.
Chapter four turns attention more specifically to the issue of how one proceeds in translating Scripture. This chapter serves as the "wide-angle lens" which introduces the issues and theories that occupy the biblical translator and that guide the specific evaluations of the authors in the later chapters. Central to this chapter is a discussion of the question of how to balance the preservation of meaning and form. To that end, after noting a number of the major difficulties that translators face (pp. 58-63), the authors discuss the development of translation theory throughout the twentieth century (pp. 63ff).3
After pointing out twelve key factors that play into the "total meaning" of a text, Grudem and Poythress note their advocacy for the approach to translation, termed "maximal equivalence,"4 that would serve as a foundational element for the heart of the book's discussion (p. 71). The avowal of this position led to yet a more detailed discussion of the relation between form and meaning and the dangers of ultimately oversimplifying that relationship (pp. 77-78). One consequence of this further discussion is a helpful foray into the classification of the major English translations.
The final section of the chapter (pp. 82-90), denoting four levels of linguistic thought, is of foundational importance (as is the advocacy of "maximal equivalence") to what Grudem and Poythress do in their specific analyses throughout the remainder of the book. As such, even though the authors rightfully flag the section as a bit more technical in content, it is worth slowing down to understand, and it will repay careful reading in the discussions that occupy the remainder of the book.
Chapters five and six move the readers into the specific aspects of the debate over gender-neutral translations. Chapter five identifies places where gender-neutral renderings are permissible or, in some cases, may even be more accurate. Indeed, this demonstrates (contrary to the misrepresentations of some) the claim of the authors that their interest lies in seeking the most faithful and accurate translations, not rigid conformity to gender-specific outcomes.5 Chapter six examines instances of gender-neutral translation that should be deemed unacceptable.6 Then Grudem and Poythress conclude the chapter with the interesting (but not surprising) note that the so-called gender-neutral translations only delete the "male sex indicator" and not the female one, thereby revealing the inconsistent bias that springs from the pressures of feminism (pp. 108-109).
Chapter seven begins the authors' treatment of the most significant problem with gender-neutral translations-an error that affects verses numbering into the thousands-namely, the evacuation of "generic he" (p. 111). By this term the authors have something very specific in mind, and in order to avoid any misunderstandings, it will be helpful here to use their own definition. They specify that they are looking at the question of "whether it is permissible to drop ‘he' when it refers backward to an earlier identifying expression like ‘anyone'" (111).7 Following the authors' example of Matthew 16:24, we will note the differences between the NIV and the NIVI8 renderings:9
NIV: Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."
NIVI: The Jesus said to his disciples, "Those who would come after me must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me." (117).10
To be sure, Grudem and Poythress do not suggest that the various gender-neutral translations obscure the main point of such texts beyond recognition when they adapt a translation that avoids using the "generic he." Rather, their claim is that such translations are not as accurate as they could be, in that they fail to bring over nuances and shades of meaning that are there in the original (namely the masculine markings) and which can be represented in English by their closest equivalents, namely masculine generics (p. 112).11 Following this explanation, the authors briefly describe the not-so-inconsequential losses of meaning that accompany the decision not to use the "generic he" (pp.112-113).
According to Grudem and Poythress, the key component that must be recognized in these trade-offs centers on the differences between "explicit and implicated meaning" (pp. 113-115). There is a subtle shift in meaning when what is explicit in the original is only implicated in a translation or when the implication of the original is made explicit in a translation (p. 113).12 Moreover, gender-neutral translations require a subtle shift in starting point in terms of the representative example that the language brings to mind (p. 114).13 Consequently, subtle though it may be (and it is not always so subtle), shades of meaning are lost that do not have to be lost in an English translation. Finally, in the remainder of this chapter the authors yet again demonstrate the feminist pressure that stands behind the gender-neutral translations (pp. 126-127), and they also show how the guidelines established by the opponents of gender-neutral translation have been misrepresented (pp. 129-132).
In chapter eight, the authors delve deeper into the matter of feminist pressure. Here again, their presentation is even-handed. After clearly exposing the feminist agenda that has been such a large factor, Grudem and Poythress demonstrate the clear conclusion that the objection to "generic he," which cannot be substantiated on "grammatical grounds" (p. 148), stems from an opposition to "male-oriented textual meanings" (p. 158). Chapters nine, ten, and eleven focus on responding to a variety of specific objections to the use of "generic he."14 The responses of Grudem and Poythress throughout these chapters demonstrate over and over that they have a clear linguistic understanding and a firm grasp of the issues involved.15
While "generic he" represents the largest problem in terms of quantity, there are numerous other issues involved in translating passages with gender markings. These additional issues are the special concern of Grudem and Poythress in chapters twelve and thirteen,16 in which they call attention to "the extent of the changes" made in gender-neutral translations (p. 277). Accordingly, they note, in the NRSV for example, that the "total number of unacceptable changes in meaning" could be in excess of 4,600 instances (p. 278). When viewed in that light, one quickly recognizes that this is no small matter at all. Meaning and accuracy are lost in spades. And what is the basis for doing so? As Grudem and Poythress demonstrate time and again, these changes, on the whole, are not called for on the basis of sound grammatical reasoning. Rather, they reflect the feminist aversion to the "male-oriented textual meanings" that are present in the original languages (p. 158).
Chapters fourteen and fifteen respectively offer suggestions for practical application and pull together the authors' final conclusions.17
The contributions of this book are manifold. Remarkably, Grudem and Poythress provide a thorough yet clear volume that is both technical and readable. Scholars and laypersons alike will profit from reading this book. The authors are also to be commended for their charitable tone. They do not presume to know the motives of gender-neutral translators or advocates. They simply concern themselves with the texts that have been produced, and they direct their comments accordingly. Especially for the benefit of the laypersons, Grudem and Poythress offer some helpful practical suggestions, including a few "at-a-glance" tests to ascertain the gender translation policy of the various English translations (pp. 291-292), an encouraging reminder that this debate is not only the concern of scholars (p. 292), and four strategic recommendations for how laypeople can help in this matter (pp. 294-296).
Insofar as the main point of the book is concerned, suffice it to say that in the opinion of this author, The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy convincingly demonstrates its thesis that gender-neutral translations do not preserve all the shades of meaning that they can from the original text. Rather, in their capitulation to feminist pressures these versions do indeed "mute the masculinity of God's words" by giving up the use of terms available to them in the English language, not because of compelling grammatical argumentation, but because these nearest meaning equivalents are marked with masculine meaning (not just masculine form).
What's more, Grudem and Poythress help to clarify issues that others have previously clouded. Indeed they present a technically skilled linguistic analysis in a way that is understandable to the common reader. Moreover, they substantiate their claims by repeated appeal to textual examples. Verse after verse is examined in demonstration of the "maximal equivalence" approach to translation. Clearly there is no special pleading, nor do the authors set up "straw men" to establish their case. For their contribution, then, this volume ought to be welcomed and the authors ought to be thanked. May evangelical readers everywhere give this volume a fair reading and then decide for themselves.
Endnotes
1 In this respect, however, any reviewer will quickly find the inability to surpass the splendid and detailed outline provided in the Table of Contents. Indeed, the Table of Contents is a major strength of the book as it guides the reader through the book's framework, and provides an entry-way into the discussion of translating gendered language for readers of almost any level.
2 At the outset, the reader should also be reminded that this overview cannot delve into all the specifics of the argumentation offered within this volume. It will come as no surprise then, that, herein, the contents and argumentation of the book will be addressed in a broader and less specific manner. Consequently, though this overview aims at accurately summarizing the contents of The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy, the present author in no way claims that this overview will accomplish that task comprehensively. One purpose of this overview then, is to whet the reader's appetite for the fuller and more helpful discussion. Accordingly, the reader is encouraged to work through the book itself.
3 Specifically they discussed the advent and development of the "dynamic equivalence" theory. See the following footnote for a definition.
4 Again, this term is descriptive of a position on the question of whether to preserve form or meaning in translation. There has been development on this question, and several positions have been taken. According to the authors, "‘dynamic equivalence' means choosing an expression that yields equivalent meaning in the target language. ‘Formal equivalence,' by contrast means choosing an expression that has one-to-one matching forms in the target language, regardless of whether the meaning is the same" (pp. 61-62). "Formal equivalence" then, is something of a nave approach in that it is only concerned to match forms. "Dynamic equivalence" represents an advance in translation theory in its concern to translate meaning and not just form. "Maximal equivalence" then, represents yet another advance in its recognition that "form and meaning are not neatly separable" (p. 85, cf. p. 77). In other words, this position recognizes that forms themselves carry subtle shades of meaning. Hence, while recognizing that no translation can account for every shade of meaning in the original text (p. 70), proponents of this approach hold that translators should be responsible not only for conveying the "basic meaning" of a text but also for bringing "over into the receptor language as much of the meaning of the original as they can" (p. 71). The reason for this springs from the simple recognition that everything God inspired in the original languages of Scripture is important (2 Tim. 3:16). Therefore, translators should responsibly try to capture as much of it as possible.
5 Moreover, this chapter also demonstrates the authors' longstanding recognition (once again contra the misrepresentations of some) that languages do indeed change (note the footnote on pp. 92-93).
6 These cases include: "removing reference to males in historical passages" (pp. 101-104), "removing references to males in parables" (pp. 104-105), "removing references to males who are examples of principles" (pp. 105-107), and finally, general rules with exceptions for the Greek and Hebrew terms for "father" and "son" (pp. 107-108).
7 For a further clarification of what they are not speaking about, see their discussion on page 111 as well as section B in chapter five.
8 I.e. the New International Version Inclusive Language Edition.
9 For the sake of brevity we only note one example here. The reader is referred to the discussion in chapters seven and following. Furthermore, the reader is reminded of the pervasiveness of this particular problem.
10 In this example, the gender-neutral translation changes the third person singular pronouns to third person plurals. This is not the only way that gender-neutral translations attempt to get around the masculine marking of "generic he," but it is a fairly prominent method.
11 Hence, for the sake of "maximal equivalence," the person translating into English ought to bring over all that he can, including the masculine markings, since (as the authors later argue at length) "generic he" is available when translating into English.
12 This chapter provides a very helpful discussion of the various losses in meaning that can occur. They are, in fact, too numerous to mention here as the losses pertain to different areas depending on how the gender-neutral translation attempts to get around "generic he." If the reader wants to understand the heart of the issue addressed in this book, then this chapter is a must read. Just to discuss the example already given (Matt. 16:24), however, the loss that occurs involves the shift in starting point that moves from a focus on a representative (male) individual to a focus on a group. As Grudem and Poythress note, "in the NIVI, ‘their cross' in the singular could be construed as a single cross belonging to the whole group jointly. If one reads it this way, the group jointly has responsibility for a single ‘cross,' a group shame. They also have a group life, in which they deny ‘themselves,' their former identity as a group" (p. 117).
13 Here is one place where recalling the explanation of four-tiered linguistic thought at the end of chapter four will aid the reader in following the argument.
14 In general, each of these arguments falls under one of three main headings: "1) arguments for making the Bible more acceptable to modern readers, 2) arguments based on analyzing either ancient or modern languages, and 3) an argument for avoiding misunderstanding" (p. 163). These three headings then, are taken up in the three chapters respectively. One key point that emerges from these chapters bears pointing out here. Some have suggested that "generic he" is undergoing a reduction in frequency in contemporary English. Some have gone further in expressing the anticipation that if "generic he" is not already on the verge of obsolescence in contemporary English, then it will (in their view) inevitably go that way in the not too distant future (p. 213). As Grudem and Poythress abundantly demonstrated, however, it is far too soon to begin laying "generic he" to rest. In fact, there is massive evidence in contemporary English to the contrary (pp. 203-221). Moreover, even granting the charges of "infrequency" for the sake of argument, the issue hinges not on the frequency of the spoken expression in everyday use, but on the understandability of the expression when confronted with it (pp. 212-213). And the fact of the matter is that "generic he" is an understandable expression in contemporary English (and looks to be so into the indefinite future). One semi-ironic reason that this is so stems from the practice (endorsed by feminists) of using "generic she." According to the authors, "the use of "she" keeps "he" understandable, because the two usages are structurally analogous" (p. 214). Beyond that, Grudem and Poythress also offer a convincing argument for the inevitability of "generic he" (pp. 215-221). The outcome of all this is that "generic he" has remained in play and is likely to continue to do so. Hence, if it is available, understandable, and provides the closest meaning equivalent to the text of the original language, then (aside from unusual cases and the exceptions mentioned in this volume) the translator ought to use it to capture the fullest range of authorially intended meaning as possible.
15 Indeed as Valerie Becker Makkai noted in the Foreword, Grudem and Poythress "are a voice of reason in a dispute that is fraught with emotion and misinformation" (p. xvii). These chapters are of tremendous importance in guiding the reader to a clear-headed grasp of the issue.
16 Examples of the issues in these chapters include: "the use of ‘man' for the human race" (pp. 233-242), the phrase "son of man" in the Old Testament (pp. 242-245), individual male examples of a general principle (pp. 246-251), and others.
17 The reader should note that although this review does not contain a discussion of the material in the appendices, this reviewer finds that all six appendices are valuable and offer further aid in understanding the issues.
