In Part One Rebecca wrote about her experience of reading the ESV translation of the Bible in a month, and the impact of realizing that the Greek word “adelphoi” had been intentionally translated as “brothers” rather than as “brothers and sisters” 135 times with the following footnote added:
“Or brothers and sisters. The plural Greek word adelphoi (translated ‘brothers” refers to siblings in a family. In New Testament usage, depending on the context, adelphoi may refer either to men or to both men and women who are siblings (brothers and sisters) in God’s family, the church.”
Today she addresses why this is important and notes the distancing effect of the repetitive footnote for female readers.
I had read my Bible for years without being particularly affected by adelphoi being translated as “brothers.” Why, then, am I now so up in arms about the gender exclusive language? First and foremost, because I think the choice misrepresents the words and intentions of Scripture. The Greek leaves space for men and women; the English does not. I believe that we ought to be accurate to the original words of Scripture. Second though, the words that we read day after day, especially in a context of protestant, evangelical Christianity, significantly affect our understanding of the nature of reality.
Contemporary evangelicals have an intense relationship (to say the least) with the doctrine of Scripture, specifically in the areas of inerrancy, accuracy, and reliability. It has become a theological hill to die on, a way to separate the sheep from the goats. For an inerrantist, translation is awkward. One rarely sees the claim of inerrancy or inspiration applied to translation (e.g. see The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article X), which means that the Scriptural texts that the majority of Christians read daily and worship with corporately are not considered strictly inerrant. But, because of a strong doctrine of (original manuscript) inerrancy, an equally strong doctrine of providence, and a pride in “essentially literal” translation principles (see “Translation Philosophy”, from the Preface to the ESV), the translated text is treated as such in practice. Gender exclusive choices like “brothers” or other traditional translation choices (dating back to the Vulgate and other early translations) are used to make theological claims. They are not treated as “this our current and best attempt to capture the original language” but as truth which shapes church practice. I think this is irresponsible; we must retain some sense that translation, even with the best of literal intentions, is always interpretive.
It is not popular, in a conservative theological setting to admit that our understanding of the Word of God itself has been shaped by particular English (or Latin or German) translation choices. See, for example, the work of N.T. Wright and the response from John Piper. Yet, as the translators of the ESV acknowledge, our understanding of “slave” and “slavery” is affected by our own sordid history, and here the translators do use the American cultural context as a justification for translation choices. Once we have the humility to admit that there is leeway in translation to respond to changing contexts, it doesn’t necessarily follow that our current Biblical interpretations are wrong. It does however prompt me to ask why this principle seems to be applied inconsistently. After all, in the case of “slave” and “slavery” the ESV “seeks to express the nuance of meaning in each context.” Why not with adelphoi?
There’s a discussion to be had about “explicit” passages concerning the roles of women in the church, but currently the interpretation of these passages takes place in an environment in which women are already suggested to be additions or afterthoughts to the concerns of Scripture rather than among the primary recipients. Choices such as the one ESV translators made for adelphoi contribute to a subtle but consistent marginalization of women in the church. The question of the roles of women in the church (and other social relationships) needs to be asked after we’ve questioned an unbiblical tendency toward patriarchy in translation choices.
I care that adelphoi is translated as brothers when it could be translated as brothers and sisters because I shape my life by the word of God, and it’s actually quite important whether or not the Scriptures were written to the whole body of Christ or only to my brothers. I care how adelphoi is translated because words shape our beliefs, our choices, and our cultural realities, and the current reality of accepted sexism in evangelical Christianity is not befitting the body of Christ. I care that adelphoi is translated as brothers because when I open the Word of God each morning, it shouldn’t be a struggle to believe that it is fully the words of life for me, a sister in the family of God.
YOUR TURN: How does the treatment of gendered/non-gendered language impact your reading of the Bible? What versions have you found helpful in this area? (Read Part 1 of this 2-part series here.)
Footnote:  I’ll freely acknowledge that this claim is based in my personal experience of being raised in evangelical Christian communities. The “literal” English translations of the Scriptures (NASB at that point) were treated as inerrant, both by lack of discussion of the original text as key to our understanding of inerrancy and by the weight placed on particular English words. Different possible translations of key words were only used to expand one’s understanding of a passage, never to correct error. The first time I heard anyone mention the possibility of translation affecting our understanding incorrectly was during a university lecture on Beowulf.
From the Editors: If you don’t have one, put a gender-accurate Bible on your Christmas list! We like the 2011 NIV and the NRSV. These translations use gender-inclusive language only where the grammar and/or context supports it.
Read more about how translation impacts gender issues by other Junia Project authors here and here. Also recommended:The ESV Men’s Only Club by Marg Mowczko, and Battle for the Bible Translation in Christianity Today. For suggestions on choosing a translation for personal use, we recommend “How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth” by Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss.
Latest posts by Rebecca Card-Hyatt (see all)
- Footnoted: Was the Bible Written Only for Men? Part 2 - November 30, 2013
- Footnoted: Was the Bible Written Only for Men? Part 1 - November 29, 2013