More on Intentionality and Gender-Neutrality

My last post was unclear about intentionality. Let me attempt to clarify by saying that there are at least two views on the intentionality of the TNIV and NLT translators. One group believes the intentions of the translators are cultural sensitivity and political correctness. The other group believes the intention of the translators is accuracy. Therefore, in either group, I say people instead of Man, fellow believer instead of brother. I do so in the former group because it is sensitive to readers. I do so in the latter group because it more accurately corresponds to the meaning of the text (God did not just create men; "sister" is also intended by the text). And in order not to create a false distinction between the two, both intentions might accurately represent the concerns of the translators. Cultural sensitivity, of course, creates fear in some concerning what we might change next in order to be sensitive to our neighbor. Will we stop referring to God with gender? Will we change other parts of the text lest we offend – references to homosexual sin, for instance? That is the fear, though it is a poor argument against what is.

There is another, more conservative, group, that is opposed to gender-neutral language simply because it does not translate the text word-for-word. This group says that "God created Man" was the phrase spoken by God and therefore we should not touch it. In fact, to touch it would be to change the actual words of God. I understand this concern and share it to some extent, but it also strikes me as being somewhat naive since even the most literal translations are correctly referred to as only being "essentially" literal. Meaning, of course, that there is no way we can translate from the Hebrew and the Greek word-for-word without changes and have it still make perfect sense in English. (The NASB makes this clear by italicizing words not found in the most reliable manuscripts.) There is also the issue of words with multiple meanings, and translators must decide which meaning is meant by the text. Sometimes this is a simple matter, while other times it becomes extremely complex (and sometimes the "simple" cases can be some of the most complex). When we touch the text, we necessarily change it. Our goal, of course, is to represent the original language and the authorial intention as accurately as possible. That is the NASB and ESV’s translators’ goal, and I believe that is the TNIV and NLT’s translators’ goal. And if you do not trust these translators’ intentions, then teach your children to read Hebrew and Greek. Then they can compare the multiplicity of manuscripts and interpret the scriptures as seems best to them.

Fear is at the heart of this argument. Fear that we might lose the integrity of the scriptures. Fear that we might offend the holiness of God. Fear that the words we use or don't use might offend our neighbors. Fear that our copy of the scriptures will be somehow less than trustworthy, less than inerrant, less than inspired.

We are prone to error. We make mistakes. We mess up. We muddy what is clear and attempt to clarify what is necessarily muddy. God, however, is gracious, strong, and faithful. The scriptures will be as perfect and as pure and as true and as authoritative for our grandchildren as they are for us.