|
VOW |
INCLUSIVE or EXCLUSIVE TRANSLATION -- REVISITED -- by Tracee Hackel In the last article I wrote for VOW I addressed the issue of inclusive language as it is used in modern Bible translation. In many cases, our attempts to be inclusive of all humanity have led to the exclusion of significant pieces of the biblical revelation concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ—the one to whom all of Scripture is meant to point. As an example of this kind of de-Christing of the Bible that occurs in our attempts to be inclusive I used the latest promotional material for the Presbyterian Women’s Churchwide Gathering and their translation of John 1:1,3-4, that substituted the male pronoun “he” with “[God].” Since that time new promotional materials have been produced and the translation of these verses from John’s Gospel have been changed. In the previous materials for the Gathering no source was cited for the translation of John’s Gospel that was given. This time around the PW promoters have named the source of the alternate translation. The rendering comes from An Inclusive-Language Lectionary, copyright 1988 by the Division of Education and Ministry, National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. and it reads like this: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....all things were made through the Word, and without the Word was not anything made that was made. In the Word was life, and the life was the light of all.While this change does correct the problem the previous translation had of confusing the person referred to in verses 3 and 4, it still leaves out any male personal pronouns. So, does this solve the problem and make everybody--those concerned with good translation and those concerned to include everyone--happy? Unfortunately the answer is, “no.” This translation does eliminate one of the problems with the previous material, but it does not in any way solve the other—the person of Jesus Christ is still excluded. Any good Biblical or Theological Dictionary will tell you if you look up the word logos, the Greek for “Word,” that the concept of the logos in first century Greek thought was an impersonal one, it was considered a kind of “life force” or “divine ideal.” Logos was considered to be the very wisdom of the universe, a key to unlock all the mysteries of life. To be in touch with the logos was to have understanding of life and to be wise, to possess a secret knowledge of the meaning and significance of one’s existence. John’s intent in using the word logos as a designation for the second person of the Trinity in the opening of his gospel was to show that Jesus Christ was this ‘divine ideal’ that in him was found all the wisdom of God; the key to unlock the mysteries of the universe, the way to understand the meaning and significance of all that existed was found in Jesus Christ alone. The coupling of this abstract Greek philosophical concept with personal male pronouns in these first few verses was no accident. John is showing us that the “Word” is not an impersonal life force, that God is not a distant, abstract deity. Jesus is this “Word”—Jesus is God come to live among us in human flesh. The “Word” is a person, a very real, flesh and blood, male, human being. John’s whole point in his prologue is to teach us the magnificent mystery of the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ. To refuse to use the masculine singular personal pronouns that John spells out in the original Greek, is to miss his point entirely. In this “inclusive-language” version of John 1:1,3-4 the personhood of the second person of the Trinity is excluded. As long as the “Word” is not designated as “he” then no connection between the logos and the man Jesus Christ is necessary. An abstract, impersonal, Greek, philosophical interpretation of the logos is maintained where the Gospel writer’s clear intent is to shatter that understanding and rebuild it with Christian content. John makes use of a point of contact with the popular culture of the time to expound upon the truth about God. This new translation being provided on the latest PW Gathering materials is really no better than the last one. In its attempt to be inclusive it excludes precisely what Scripture is meant to teach us about, namely, the person and work of Jesus Christ through whom we know God the Father and enjoy the new life given to us by the Holy Spirit. In the end, I am left with the same questions I had about the last translation:
Is this really necessary? Why do we have to do such grammatical acrobatics?
Why are we so intent upon creating obscurity where clarity should be our
goal? Why do we have to eliminate male pronouns when we are talking
about Jesus Christ? Even if we are women, we are not ignorant or
stupid, as these translators seem to presume in their faulty attempts to
hide Jesus’ masculinity from us. We know that Jesus was male. Why
not say so?
|