Not a malestream translation?
Suzanne McCarthy on Better Bibles Blog introduces what she intends to be a series of posts looking at the translations of some key verses used in debates about women and their role in the church. This plays into an ongoing, and as far as I can see, often vitriolic inter-evangelical dispute focusing on the TNIV (intended to be a gender-accurate / gender-neutral / gender inclusive or whatever) revision of the NIV. There are sites dedicated to discussing it, attacking it and defending it.
Before commenting directly, I should note some disclaimers. I look on this dispute from a certain distance, from the other side of the Atlantic (and it does seem to be a particularly American dispute) and from a different ecclesial tradition. Sometimes I look on with bemusement and bafflement at the way in which the whole argument about translation is a proxy fight over so-called egalitarian and complementarian understandings of the role of women (Suzanne’s particular concern here.)
As far as I can see, if anyone asked any NT writer whether they were complementarian or egalitarian, they would have said “Huh??” One of the areas I agree, for example with Dale Martin (see this post) is that biologically and conceptually, Paul thought about gender entirely differently to any contemporary reconstruction. Part of the problem, in my view, is that some evangelicals (in particular) don’t give enough space to theological work in moving from ancient text to contemporary interpretation, and therefore translation is made to assume a burden too heavy for it to bear. For them, “my” view must be found in the text, not developed from the text, and therefore the text has to say what “I” need it to say.
In identifying the problems with arguments and disputes over translating these verses concerning women Suzanne notes that
“My major concern has always been that of intense regret that there seems to be no Bible that the evangelical Christian community can share. No Bible has replaced the King James Version in that respect.”
I find this concern laudable, but in one sense not ambitious enough, and in another a counsel of perfection. First I would say, why stop at the evangelical community? If accuracy (or perhaps better, fidelity) of translation is primary, shouldn’t it commend itself more broadly? And in principle, shouldn’t it be the case that if those of widely differing theological standpoints and biases can agree on a translation, it is likely to be more faithful to the original? In principle this has been the idea behind a number of translations, although arguably the net could have been more widely cast even for the RSV / NRSV tradition in which evangelicals were probably not well-enough represented. (I note also in passing that such a common translation would have to include the Apocrypha)
At the same time, I would have to note that the KJV won its way slowly, and not without considerable controversy. Then the major flashpoint was using language like “church” instead of “congregation” which made it deeply unacceptable, initially, to Puritans. Its lack of theological footnotes, the force of the Jacobean state, and its judicious continuity with the tradition of Tyndale were as influential as any perceived linguistic superiority. It is doubtful whether, in a much more widely diverse and divided church, in a world in which English comes in several different standard varieties (e.g. American, British, Indian etc), and in the whirlwind of free-market publishing that ultimately funds and promotes translations, the KJV would have achieved the degree of common usage that an earlier and more circumscribed age made possible.
While I by no means think it is the whole enterprise (see here), I do think the idea of seeking common translations of controversial verses is a worthwhile task, and I look forward to the forthcoming posts in this series, which might at least help clarify some of the issues whirling in the maelstrom (or possibly male-strom) around the TNIV.