What do you think?
Rate this book
Distorting Scripture?: The Challenge of Bible Translation and Gender Accuracy
Recent controversies have rocked evangelicalism on the question: Is gender-inclusive language for human beings faithful and helpful in Bible translation, or does it distort and obscure God's Word? This timely book gets to the core of the ongoing debate.
- GenresChristian
240 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 1998
27 people want to read
About the author
Mark L. Strauss
90 books20 followersMark Lehman Strauss is an American biblical scholar and professor of the New Testament at Bethel Seminary San Diego, which is part of Bethel University, Minnesota. His areas of expertise include New Testament Gospels and Bible translation.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 25, 2023
A ‘MODERATE COMPLEMENTARIAN’ LOOKS AT ‘INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE’
Mark Lehman Strauss is professor of the New Testament at Bethel Seminary San Diego.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1998 book, “In the last decade or so a new controversy has emerged in the field of Bible translation. This issue concerns what are called ‘gender-inclusive’ Bible versions… this debate … promises to be more complex, more confusing and more divisive than any translation controversy in history. The primary reason for this… is that these new versions have been linked closely to the current debate of the role of women in the church and in the home. This controversy pits egalitarians, who believe that men and women should share equal leadership roles in the church and in the home, against complementarians, who argue for distinct and complementing roles for men and women. Egalitarians claim that their position reflects the biblical perspective of full equality of both sexes before God. Complementarians point to the biblical texts affirming male leadership and view the issue as a culture war between those who respect the roles that God has ordained and radical feminists pushing a social agenda… the debate has divided the evangelical church, polarizing many churches, denominations and theological schools.” (Pg. 13-14)
He adds, “Whereas … gender-inclusive renderings arose more or less incidentally in the normal process of Bible translation, but the mid-1980s translators of English Bibles were taking conscious steps to introduce such language in a more consistent and systematic manner. Almost every major version that has been prepared or revised over the last decade has adopted the extensive use of such language. The rationale has always been the need to keep up with the changing state of the English language.” (Pg. 18)
He observes, “It is almost certainly true that the scholars of the IBS and the CBT reversed their decision to publish the NIVI not because of a significant change in conviction concerning the legitimacy of such a translation but because the public outrage and media hype made it impossible to conduct a serious debate.” (Pg. 24)
He explains, “This boo, is an attempt to provide a balanced and reasoned evaluation of the legitimacy of gender inclusive language in Bible translation… I am a (moderate) complementarian rather than an egalitarian. I believe Scripture sets our distinct roles for men and women in the church and the home…. The issue of the role of women in ministry concerns hermeneutics but also focuses on the theology of man and women, the interpretation of certain biblical texts, and the historical role of women in the church. All this is to say that although I am a complementarian, from a linguistic and hermeneutical perspective I see validity in the introduction of inclusive language---when that language demonstrably represents the biblical author’s intended meaning… it is impossible for any of us to approach Scripture free from bias, since we all bring to the table out own backgrounds and experiences. Yet if we can establish some common linguistic and hermeneutical rules, perhaps we can produce Bible translations that are faithful to the original texts and also speak clearly and accurately to the hearts of people today.” (Pg. 25)
He states, “This chapter (Ch. 2) included a brief survey of various translations that use gender-inclusive language in place of masculine generic terms in Hebrew and Greek. All of these versions have certain features in common. (1) They identify their goals as staying current with contemporary English usage… (2) All use a variety of techniques to achieve gender inclusion, including generic terms such as ‘persons’ and ‘human beings,’ introducing plurals for singulars, using indefinite pronouns and switching third-, first- and second person constructions. (3) All retain masculine references for God and traditional titles (‘Son of God,’ ‘Son of Man’) for Jesus Christ… (Pg. 59)
He explains, “For proponents of what I will call the ‘feminist versions,’ it is necessary not only to reproduce in contemporary idiom the meaning of the original text but also to remove the cultural bias in order to capture the text’s significance for today.” (Pg. 60)
He states, “The significant departure that these feminist versions make from the historical and cultural context of the biblical world raises important questions concerning what a Bible translation should and should not be. Are these versions legitimate translations? Or are they radical rewritings of the biblical text? Is it legitimate to alter the human author’s intended meaning in order to achieve some deeper ‘spiritual’ or existentialist meaning?” (Pg. 73)
He acknowledges, “While I would agree that ‘every word of the original is exactly what God wanted it to be,’ we are not talking about original texts here but about English translations of those texts. And every Bible translation involves word substitution… Every translation must change what is SAID… to capture what is MEANT. If changing a singular to a plural captures the sense of the original, then it represents an accurate translation.” (Pg. 85)
He admits, “the most problematic passages for translators are those n which it is very difficult to determine whether or not the author intended masculine terms to be inclusive. Given the patriarchal nature of the biblical culture, this can be a very difficult call in many contexts. The most appropriate and accurate translation is produced by sound principles of interpretation that are applied on a case-by-case basis, not by any political, social or theological agenda.” (Pg. 132-133)
He states, “Masculine terms like ‘Father,’ ‘Lord’ and ‘King’ should be retained because they accurately reflect the historical and cultural sense intended by the original author. Language related to Jesus’ divine sonship and his lordship should also be retained for the same reason. On the other hand, in passages where the stress is clearly on Jesus’ humanity and not on his maleness, the Greek term ‘anthropos’ is accurately translated with terms such as ‘human being’ and ‘human.’ Likewise, Old Testament messianic prophecies that speak of righteous sufferers in general (Ps 34:20) or humanity as a race (Ps 8) may be accurately translated using inclusive language because these texts point typologically, rather than exclusively, to Jesus Christ.” (Pg. 193)
He summarizes, “Another danger in the present debate is the disunity and division that it is provoking in the evangelical church. Although I agree with my complementarian friends that there is a danger in abolishing all gender role distinctions in the church and in the home, I am also convinced that the greatest danger facing the evangelical church is not the increasing role of women but the divisions and schisms that this issue is creating… In the case of the role of women in ministry… the schism appears to be widening, with churches, denominations and theological schools polarizing and shutting down constructive dialogue.” (Pg. 202)
He concludes, “even the most vehement antifeminist must admit that come good has come out of the women’s movement. Although many Christians today do not believe that women should serve in leadership roles over man, few would dispute that they should have the right to vote… The social and political oppression of women is a fact of history… Second, the undeniable connection between the women’s movement and gender-inclusive language is a negative link only if such language actually misrepresents God’s Word. Yet as we have seen throughout this book, this is not necessarily the case… It is here, rather than with sweeping condemnation of gender-inclusive language, that evangelicals must draw their line in the sand.” (Pg. 203-204)
This book will appeal to evangelicals (and other Christians) studying the issue of ‘inclusive language’ in Bible translations.
Mark Lehman Strauss is professor of the New Testament at Bethel Seminary San Diego.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1998 book, “In the last decade or so a new controversy has emerged in the field of Bible translation. This issue concerns what are called ‘gender-inclusive’ Bible versions… this debate … promises to be more complex, more confusing and more divisive than any translation controversy in history. The primary reason for this… is that these new versions have been linked closely to the current debate of the role of women in the church and in the home. This controversy pits egalitarians, who believe that men and women should share equal leadership roles in the church and in the home, against complementarians, who argue for distinct and complementing roles for men and women. Egalitarians claim that their position reflects the biblical perspective of full equality of both sexes before God. Complementarians point to the biblical texts affirming male leadership and view the issue as a culture war between those who respect the roles that God has ordained and radical feminists pushing a social agenda… the debate has divided the evangelical church, polarizing many churches, denominations and theological schools.” (Pg. 13-14)
He adds, “Whereas … gender-inclusive renderings arose more or less incidentally in the normal process of Bible translation, but the mid-1980s translators of English Bibles were taking conscious steps to introduce such language in a more consistent and systematic manner. Almost every major version that has been prepared or revised over the last decade has adopted the extensive use of such language. The rationale has always been the need to keep up with the changing state of the English language.” (Pg. 18)
He observes, “It is almost certainly true that the scholars of the IBS and the CBT reversed their decision to publish the NIVI not because of a significant change in conviction concerning the legitimacy of such a translation but because the public outrage and media hype made it impossible to conduct a serious debate.” (Pg. 24)
He explains, “This boo, is an attempt to provide a balanced and reasoned evaluation of the legitimacy of gender inclusive language in Bible translation… I am a (moderate) complementarian rather than an egalitarian. I believe Scripture sets our distinct roles for men and women in the church and the home…. The issue of the role of women in ministry concerns hermeneutics but also focuses on the theology of man and women, the interpretation of certain biblical texts, and the historical role of women in the church. All this is to say that although I am a complementarian, from a linguistic and hermeneutical perspective I see validity in the introduction of inclusive language---when that language demonstrably represents the biblical author’s intended meaning… it is impossible for any of us to approach Scripture free from bias, since we all bring to the table out own backgrounds and experiences. Yet if we can establish some common linguistic and hermeneutical rules, perhaps we can produce Bible translations that are faithful to the original texts and also speak clearly and accurately to the hearts of people today.” (Pg. 25)
He states, “This chapter (Ch. 2) included a brief survey of various translations that use gender-inclusive language in place of masculine generic terms in Hebrew and Greek. All of these versions have certain features in common. (1) They identify their goals as staying current with contemporary English usage… (2) All use a variety of techniques to achieve gender inclusion, including generic terms such as ‘persons’ and ‘human beings,’ introducing plurals for singulars, using indefinite pronouns and switching third-, first- and second person constructions. (3) All retain masculine references for God and traditional titles (‘Son of God,’ ‘Son of Man’) for Jesus Christ… (Pg. 59)
He explains, “For proponents of what I will call the ‘feminist versions,’ it is necessary not only to reproduce in contemporary idiom the meaning of the original text but also to remove the cultural bias in order to capture the text’s significance for today.” (Pg. 60)
He states, “The significant departure that these feminist versions make from the historical and cultural context of the biblical world raises important questions concerning what a Bible translation should and should not be. Are these versions legitimate translations? Or are they radical rewritings of the biblical text? Is it legitimate to alter the human author’s intended meaning in order to achieve some deeper ‘spiritual’ or existentialist meaning?” (Pg. 73)
He acknowledges, “While I would agree that ‘every word of the original is exactly what God wanted it to be,’ we are not talking about original texts here but about English translations of those texts. And every Bible translation involves word substitution… Every translation must change what is SAID… to capture what is MEANT. If changing a singular to a plural captures the sense of the original, then it represents an accurate translation.” (Pg. 85)
He admits, “the most problematic passages for translators are those n which it is very difficult to determine whether or not the author intended masculine terms to be inclusive. Given the patriarchal nature of the biblical culture, this can be a very difficult call in many contexts. The most appropriate and accurate translation is produced by sound principles of interpretation that are applied on a case-by-case basis, not by any political, social or theological agenda.” (Pg. 132-133)
He states, “Masculine terms like ‘Father,’ ‘Lord’ and ‘King’ should be retained because they accurately reflect the historical and cultural sense intended by the original author. Language related to Jesus’ divine sonship and his lordship should also be retained for the same reason. On the other hand, in passages where the stress is clearly on Jesus’ humanity and not on his maleness, the Greek term ‘anthropos’ is accurately translated with terms such as ‘human being’ and ‘human.’ Likewise, Old Testament messianic prophecies that speak of righteous sufferers in general (Ps 34:20) or humanity as a race (Ps 8) may be accurately translated using inclusive language because these texts point typologically, rather than exclusively, to Jesus Christ.” (Pg. 193)
He summarizes, “Another danger in the present debate is the disunity and division that it is provoking in the evangelical church. Although I agree with my complementarian friends that there is a danger in abolishing all gender role distinctions in the church and in the home, I am also convinced that the greatest danger facing the evangelical church is not the increasing role of women but the divisions and schisms that this issue is creating… In the case of the role of women in ministry… the schism appears to be widening, with churches, denominations and theological schools polarizing and shutting down constructive dialogue.” (Pg. 202)
He concludes, “even the most vehement antifeminist must admit that come good has come out of the women’s movement. Although many Christians today do not believe that women should serve in leadership roles over man, few would dispute that they should have the right to vote… The social and political oppression of women is a fact of history… Second, the undeniable connection between the women’s movement and gender-inclusive language is a negative link only if such language actually misrepresents God’s Word. Yet as we have seen throughout this book, this is not necessarily the case… It is here, rather than with sweeping condemnation of gender-inclusive language, that evangelicals must draw their line in the sand.” (Pg. 203-204)
This book will appeal to evangelicals (and other Christians) studying the issue of ‘inclusive language’ in Bible translations.
November 9, 2024
Strauss does a good job of approaching the topic from an academic yet engaging perspective. This book raises multiple questions ranging from how to translate writings emerging from patriarchal societies to considering cultural roles and norms in the process of inclusivity. Strauss challenged me to question what is and isn't an appropriate translation not based upon cultural reactivity or progressive thought but based on historical practice. Strauss considers the author's intention the most important factor in any text; thus, the most important factor in translation is the production of equal meaning in the receptor text. I appreciate his writings on this matter and his desire to see inclusivity throughout the text because of its role within the scriptures within the author's composition
March 13, 2016
Definitely thorough! The extensive references on how different biblical translations handle particular verses make it a great resource on that one issue, but it's also an interesting and illuminating read as well.
It's interesting to see how different translations render the original text in any context but this is the first book I have read which examines these in the light of one subject.
Differences with other scholars are well argued, although to be fair, I have not read the opposing arguments.
I'm no scholar, but I thought this was a solid and interesting book. The only negative point I would make is that the many pages of examples given in some places feel like they slow the book down when I wanted to keep turning pages to learn, but then I did say it was thorough, didn't I?
It's interesting to see how different translations render the original text in any context but this is the first book I have read which examines these in the light of one subject.
Differences with other scholars are well argued, although to be fair, I have not read the opposing arguments.
I'm no scholar, but I thought this was a solid and interesting book. The only negative point I would make is that the many pages of examples given in some places feel like they slow the book down when I wanted to keep turning pages to learn, but then I did say it was thorough, didn't I?
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews