Bottom Line: According to some Bible translators, English preferences of traditional Christians are not legitimate changes in the language, but left-of-center gender tampering is.
Lately translators of the Bible have decided that translating a patriarchal language, ancient Greek, into patriarchal English might be too confusing to 18-34 year olds.
Why confuse the poor 34 year old “young people?”
If the translator doesn’t decide for them, these 18-34 year olds might decide for themselves whether the writers of the New Testament meant to embrace patriarchy by not modifying ancient Greek or if the NT authors disagreed with patriarchy, but were stuck with the language they had.
After all anyone who has worked with 18-34 year olds knows they are eager readers of ancient documents, if we just make the text accessible to them by taking all the controversy out of it!
Evidently, for centuries, men and women read the Bible in English not at all like their own and still got something out of it . . . but in this era of declining literacy (measured by actual reading of texts) the Book must change and not the people.
This is as naive as the English teacher who hopes “the kids” will read Shakespeare if only she translates the “naughty bits” in crude, contemporary street English.
But at least some translators are honest enough to admit that this absurd argument is not the main motive for the change. To quote the preface to the NRSV:
During the almost half a century since the publication of the RSV, many in the churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text. The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture. As can be appreciated, more than once the Committee found that the several mandates stood in tension and even in conflict . . .
Despite this tension (which at least the NRSV translators admit), they press on with changes since the concerns of some about English (not NT Greek which is not changing!) matter to them.
“English must change and our Bible translations with it!” said “many in the churches.” (I’d like a count on how many said this.) Whoever these “many” are they forced scholars to stand in tension or conflict with best translation practices and made them try to resolve it . . . that is clout!
Now notice what has happened to folk who have pressed for a change in the English language that the translators do not like:
Furthermore, in the tradition of the King James Version one will not expect to find the use of capital letters for pronouns that refer to the Deity—such capitalization is an unnecessary innovation that has only recently been introduced into a few English translations of the Bible.
The piety of Christian readers who have dared to introduce “innovation” in the English language is sniffed away. It is recent (unlike concerns with “literary sexism?”) and (rightly) is seen as having no reflection in the Greek text.
But why the double standard? People actually likely to be in the Church have increased in reverence in their use of English . . . now capitalizing the pronouns for the Divine (God is great and He should be worshiped.) This is a change in English that some people think is important to show reverence to a God that demands reverence.
There is not, after all, one word in the Bible about literary sexism, the Bible keeps on using Hebrew and Greek without notice that is “patriarchal,” but there is a fair bit about respect to God. This went to the point that we are not even sure what the name of God is in Hebrew. . . since the keepers of the text would not write it down directly. As the preface to the NRSV points out:
Careful readers will notice that here and there in the Old Testament the word Lord (or in certain cases God) is printed in capital letters. This represents the traditional manner in English versions of rendering the Divine Name, the “Tetragrammaton” (see the notes on Exodus 3.14, 15), following the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue. While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced “Yahweh,” this pronunciation was not indicated when the Masoretes added vowel sounds to the consonantal Hebrew text. To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai meaning “Lord” (or Elohim meaning “God”). Ancient Greek translators employed the word Kyrios (”Lord”) for the Name.
There is therefore some justification for showing strong piety to any reference to the Divine in translation. Many English users have changed their own use of English (since the time of the KJV) out of deep concern for literary disrespect for the Divine Name.
Now I am not sure what the best translation choice is regarding Divine pronouns . . . though I tend to capitalize them in my own use of English.
I do know this:
Bible translators care more about some people’s extra-Biblical concerns than others. Bible translators care more about some changes proposed in English than others.
My suggestion: avoid Bible translations that carefully monitor changes in “academic English” (citing college/high school text books as their best example of change), but dislike changes in English that come from the pious. Text books are the pieces of literature most subject to political pressure and the least “literary” works published . . . unless one counts blogs!
Also avoid translations that take a great ancient work and translate with a major goal of pleasing 18-34 year old readers . . . by intentionally obscuring difficult passages and issues from them.
My position? Whatever one thinks about where modern English should go, translate old books in the English closest to the original language. To give a different example: If the original is not sensitive and calls enslaved persons “slaves,” then show that insensitivity and translate the word “slave.” Let the reader decide why the original writer was thinking!