Related articles and links |  1 of 5

Political correctness can, I believe, influence Bible translation in spite of contrary intentions on the part of translators. The influence mainly affects details of meaning, so it may not seem too serious at first glance. But in the end it threatens the vital doctrine of the plenary inspiration of Scripture.

Plenary inspiration means that the whole of Scripture—every detail of meaning, not just the main point or selected parts—is the Word of God. This doctrine comes from passages where Jesus affirms details of Scripture: "Not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished" (Matt. 5:18 ESV); and from passages like Proverbs 30:5: "Every word of God is flawless" (NIV). In addition, the Bible indicates that we are under the authority of Jesus as our master, who speaks to us through the Bible. Choosing which details in Scripture we will accept makes us the master instead, undermining our relation to Christ.

Now political correctness puts pressure on translators to change details of meaning that do not fit modern egalitarian (or feminist) expectations. How? In Hebrews 12:7 the New International Version says, "Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?" The TNIV changes the last part: "For what children are not disciplined by their parents?" The underlying Greek word is pater in the singular, which means "father," not "parent," and certainly not "parents."

The official TNIV website nevertheless posted an essay defending this choice, arguing that it avoids misunderstanding: "Was he [the author of Hebrews] suggesting that girls never need disciplining?

Or that a mother never should discipline one of her children, male or female, under any circumstances? These would be the clear implications of a literal translation"(www.TNIV.info/resources/evaluation.php).

We see in these words a highly exaggerated fear of someone being excluded. And this theme of alleged exclusion has an affinity to political correctness. Suppose Bill is an advocate of political correctness. He does not like father in Hebrews 12:7, because it is a male term when a similar point could have been made with parents. The wording does not fit egalitarian ideology. How does Bill get this wording changed? He raises the fear that someone will misunderstand. He objects passionately:

The word father includes male bias. Modern readers will misunderstand it as excluding mothers' discipline, or they will hear it as offensive or insensitive to women. To avoid this dangerous misunderstanding, the translators need to eliminate the maleness. But don't worry, the main meaning is still preserved.

How do translators respond to Bill's argument? Translators need not have any politically correct bias themselves. All they need to do is accept Bill's unproven argument that some readers will misunderstand or be offended, and then they must make a change. They must change not only Hebrews 12:7, but also any verse that has a male example or a male representative in its expression of a general principle. In quite a few cases, a male meaning is there in the original. But if we include it in the translation, Bill claims it will be misunderstood. Maybe he even tells a story of his young daughter who misunderstood this kind of statement (not mentioning the fact that children misunderstand hundreds of other correctly translated statements in the Bible).

So Bill has found a powerful recipe for excluding from the English Bible anything that sounds politically incorrect because it uses a male example to teach a general principle, even if that meaning is there in the original Greek. In fact, the TNIV uses a policy of this kind: "Among the more programmatic changes in the TNIV is … the elimination of most instances of the generic use of masculine nouns and pronouns" (TNIV, "A Word to the Reader," p. vii). Such masculine nouns include son and father in Hebrews 12:7.

next page... |  1 of 5

October 7 2002, Vol. 46, No. 11