Does Male Dominance Tarnish Our Translations?: Obedience to Whose Word?

Should we attempt to “improve” or “clear up” what the Holy Spirit chose to do?

Recently we led a study in a Roman Catholic church on biblical teachings about men-women relationships. We were pleased to find that the church had provided seminar participants copies of Good News for Modern Man—a translation now generally approved for Roman Catholics.

In answer to a question, we asked the women to read 1 Corinthians 11:3–12, which describes in detail how men and women were to pray and prophesy in the church at Corinth.

The passage begins (literal translation from the Greek), “Indeed, I want you [plural] to know that the head of every man is the Christ; and head of every woman is the man; and head of Christ is God.”

This is a difficult passage; the sense of some of the rest of the chapter depends on what Paul meant here by the word “head.” We explained that “head” in Greek usage (according to the standard Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell, Scott, Jones, McKenzie) does not mean “boss” or “final authority.” In classical Greek “head” usually meant a person’s physical head; as a figure of speech it sometimes stood for the whole person or for life itself (e.g., “I stake my head on that”); or it could also mean the brim or upper part of something, as the “head” of an architectural column. A more common meaning was source, or origin, as we use it in the “head of the Mississippi River.” This was the meaning it apparently had for Paul in Colossians 1:18: “He [Christ] is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.”

We began to explain to the women that this meaning of origin or source that Paul used elsewhere made good sense in the phrase “and the head of every woman is the man” in 1 Corinthians 11:3 because five verses later (1 Cor. 11:8) Paul states, “man was not made from woman, but woman from man” (referring to the account of creation in Gen. 2:18–25). It was clear, however that the group had not the slightest idea of what we were talking about. One of them handed us her Bible and we read, “But I want you to understand that Christ is supreme over every man, the husband is supreme over his wife, and God is supreme over Christ.”

“We’re sorry,” we said, “but that translation is not what the original writing says. The translator, unfortunately, is giving his opinion about how the words should be interpreted, rather than giving you the actual words that Paul wrote, which are ‘the head of every man is the Christ; and head of every woman is the man; and head of Christ is God.’ ”

They were troubled, of course. Only in recent years had they been encouraged to study the Bible for themselves. And now we had to tell them that the Bible in their hands was not faithfully translating what the Greek said—it was instead giving a commentary on what the translator thought it meant and what its application should be.

But then, a few verses later, in 1 Corinthians 11:10, we came to another passage where interpretation got in the way of the translator’s faithful handling of the text. The literal Greek text in this verse is: “Because of this, the woman ought to have authority upon the head because of the angels.” That is all it says.

Of the passage’s several possible interpretations, we think Paul was saying that the women who were praying and prophesying in the church at Corinth (the subject under discussion here) should have some symbol on their heads (perhaps a veil or a special hair style) to show that they had authority from God to speak.

Now this is our interpretation or application of the words that Paul wrote. Bible scholars have the right and responsibility to work hard, weighing and evaluating what they think Bible passages mean and how they should be applied. This is interpretation and it is one of the purposes of Bible commentaries. But this is not the responsibility of the translator; his job is to tell us what the passage says.

Note how Good News for Modern Man translates 1 Corinthians 11:10: “On account of the angels, then, a woman should have a covering over her head to show that she is under her husband’s authority.”

The Greek text says nothing about husbands or men. Paul used no words that can be translated husband or man in that passage. The translator, instead of telling us what Paul said, added to the text his personal interpretation and application of Paul’s words.

We hated having to tell this group of women who were eager to study the Bible that their version was not telling them what Paul said, but rather what the translator thought it meant. They were crestfallen. “Then how can we ever know what the Bible actually says?” they asked. We had no easy answers except to urge them to consult several translations, especially committee translations such as the Jerusalem Bible, Revised Standard Version, and New International Version.

That experience started us on a broader examination of what appear to be traces of male chauvinism in Bible translations we use. Many of our current translations have been the work of committees of biblical scholars, including the King James Version, the Revised Standard Version, the New English Bible, and the New International Version. We also have several currently popular one-person translations, including Living Letters (Kenneth Taylor); the New Testament in Modern English (J. B. Phillips); and Good News for Modern Man (Robert Bratcher).

We doubt if any of the men on translation committees or who did their own translations are conscious of any male chauvinism. All are honest, godly scholars, dedicated to doing their best work, trying faithfully to bring to today’s readers the message of the Bible.

But like all of us, these translators grew up in a society that assumed males should dominate home, church, and society at large. It has been as much a part of our culture (and of most pagan cultures) as the air we breathe. Translators naturally tend to read and interpret the Bible from the framework in which they have lived and thought.

Meanwhile, Christians now trying to work through the actual teachings of the Bible on the strategically important issue of men-women relationships are thrown off course by translations that may reflect more of the translator’s interpretations and biases than the actual words of the Bible.

As examples of this situation, we have chosen four short passages to show how the individual views of translators may have influenced the way they translated the Bible.

In looking at these passages, we must consider how faithful the translations are to the Greek text—not whether we “like” or agree with what the translator says. The translator’s responsibility is to say neither more nor less than the inspired writers of Scripture said.

If we really believe in the absolute authority of the Word of God, we dare not add to or subtract from what the text says. If the text itself is ambiguous—the meaning is not clear or is open to several possible interpretations—conscientious translators must leave the material ambiguous and open to several possible interpretations. If they “clear up” the difficult section by choosing which interpretation they like best and incorporate that into their translation, are they not claiming for themselves the divine inspiration that belongs only to the Word of God as it was originally “God-breathed” by the Holy Spirit? If the Holy Spirit inspired words or thoughts that are ambiguous or open to several interpretations, should we attempt to “improve” or “clear up” what the Holy Spirit chose to do?

Translators may surely choose to footnote certain sections and give possible interpretations and even indicate what their preference is; but their own preference should not influence the text itself.

Let’s look at four short verses that may illustrate the problems involved.

1. 1 Corinthians 11:3. The committee translations of this verse are clearly more faithful to the text than the one-man paraphrases. Both Living Letters and Good News for Modern Man have tried to “clarify” the text by giving the translator’s interpretation of the meaning of “head”—interpretations not supported by Liddell, Scott, Jones, McKenzie. For Greek-speaking people in New Testament times who had little opportunity to read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, there were many possible meanings for “head” but “supreme over” or “being responsible to” were not among them. If the meaning of “head” in this passage is ambiguous, we are far safer to struggle with the ambiguity and examine all the possibilities than to be misled about what the writer originally said.

2. 1 Corinthians 11:10. This is confessedly difficult. We cannot be sure what “because of the angels” means. The text does not spell out what was the “authority” on the head. “Veil” does not appear anywhere in this chapter but may have been what Paul had in mind. Or it may not have been. Should we second-guess him in the text, or leave the interpretations for the commentaries?

All the translations except King James and RSV add “a sign of” to the text. This probably was what the author had in mind—but he did not say it. Should the translator do so—without indicating that he is adding something?

All the one-man translations—Taylor, Phillips, Bratcher—added man or husband to this passage despite the fact that Paul says nothing about a man or a husband. (The same Greek word anẽr is used both for man and husband.) The unsophisticated reader is led to think that Paul wrote about a woman being under a man’s or her husband’s authority. If that was what Paul had in mind, he did not say it. What Paul wrote is open to several interpretations, but most readers of these paraphrases will never know that; they think they are reading a translation of what Paul said, and are unaware they are only reading commentaries on what individual translators think Paul meant.

3. Romans 16:1. This is interesting because not one of the translations says what Paul said. Paul said, “I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, a deacon in the church at Cenchrea.” There is no such Greek word as deaconess. The text simply says she was a “deacon.” The word diakonos appears 21 times in the writings of Paul in the New Testament. A literal translation for the word is “servant.” Paul, Timothy, Tychicus, Epaphras, and the church leaders in 1 Timothy 3:8, 12, are all called “deacons.” The term is also used of secular leaders in Romans 13:4.

Exactly what the role of “deacons” was in the church of the New Testament is a subject of considerable debate among Bible scholars. Was it technically a church office? If so, at what point in the development of the church did it become one? These are questions for interpreters and church historians to deal with.

The question for translators is: How shall they translate the word diakonos when it applies to Phoebe and others such as Paul, Timothy, Apollos and the church leaders in 1 Timothy 3:8, 12?

Although the King James Version is less chauvinistic than some other versions, this passage is one great exception. Only in reference to Phoebe does the King James translate Paul’s word as “servant.” In 1 Timothy 3:8, 12, it is translated “deacon” but in all other places the King James uses the term “minister.” Only of Phoebe is Paul’s word diakonos translated “servant.”

The modern translations don’t do much better. The Revised Standard Version and Phillips speak of her as “deaconess” although there is no such word in Greek. The NIV follows King James with “servant” and a footnote saying “deaconess.” Good News for Modern Man uses “servant,” but in this case cannot be faulted, for it always translates diakonos as “servant” or “helper”—never using “deacon” or “minister.”

Living Letters does the gravest injustice to Phoebe. It translates diakonos as “deacon” in reference to the leaders of the church at Philippi (Phil. 1:1) and of the church leaders in Ephesus (1 Tim. 3:8, 12). In reference to Timothy, it translates diakonos as “pastor” (1 Tim. 4:6). But of Phoebe in Romans 16:1, Living Letters says, “a dear Christian woman from the town of Cenchrea.” Reading this, no one would ever guess that Paul called her a “deacon [or servant] of the church at Cenchrea.” Although in many passages Living Letters adds material in the effort to clarify the text, in this passage it omits an important idea.

4. 1 Corinthians 14:34. This is familiar to most people. It is Paul’s famous command for women to be silent in the church, and here, too, preconceived ideas of the translators sometimes come to the foreground, adding to and interpreting Paul’s actual statements.

This is another of Paul’s ambiguous statements. He says here that women should “be silent in churches because to speak is not allowed to them, but let them subject themselves [or be in subjection] just as the law says.” Yet three chapters earlier in the same book (1 Cor. 11) Paul gave instructions about how women were to pray and prophesy in public gatherings.

Careful Bible scholars know that there is no Old Testament law that says women are not permitted to speak in religious gatherings or that they should be subordinate. Some have pointed to Genesis 3:16 as the law of subordination: “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” However, this was the curse that came as the result of sin, and it is certainly questionable to treat the curse (the effects of sin) as a “law” to intensify these effects and make them worse!

What law was Paul referring to? He may have been speaking of some written or unwritten Roman law, or of civil Greek law about women not speaking in public, or some accepted but unwritten regulation. He may have been thinking about rabbinical teachings that interpreted the Old Testament, or even about the regulations that he himself is giving about activities in the Corinthian church. No one knows for sure what Paul had in mind. But should translators “clear it up” by overlaying it with their own interpretations?

The RSV handles this passage quite literally. The King James gives a fairly literal translation except that “let them subject themselves” is changed to the stronger “they are commanded to be under obedience.” The Greek text says nothing about commands or obedience.

The NIV, Phillips, and Good News have added their own interpretations to “the law” by capitalizing it—indicating that it speaks of the Old Testament law. The text does not say that. Good News adds more of the translator’s interpretation by saying, “they must not be in charge.” The text says nothing like that.

The worst additions are made by Living Letters, which says, “they are not to take part in the discussion, for they are subordinate to men as the Scriptures also declare.” But the text says nothing about men. The translator is assuming that Paul meant men. Paul could mean subordinating themselves to a regulation against women speaking in public. Living Letters also assumes “the law” meant the Scriptures. It may; it may not. Where the text permits more than one interpretation, the translator should stay with the text.

It is obvious that Christians who are serious about studying the Bible on any subject need to be aware of how easy it is for translators to incorporate their own ideas into their translations. This tendency has certainly confused the issues regarding women and we probably will find, as other issues arise, that other confusions exist.

Certainly we should consider our modern plethora of Bible translations a blessing. Many of them are remarkably easy to read and have a refreshing sense of vitality. But all translations are human products, produced by people who, like all of us, have unconscious sets of blinders. Like all of us, translators work from their own outlooks, their own prejudices. We have all been bent and influenced by the many forces of the society in which we live and by the traditions of the churches of which we are a part. This is true of every translator, every commentator, every preacher, every lay reader and every student of the Bible. Usually we are not even vaguely aware of our blind spots—and we all have many.

But only the original words of the Holy Scriptures can claim unique inspiration. This is why many scholars spend their lives poring over old manuscripts, comparing one with another in the effort to come as close as possible to what was the original text of the writings. It is generally acknowledged that the text is well established in most of the New Testament. Among the examples given in this article, there are no serious questions about the original texts.

We all agree that a good translation cannot be word for word. There must be an easy flow of language not possible in word-for-word translations. But a good translator tries to see what the original writer was saying and then express that as accurately as possible in the idiomatic language of the reader. It is at this point that the translator’s preconceived ideas sometimes get in the way.

What can the Bible student who does not know Greek or Hebrew do to be sure he is not getting a translator’s additions or omissions rather than the Holy Spirit’s message?

The answers are not easy, but there are some precautions the reader can take. (1) Be aware of the possibility of the translation’s unconscious biases in the words chosen. (2) If an idea appears in a one-man translation (especially paraphrases such as Living Letters, Good News for Modern Man, or Phillips’s Modern English) that does not appear in most committee translations (KJV, RSV, NEB, NIV) it is a tip that the idea may represent the interpretation of the translator. This is one reason we should read more than one translation, especially if we are trying to study any subject in depth. (3) Never read paraphrases by themselves. Always compare them with at least one committee translation such as KJV, RSV, NIV, NEB.

A Greek interlinear translation may help readers who know no Greek to evaluate whether their translation stays close to the actual text.

In short the Bible is uniquely inspired by the Holy Spirit—but the translators are not. Let the reader beware!

EDITOR’S FOOTNOTE

The Mickelsens have made no attempt to be exhaustive in pointing out examples of chauvinistic translations. The King James Version has twisted many a passage to save the male ego—or its chauvinistic theology.

The King James Version, for example, reverses the Greek order to place Aquilla before Priscilla in deference to the husband—in spite of the fact that in the biblical text, Priscilla is clearly the leader (Acts 18:26). In 1 Timothy 2:11, the King James Version translates hēsychia “Let the woman learn in silence,” but when referring to men (2 Thess. 3:16), it renders the same word, “with quietness they work and eat.” Psalm 68:11 reads, “great was the company of those that publish the word of the Lord” in spite of the fact that the Hebrew is explicitly feminine: “great was the company of those women who publish the word of the Lord.” On the other hand, the KJV correctly notes the feminine Junia in Romans 16:7 in contrast with most contemporary translations that with little or no justification transform mir abile dictu, the woman Junia, into the man Junias to avoid the unthinkable—a woman among the apostles!

G. Douglas Young is founder and president of the Institute of Holy Land Studies in Jerusalem. He has lived there since 1963.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.