He/she: in the Bible: the problem of gender.

FATHER STEPHEN SOMERVILLE

Catch-up note to the reader: In our May, 1998, issue, p. 29, we began our commentary on Norm 4 of the six norms. Through an oversight, the full commentary was not printed. Consequently, for better understanding, we begin afresh here the account of Norm 4 and continue with the closely related Norm 5.

The six Vatican Norms on Bible translation

(For the original article see Jan/Feb, 1998, pp. 29-30)

4/1 The natural gender of personae (Latin for persons) in the Bible, including the human author of various texts where evident, must not be changed insofar as this is possible in the receptor language.

4/2 The grammatical gender of God, pagan deities, and angels according to the original texts must not be changed insofar as this is possible in the receptor language.

4/3 In fidelity to the inspired word of God, the traditional biblical usage for naming the persons of the Trinity as Father, Son,and Holy Spirit is to be retained.

4/4 Similarly, in keeping with the Church's tradition, the feminine and neuter pronouns are not to be used to refer to the person of the Holy Spirit.

4/5 There shall be no systematic substitution of the masculine pronoun or possessive adjective to refer to God, in correspondence to the original text.

4/6 Kinship terms that are clearly gender-specific (e.g., brothers, brethern, sons, fathers - ed.) as indicated by the context, should be respected in translation.

5/1 Grammatical number and person of the original texts ordinarily should be maintained.

Commentary

Norms 4 and 5 treat of the question of gender, that is, grammatical gender, of words that denote persons. These words are nouns and pronouns. This matter became a problem in the 1970s when feminist agitation began to complain that the traditional use of masculine words to denote everyone, or all persons in general, was offensive and down-grading to women. Such words are the nouns man, mankind, brethren, and corresponding pronouns he, him, as in expressions such as "What is man that thou art mindful of him?" (Psalm 8:5).

This controversial and unprovable complaint by feminists led to demands that the customary use of language be changed to accomodate the complaint. For example, "men" would become men and women; "he" would become he or she, he/she, and so forth. In secular communications this change might pose little or no problem. But when it leads to the rewriting of great literature, and even more so to the rewriting of the Bible, serious difficulties and objections arise. Much of this has been exposed in the brilliant article by Dr. Thaddeus Pruss, "64 Shadows of man," Catholic Insight, Oct. 1995, pp. 8-13, which itself became a contribution to the raised awareness of the Vatican scholars.

Norm four

Part one of Norm Four speaks of the gender of persons. It uses curiously the Latin personae for persons. This seems to be a reminder that the word person in Catholic tradition and theology has a technical or profound meaning and should be used with care. Part one simply says not to change the gender of persons in the bible when translating. It adds (for an unstated reason) "including the human author of various texts where evident." I cannot think of a known female author of a biblical text.

Part one does not say why we must not change genders in the bible. The natural reason why is fidelity (Norm 2) to the word of God. Part one speaks of what is possible in the receptor language. This is because some languages have only one word for he and she, as for example, in Filipino Tagalog (siya).

Part two of Norm 4 tells us not to change the grammatical gender of God, pagan deities (e.g. Baal, Jupiter, Astarte), and angels. Again, no reason is addressed, but the context implies the simple law of fidelity to God's word. Be it noted that the feminine of masculine god is goddess.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Part three of Norm 4 says not to change the names Father and Son and Holy Spirit for the persons of the Trinity. Here the reason why is expressly stated, namely "in fidelity to the inspired word of God."

The name of God is profoundly important to right theology of God. Feminists would like to call the Trinity Creator and Redeemer and Sanctifier because these are neuter, that is, not masculine. There is a perceptive understanding of feminism as an ideology that sees patriarchy as intrinsically evil. Patriarchy involves recognizing institutional and family leadership in the fathers or senior male figures, rather than in mothers, which would be matriarchy. Human civilization has been consistently and profoundly patriarchal, and this is true especially of Judaeo-Christian societies. The English word matter (opposite of spirit or mind) comes from the Latin matria which, in turn, comes from mater, Latin for mother. Thus matter is "motherness." To call God mother is thereby seen as a revolutionary change of notion, and a denial of the Judaeo-Christian faith, in which God is totally spirit.

The Holy Spirit is not "she"

Part four of Norm 4 says not to call the Holy Spirit she or it. Here again, the reason why is stated: "in keeping with the Church's tradition."

Some feminists would tolerate he for God the Father and Son if a sort of "balance" is achieved by calling the Spirit she. They might argue that the Hebrew word for spirit, ruah, is feminine, and as such is rightly called she or her. But the Hebrew Old Testament does not clearly reveal or teach that the Spirit of God is a person. This becomes clear only in Gospel times. Meanwhile, the Norm speaks of referring (by pronoun) not to the Holy Spirit but to the person of the Holy Spirit, that is, to the New Testament reality of a distinct divine person. To make of the Holy Trinity a mix of masculine and feminine persons would be to introduce perilous confusion.

Part Five of Norm 4 says not to change "systematically" the masculine he, him, or his, referring to God. This refers to dislike of these masculine pronouns by feminists, who avoid them by repeatedly substituting "God" or "God's". Thus we find awkward lines in their publications like the following:

Praise God, all God's angels,

Praise God, all God's host (Ps. 148:2).

The traditional rendering of this fragment of psalm 148 is Praise ye the Lord...praise ye him, all his angels: Praise ye him, all his hosts. Notice that the feminists have changed Lord to the less obviously masculine God. They are not quite ready to say Praise the Goddess. But the objectionable word him is totally expunged.

Part six of Norm 4 tells us to respect in translation kinship terms that are clearly gender-specific. Once again, no reason is given, as in parts 1 and 2.

Norm five

Such kinship terms are brethren, brothers, sisters, fathers, and so forth. To respect these terms means to use them without changing them. The New Revised Standard Version, for example, writes brothers and sisters every time. St. Paul writes brethren. (The old RSV writes brethren.) The biblical language may have only one word for sons and children (as in Italian figli). Here the translator must choose judiciously.

Norm 5 is very short, a line and a half. In effect, it says, "Do not as a rule substitute They or you for he." Such a context arises particularly in a psalm or canticle.

The word he may be referring to God or to the Just Man. It may be repeated often, and jar on a feminist ear. For example, the canticle of Our Lady (the Magnificat, Luke 1:46-55) says he, him, or his seventeen times referring to the Lord (God). In consequence, some have pressured translators to make this canticle sing to God, instead of about him. Thus all seventeen pronouns become the second person pronouns, you and your (or thou, thee, and thy), which are neuter and not masculine.

How then does the canticle run? My soul magnifies you, O Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in you, O God my Saviour. . . Because you, who are mighty, have done great things for me . . . and so on.

A similar case arises in Psalm 1 which begins, Blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly. This is followed in the next two verses by six masculine singular pronouns (he, his) referring to this good man.

The feminist would replace all these with they and their, to escape the masculine singular by the neuter plural. Such tinkering with the Bible is ruled out by Norm Five.

It is to be noted that Norm Four in part five uses a qualifier ("systematic") and also Norm Five ("ordinarily"), which make the prohibition or rule not absolute and so allow a judicious exception to it.

Some readers might take offence at this writer's use of the adjective "feminist" to describe proponents of the gender-neutral language as indicated in this commentary. They might protest that they are not feminist, but merely seeking justice for women by means of so-called inclusive language.

I reply that, historically, in the 1970s, when the false and artificial complaint about masculine words standing for everybody was conjured up, it was feminists who were responsible. The same feminists cleverly designated their new lingo as "inclusive," so as to imply that the old language EXcluded women. It was a shrewd device to help make men feel uneasy and guilty vis-a-vis women, and to make women feel angry. It has succeeded amazingly, in academic circles.

The point of the six Vatican Norms is that, regardless of what may be acceptable in the media, in communiques, in speeches, etc., the Bible (and also the liturgy and the Fathers--see Norm 1) are not to be re-written in this fraudulent and revolutionary new language.

There remains Norm Six to comment on. It speaks of the use of the crucial word Man when translating Hebrew adam and Greek anthropos.