LESSON 79. SEX BIAS INFLUENCES TRANSLATORS. (Concluded.)
634. One more
instance of this sex bias in the O. T. translation, and then
we will consider some cases in the N. T. that were not
mentioned in our former lesson, “Divers Weights and
Measures” (Lesson 48), though, for that matter, almost every
one of the Lessons brings out points on this subject.
1.
Isaiah 2:9 reads, “The mean man boweth down and
the great man humbleth himself.”
2.
Isaiah 5:15, “The mean man shall be brought down,
the mighty man shall be humbled.”
3. Isaiah 31:8, “Not of a mighty man,... not of a mean
man.”
Perhaps it will surprise the reader to be told that within
these three short passages adjectives to the number of six
have been added to the translation that do not exist in the
original text, and no one but a Hebrew scholar can discover
this for himself or herself.
635. We have been taught to believe that wherever words
of importance are inserted into the English translation that
do not exist in the original text, in order to convey the
correct meaning to the English reader, those words are
printed in italics, that all may understand that they
are not in the original, and thus judge for themselves, by
the help of the Spirit, as to their appropriateness. Thus,
in verse 7 of this second chapter of Isaiah we read:
“Neither is there any end of their chariots,” and we
know that the three words in italics,¾“is
there any”¾do
not belong to the original.
Not so, in these three passages. No word in them is printed
in italics, and yet, the adjectives “mean,” “great,” and
“mightily” have been added in every instance. We will
explain this presently.
636.
4. Again, Psalm 49:2 reads, “Both low and high.”
5. Psalm 62:9 reads, “Surely men of low degree are
vanity, and men of high degree are a lie.”
Within these two short passages eight words are added to the
text, and two words are left out, yet only a Hebrew scholar
can discover it without aid, because the added words are not
italicized as they should be, neither is there any
indication of omitted words.
637. What does all this mean? We will explain: In most
languages there are at least two words for “man,” one
indicating the adult male, and the other meaning “mankind.”
In Hebrew, as we have already explained, the adult male is
indicated by the word ish; on the other hand,
“mankind” is meant where adham (Adam) is used, when
not of the person who first bore the name. These passages
should have been translated respectively something like
this:
1. “Man boweth down (or mankind boweth down), and the men
humble themselves.”
2. “Man shall be brought down, and the men shall be
humbled.”
3. “Not of the men . . . not of mankind.”
4. “Both mankind and the men.”
5. “Surely humanity (or mankind) is vanity, and the men
are a lie.”
638. The best we can do, it is a little difficult to
express the thing smoothly in English, because it lacks
words which can always be used elegantly to distinguish
between the adult male and mankind generally. The word we
translate “the men” to conform to English usage, ish,
is in the singular number. But a marginal note could have
made this clear, without a dishonest translation of the
text. And who but a set of pedants, inflated with
intellectual pride, would have agreed that men were “great”
when their mothers and wives did not appear in the same
category, and “mighty,” “of high degree,” and “high”; but if
the female sex and children get mixed with them, they must
then be described as “mean,” and “low,” and “of low degree”?
These are not instances of faulty translations, but of
unwarranted corruption of the meaning of the original text.
The Hebrew has words for “high” and “low,” “mighty” and
“mean,” if those were the ideas to be expressed: while
ish is such a common word to be given these exalted
meanings, that it is often rendered “each,” “everyone,”
“whoso,” and “whosoever,”¾referring
to both sexes, sometimes to inanimate things, but mainly to
the male.
639. A few instances from the N. T. now: Sophron
is an adjective which occurs four times, and is translated
“sober” twice, “temperate” once. In the fourth place it
refers to women only, and is rendered “discreet” (Titus
2:5). That this different meaning is given to it purposely
because it refers to women, will be made plain by the
learned Dean Alford’s note in his commentary. Having first
established the sense of the word as “self-restraint,” in
its noun form, he says, concerning the rendering “discreet.”
“This term certainly applies better to women than
‘self-restraint’; there is in this latter [in
“self-restraint”] in their case, an implication of effort,
which destroys the spontaneity, and brushes off, so to
speak, the bloom of this best of female graces.” We thank
Dean Alford for thinking that women can practice
self-restraint without effort, but when we are reading our
Bibles we prefer to know precisely what the Holy
Ghost addresses to us, instead of finding between its pages
the opinion of even the most excellent uninspired man.
640. The Greek noun sophrosune is built up on the
adjective sophron,¾as
we add “ness” to “good” to transform it into “goodness.” A
book of the Apocrypha, 4 Maccabees (1:31), defines the word
correctly, where it says it means “the mastery of the
lusts.” In the one instance in which the word is used of
women it is rendered “sobriety” (1 Timothy 2:15) which is
not bad. But I hunt up the word in my Green’s small lexicon
to the N. T., and read there that the female meaning
of the word is “modesty,” which precisely accords with what
we are pointing out,¾that
these men seem to imagine that the same word has two
meanings according to whether it refers to men or to women,¾in
the Bible, at least.
641. Then take the word “power.” Exousia occurs
103 times in the N. T. It is rendered “authority” 29 times;
“power” 69 times; “right” twice; and once each “liberty,”
“jurisdiction,” and “strength.” Its meaning is patent; there
is no mystery about the word. But in one single instance it
happens to be used exclusively of woman’s power. Here at
once its sense is called into question (see par. 217 etc.).
It cannot be possible that women should have power! In the
margin the translators write the longest note to be found in
all the Bible (see A.V.) to explain how Paul means that this
“power” must be abdicated by woman, in order that her
husband may assume it instead.
642. Episemos occurs in only two places in the
N. T. In Matthew 27:16 we read of “a notable prisoner
called Barabbas;” and in Romans 16:7, St Paul mentions
“Andronicus and Junia, who are of note among the
apostles.” Two disputes have been provoked by this
passage: (1) Should we read, here, Junia, a woman, or
Junias, a man? (2) Does the word episemos in this
passage mean “of note among,” or “well known to”? The name
is in the accusative, Junian, and admits of either
construction as to gender. The R.V.has decided for the male
form. But the masculine form cannot be found (at least, I
could not find it) in any biographical dictionary of Greek
names, while the feminine form occurs several times.
Chrysostom, himself a Greek, born at Antioch, Syria, about
350 A. D., understood this person to be a woman, and also an
apostle, exclaiming in his Homilies, “Oh, how great
is the devotion of this woman, that she should even be
counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!”
643. Not so, our present-day commentators, Jamieson,
Fausset and Brown, but at one stroke they seize the
preeminence for the male, whichever way the decision,
arguing that if it be “Junia” a woman, then we must read
“well known to the apostles;” on the other hand, if it be
“Junias,” a man, then the meaning may be a “well known
apostle.” We are reminded of the legend of a man who got
into a crocodiles’ nest, and saved himself by ramming “the
head of one down the throat of another;” until he dispatched
them all, pair by pair.
644. Kosmios means properly “well ordered, in both
outward deportment and inner life.” It occurs twice. It is
translated “modest” where it refers to woman’s dress, 1
Timothy 2:9, and perhaps it could not be improved upon. But
why not say that “a bishop then, must be . . . modest”
for “of good behavior,” since the latter
statement is so obvious as to be inane? (1 Timothy 3:2).
Hagnos
means “holy.” It occurs 8 times, and is translated “pure”
four times; “clear” once, and “chaste” three times. Every
time that it is translated “chaste” it qualifies a noun of
the feminine gender. But why should not men be taught
chastity too? These may be straws. Yet they all point in the same direction. Lesson 80 Home |