I almost didn’t write about this. I wasn’t sure if it would be helpful, or if it would come off as a complaint about sexist Bible translations. As you see, I reconsidered. Because the important thing is you need to know your Bible has a bias, no matter what translation you use.
There are tons of Bible translations, and it can be confusing. I found a handy chart to refer to while discussing this.
However, this chart only shows where your Bible falls on translating ideas vs. words; it doesn’t discuss the bias it has.
My Own Experience
I only used NASB through high school and college. But the truth is, I believed you should only use NASB or ESV. The rest were for “baby” Christians or those who did not take the Bible as seriously. I looked down on other translations – and subtlety on those who used them. In my twenties, I got an HCSB (which was soon discontinued in favor of the CSB). But it was put out by the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), so I had confidence in its accuracy. (I know, I know: that’s a lot of acronyms.)
And then, I had a baby.
I remember trying to read one of Paul’s letters in my HCSB. I read the same verse over and over again, with no understanding. It was as if my understanding of English had evaporated. Granted, Paul is often difficult on the best of days; but my understanding was hindered by my clunky translation.
So, I humbled myself and got an NLT. This is written for a sixth grade reading level; some people even joke that it’s not a real translation.
I was embarrassed by my NLT. I never was one to volunteer to read, but now I prayed no one would call on me to do so. If I did happen to read aloud, I always apologized for my translation.
I never thought about this weird reaction. Shouldn’t we read the Bible that makes the most sense to us? Why such arrogance? And shame?
Well, The Making of Biblical Womanhood enlightened me on that…
The Translation Debate
In “Chapter 5: Writing Women Out of the English Bible,” Barr discusses the 1997 outcry over the NIV becoming more gender-inclusive (ex: using humanity instead of man, etc.).
You remember my derision and then shame? Apparently, that’s something many conservative evangelicals have been taught to feel. In 1997, the SBC got together to condemn the translation, saying this new NIV translation “resulted from ‘those who do not hold a high view of Scripture.’” So, they got together and created the ESV to preserve gendered-language.[1]
What’s interesting is the NIV was updated again in 2011 – and the same arguments were made. Even two years later, Baptists were still miffed with this. I started working for LifeWay Christian Stores in 2012 and vividly remember how we looked down on the (even newer) NIV. We actively led people away from the NIV toward other, more conservative, translations.
But There’s More…
Complementarian outlook doesn’t just influence the language used, but also how certain passages are grouped together – and what those headings are. Check out Ephesians 5:21-22 as an example.
21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.
In the NASB, ESV, HCSB, and CSB – all more complementarian translations – the descriptive heading is after Ephesians 5:21. For example, the ESV titles the section, “Wives and Husbands.” However, the NIV and NLT start it before Ephesians 5:21, grouping it together visually with Ephesians 5:22. The NIV titles the section “Instructions for Christian Households.”
Need I say, the headings are completely man-made and arbitrary; they can put them wherever they want, and call them whatever they want.
Barr does an excellent job of explaining how this reinforces complementarian attitudes in chapter 5 of her book. Suffice it to say, this separation means that rather than an overall exhortation to submit to each other followed by examples, the heading placement makes it seem like Paul is telling only wives to submit. And the evidence is stacking up that this is probably not the case. Or, at least, it can if you choose to interpret it that way.
Where I’m at Now
About a year ago, I switched to NIV because I felt the NLT had some misleading Old Testament translations. Nothing big, but they caused enough confusion for me to look into other translations. NIV was the obvious choice. It was easy to read and – most importantly now – not complementarian. (There are more examples than just Ephesians 5, such as what Phoebe is called in Romans 16:1.)
I’ve become the person I used to judge; and I’m having a really hard time owning the sins of pride, judgement, and arrogance that came before. It’s easy to blame the conservative evangelical church for imparting this attitude to me; but I have to take responsibility for my own sin. Again, I want to channel Dan Stringer’s words on repentance, as I feel it’s incredibly important.
God, forgive me for being so judgmental. Forgive me for gatekeeping your Word, and even belief itself, by thinking people are less in love with you because of the Bible they read. It’s the same Bible. I know that now. I’m thankful You’ve opened my eyes so I can see that.
Why Am I Writing About This?
I didn’t know until I read The Making of Biblical Womanhood that there was such politics behind Bible translations – even though I’d literally been part of it for a time! I think everyone should know. So, I decided to tell you – just in case you didn’t.
I also think it’s important if you’ve been through church trauma. Certain passages can be triggering, and if you’re specifically deconstructing from a complementarian outlook then you’ll want a translation that doesn’t have that bias.
It’s ok to stay with a NASB, ESV, CSB, or whatever. It really is. But you do need to be aware that with each translation comes a translator bias.
This happens in all historical works, by the way. For example, Emily Wilson got a lot of flak for her translation of The Odyssey. But it is excellent and thoughtful, bringing out the story in a new way that previous translations don’t.[2] In fact, I actually enjoyed The Odyssey (I usually find Odysseus insufferable), and find myself thinking back on it often.
It makes me wonder what a Bible translated exclusively by women would be like. I don’t think it should be that way per say; I think both women and men should work on translations. We need both outlooks, not just one. But that’s just it – we need both. As far as I know, women have not been involved with our modern translations.
But I digress. Basically: know that there is a translation bias, and get a translation that you can read without triggering trauma.
Notes
[1] Beth Allison Barr, The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth (Brazos Press, 2021), 131-132.
[2] https://chireviewofbooks.com/2018/01/16/how-emily-wilson-translated-the-odyssey/ Wilson has some interesting things to say about male translators (not bashing them, just observations). It showed me the issues of translation are not limited to the Bible, but are inherent in all translation work.
