Gender-Neutral Linguistic Transformations of Messianic Scriptures in the Modern Anglican Homiletic Literature

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Actuality. Our time is characterised by the penetration of egalitarian ideas of Western liberalism and political correctness in the sphere of language. Language, speech, communication practices are reviewed and revised to determine if they are politically correct. Religious and sacred texts of Christianity and Judaism do not stand aside from the careful examination of the followers of the ideas of compiling a politically correct Bible. The purpose of this article is to find out if it is possible to change the texts of English translations of the Christian Bible, from a theological and linguistic point of view, and if it is possible to consider gender-neutral versions of Messianic passages of the English Bible as authentic, suitable for the correct transmission of meaning, i.e. reading, theological and historical analysis, as well as liturgical practice. The object of the research is represented by the texts of several widely used in modern Anglicanism gender-neutral English versions of the Bible: The Inclusive Bible: The First Egalitarian Translation by Priests for Equality (IBFET, 2009); New English Translation (NET, 1998); New International Version Inclusive Language Edition (NIVI, 1995). King James’ Bible original version (KJV) of 1611 edition is used as a reference point. Research techniques include the method of contextual analysis, comparative method, structural method, comparative historical method. Such taxonomic units of sacred Messianic texts as son of God, son of man, the lord, the master, the king, heaven kingdom , constructions of common grammatical gender are analysed. It is demonstrated that in almost all cases of gender-neutral constructions use, the meaning of the text changes: from insignificant changes to the reproduction of openly heretical views from the viewpoint of traditional Anglicanism. Our study shews that gender-neutral language introduces new feminist meanings into Messianic sacred texts, which were not previously contained there. Gender-neutral English translations of the Christian Bible cease to be canonical from the point of view of Christian theology. Nevertheless, gender-neutral philological strategies of modifying the ways of modern Anglican preaching can be an extremely interesting and instructive example of the fact that in the modern world certain social and political discourses can stand behind Christian homiletics.

About the authors

Konstantin S Sharov

Moscow State University

Email: const.sharov@mail.ru
Ph.D., Senior Lecturer at M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University 27 bld, 4 Lomonosovsky ave., Moscow, GSP-1, 119991, Russia

References

  1. Бернатоните, А.К. Семантика образов членов семьи в их взаимоотношениях с гостем в тексте сценария и фильме П.П. Пазолини «Теорема» // ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Проблемы визуальной семио­тики. 2017. № 2 (12). С. 125-145. [Bernatonite, Ada (2017). The Semantics of Family Members Images in Their Relationships with a Guest in the Script and P. P. Pasolini’s Movie ‘Theorem’. ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics, 4(2), 125-145. (In Russ.)]
  2. Воронина О.А. Оппозиция материи и духа: гендерный аспект // Вопросы философии. 2007. № 2. С. 56-65. [Voronina, Olga (2007). Matter and Spirit Opposition: Gender Aspect. Voprosy filosofii, (2), 56-65. (In Russ.)]
  3. Габриэлян, Н.М. Всплывающая Атлантида (медитация на тему феминизма) // Общественные науки и современность. 1993. № 6. С. 171-176. [Gabrielyan, Nina (1993). Vsplyvayushchaya Atlantida (meditatsii na temu feminizma) [Swimming-up Atlantis (meditations on feminism)]. Obshchestvennye Nauki i Sovremennost, (6), 171-176. (In Russ.)]
  4. Гендер и язык. Антология. М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2005. [Gender and Language. Anthology (2005) Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoy kultury. (In Russ.)]
  5. Донских, О.А. Метафора как способ смены координат // ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Проблемы визуальной семиотики. 2015. № 1 (3). С. 29-35 [Donskikh, Oleg (2015). Metaphor as a way to change coordinates. ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics, (1), 29-35 (In Russ.)]
  6. Карасев, Л.В. Гоголь и онтологический вопрос // Вопросы философии. 1993. № 8. С. 84-96 [Karasev, Leonid (1993). Gogol and ontological question. Voprosy filosofii, (8), 84-96. (In Russ.)].
  7. Карасев, Л.В. Об «Интересном» Я. Голосовкера // Вопросы философии. 2017. № 3. С. 114-124 [Karasev, Leonid (2017). On J. Golosovker’s “The Interesting”. Voprosy filosofii, (3), 114-124. (In Russ.)].
  8. Карасев, Л.В. Nervoso Fasciculoso (о внутреннем содержании гоголевской прозы) // Вопросы философии. 1999. № 9. С. 43-65 [Karasev, Leonid (1999). Nervoso fasciculoso (About internal content of Gogol’s prose). Voprosy filosofii, (9), 43-65. (In Russ.)].
  9. Киселев, Г.С. Постмодерн и христианство // Вопросы философии. 2001. № 12. С. 3-15. [Kiselev, Grigory (2001). Postmodernity and Christianity. Voprosy filosofii, (12), 3-15. (In Russ.)]
  10. Киселев, Г.С. Религиозные смыслы мира человека // Вопросы философии. 2011. № 5. С. 18-29. [Kiselev, Grigory (2011). Religious meanings of the human’s world. Voprosy filosofii, (5), 18-29. (In Russ.)]
  11. Кофанов, Л.Л. Римское право в Испании до введения Lex Wisigothorum // ΣΧΟΛΗ. Философское антиковедение и классическая традиция. 2010. Т. 4. № 1. С. 64-77. [Kofanov, Leonid (2010). Roman law in Spain prior to the Lex Wisigothorum. ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, 4(1), 64-77. (In Russ.)]
  12. Мольтманн-Вендель, Э. И сотворил Бог мужчину и женщину (Феминистская теология и чело­веческая идентичность) // Вопросы философии. 1991. № 3. С. 91-104. [Moltmann-Wendel, Elisabeth (1991). And God Created Man and Wife (Feminist Theology and Human Identity). Voprosy filosofii, (3), 91-104. (In Russ.)]
  13. Назарчук, А.В. Сетевое общество и его философское осмысление // Вопросы философии. 2008. № 7. С. 61-75. [Nazarchuk, Alexander (2008). Network society and its philosophic con­templation. Voprosy filosofii, (7), 61-75. (In Russ.)]
  14. Назарчук, А.В. Осмысление коммуникации в современной французской философии // Вопросы философии. 2009. № 8. С. 147-162. [Nazarchuk, Alexander (2009). Considering the com­munication in the modern French philosophy. Voprosy filosofii, (8), 147-162. (In Russ.)]
  15. Пиков, Г.Г. О некоторых особенностях библейской криминологии // ΣΧΟΛΗ. Философское антиковедение и классическая традиция. 2010. Т. 4. № 1. С. 101-136. [Pikov, Gennady (2010). Criminal law in the Bible. ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, 4 (1), 101-136. (In Russ.)]
  16. Райкова, О.А. Пространство женской инициации и опыт сакрального (на материале первобыт­ных обществ) // ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Проблемы визуальной семиотики. 2016. № 4 (10). С. 66-81. [Raykova, Olga (2016). the environment of women’s initiation and experience of the sacred (on the material of primitive societies). ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics, 3(4), 66-81. (In Russ.)]
  17. Сазонова, Н.И. Действо о страшном суде в православном богослужении России в XVII в.: к проблеме типологических характеристик богослужебного действа // ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Проб­лемы визуальной семиотики. 2016. № 4(10). С. 53-65. [Sazonova, Natalia (2016). Action about Day of Judgment in the Orthodox divine service in the seventeenth century: To the problem of typological characteristics of divine service action. ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ, 3(4), 53-65. (In Russ.)]
  18. Санников, С.В. Развитие представлений о преступлениях против королевской власти в ранне­средневековой германской правовой культуре: от частного правонарушения к государст­венной измене // ΣΧΟΛΗ. Философское антиковедение и классическая традиция. 2010. Т. 4. № 1. С. 78-100. [Sannikov, Sergey (2010). Offences again royal power in Early Medieval German law: from civil delictum to treason. ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, 4 (1), 78-100. (In Russ.)]
  19. Фёдоров, В.В., Фёдоров, М.В., Коротаева, З.В. Предикторы пространства власти: семантиче­ский аспект // ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Проблемы визуальной семиотики. 2015. Т. 2. № 3 (5). С. 86-96. [Fedorov, Viktor; Fedorov Mikhail; Korotaeva Zinaida (2015). Predictors of power space: The semantic aspect. ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics, 2 (3), 86-96. (In Russ.)]
  20. Хитрук, Е.Б. Визуализация «отцовской революции» в контексте смены философских пара­дигм // ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Проблемы визуальной семиотики. 2016. Т. 3. № 2 (8). С. 97-107. [Khitruk, Ekaterina (2016). Visualising the ‘father’s revolution’ in the context of philosophy paradigms change. ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics, 3(2), 97-107. (In Russ.)]
  21. Шаров, К.С. Гендерные аспекты семиотики моды // Вопросы философии. 2007. № 12. С. 50-64 [Sharov, Konstantin (2007). Gender aspects of fashion semiotics. Voprosy filosofii, (12), 50-64. (In Russ.)].
  22. Шаров, К.С. Гоголь в тексте // Вопросы философии. 2013. № 8. С. 131-136 [Sharov, Konstantin (2013). Gogol in the text. Voprosy filosofii, (8), 131-136. (In Russ.)].
  23. Шаров, К.С. Древний Рим и женщины-администраторы // ΣΧΟΛΗ. Философское антиковедение и классическая традиция. 2019. Т. 13. № 1. С. 106-114. [Sharov, Konstantin (2019). Ancient Rome and Female Administrators. ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, 13 (1), 106-114. (In Russ.)]
  24. Шаров, К.С. Д.Н. Кавтарадзе - Мастерская игр. Ремесло и искусство // Вопросы философии. 2015. № 7. С. 210-215 [Sharov, Konstantin (2015). D. N. Kavtaradze - Game workshop. Craft and art. Voprosy filosofii, (7), 210-215. (In Russ.)]
  25. Шаров, К.С. Мужчины и женщины в вербальной коммуникации: проблема гендерлекта // Вопросы философии. 2012. № 7. С. 38-51. [Sharov, Konstantin (2012). Men and women in the verbal communication: The problem of genderlect. Voprosy filosofii, (7), 38-51. (In Russ.)]
  26. Шаров, К.С. На темной стороне политкорректности: гендерно-нейтральный новояз // Вопросы философии. 2010. № 3. С. 30-43. [Sharov, Konstantin (2010). At the dark side of political correctness: gender-neutral new language. Voprosy filosofii, (3), 30-43. (In Russ.)]
  27. Шаров, К.С. Симуляция-игра отличительных национальных признаков в музыке // Вопросы философии. 2006. № 7. С. 45-56 [Sharov, Konstantin (2006). The ‘simulation - game’ of distinct national features in music. Voprosy filosofii, (7), 45-56. (In Russ.)].
  28. Шевцов, С.П. Римское право в свете истории ментальности // ΣΧΟΛΗ. Философское антикове­дение и классическая традиция. 2010. Т. 4. № 1. С. 9-31. [Shevtsov, S. P. (2010). Roman Law in the light of the history of mentality. ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, 4(1), 9-31. (In Russ.)]
  29. Afonasin, Eugene (2014). The pilot metaphor and its artistic reflections (a note on the platonic motive on some Celtic coins). ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics, (1), 23-30.
  30. Andina, Tiziana. (2015). Embodied meanings and normativity. Some remarks for a new concept of art. ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics, (4), 11-27.
  31. Archibald-Barber, Jesse (n.d.) From Grammatical to Natural Gender. Retrieved from http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6361ArchibaldBarber.htm.
  32. Baranov, Vladimir (2018). Classical Philosophy in the Homily on the Transfiguration of the Lord by Andrew of Crete. ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, 12(2), 433-443
  33. Barr, Beth Allison (2014). “he is bothyn modyr, broyþ yr, & syster vn-to me”: Women and the Bible in Late Medieval and Early Modern English Sermons. Church History and Religious Culture, 94 (3), 297-315.
  34. Calvo, Jose Maria Zamora (2018). The Christ-Logos question in Amelius. ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, 12 (2), 365-379.
  35. Carson, Donald Arthur (1998). The Inclusive Language Debate. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.
  36. Castelli, Elizabeth (1990). Les Belles Infidèles/Fidelity or Feminism? The Meanings of Feminist Biblical Translation. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 6 (2), 25-39.
  37. Collins, Ken, rev. (n.d.) The Problem with Inclusive-Language Bible Translations. Ken Collins Website. Retrieved from http://www.kencollins.com/bible/bible-t6.htm.
  38. Curzan, Anne (2003). Gender Shift in the History of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  39. Dallas, Joe (2007). The Gay Gospel?: How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publ.
  40. Deeb-Sossa, Natalia; Kane, Heather (2007). “It's the Word of God”: Students' Resistance to Ques­tioning and Overcoming Heterosexism. Feminist Teacher, 17 (2), 151-169.
  41. De Waard, Jan; Nida, Eugene (1986). From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc.
  42. Donskikh, Oleg (2018) Splitting concepts: steps of reflection. ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, 12 (2), 402-425.
  43. Fletcher, Michelle (2014) What Comes into a Woman and What Comes Out of a Woman: Feminist Textual Intervention and Mark 7:14-23. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 30 (1), 25-41.
  44. Fuchs, Esther (2008). Reclaiming the Hebrew Bible for Women: The Neoliberal Turn in Contem­porary Feminist Scholarship. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 24 (2), 45-65.
  45. Gomola, Alexander (2010). Feminist thought in Bible translations. Przekładaniec. A Journal of Literary Translations, 24(), 193-208.
  46. Gross, Martine (2008). To Be Christian and Homosexual: From Shame to Identity-Based Claims. Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, 11 (4), 77-101. doi: 10.1525/nr.2008.11.4.77.
  47. Grudem, Wayne (1998). A Response to Mark Strauss’ Evaluation of the Colorado Springs Translation Guidelines. The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 41(June), 263-286.
  48. Grudem, Wayne; Osborne, Grant (1997). Do Inclusive-Language Bibles Distort Scripture? Christianity Today, (October), 26-39.
  49. Jacobs, Maretha (2001). Feminist scholarship, biblical scholarship and the Bible. Neotestamentica, 35 (1/2), 81-94.
  50. Jones, Charles (1988). Grammatical Gender in English: 950 to 1250. London: Croom Helm.
  51. Joussellin, Charles, Mailenova, Farida (2018). L’objectivation du corps et nouvelles technologies. ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics, (4), 142-147.
  52. Kettemann, Bernhard; Marko, Georg (2005). “But what does the Bible really say?” A Critical Analysis of Fundamentalist Discourse. AAA: Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 30 (1/2), 201-225.
  53. Lathrop, Gordon; Ramshaw, Gail (1993). Psalter for the Christian People: An Inclusive Language ReVision of the Psalter of the Book of Common Prayer 1979. Tucson, AZ: Pueblo Books.
  54. Martin, Carol (1990). Womanist Interpretations of the New Testament: The Quest for Holistic and Inclusive Translation and Interpretation. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 6 (2), 41-61.
  55. Meyers, C.L. (2014). Was Ancient Israel a Patriarchal Society? Journal of Biblical Literature, 133 (1), 8-27.
  56. Minton, Ron. (2003). Gender-Inclusive Bible Translations. Chafer Theological Seminary Journal, 9 (Spring), 141-146. Retrieved from https://deanbible.org/dbmfiles/slides/x2012-Chafer-NTTextualCriticism-8-GenderInclusiveBibleMinton.pdf.
  57. Moltmann-Wendel, Elisabeth. (1991). And God Created Man and Wife (Feminist Theology and Human Identity). Voprosy filosofii, (3), 91-104. (In Russ.)
  58. Poythress, Vern; Grudem, Wayne. (2000). The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman.
  59. Protopopova, Irina; Garadja, Alexei (2018). Reading a woman (Rep. 454d). ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, 12 (2), 426-432.
  60. Ringer, Wesley (n.d.) What are the Biblical Translation Issues Raised by the Gender-Inclusive Debate? Retrieved from http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/gender.html.
  61. Robbins, Mandy (2001). Clergywomen in the Church of England and the Gender Inclusive Language Debate. Review of Religious Research, 42 (4), 405-414.
  62. Sassin, Wolfgang; Donskikh, Oleg, Gnes, Alexandre; Komissarov, Sergei; Liu Depei (2018). Evolu­tionary Environments. Homo Sapiens - an Endangered Species? Innsbruck: Studia Universitätsverlag, 2018.
  63. Schüssler-Fiorenza, Elisabeth. (1992). But She Said: Feminist Practices of Biblical Interpretation. Boston: Beacon Press.
  64. Schüssler-Fiorenza, Elisabeth (1995). Bread not Stone: The Challenge of Feminist Biblical Inter­pretation. Boston: Beacon Press.
  65. Shakespeare, Steven (2009). Prayers for an Inclusive Church. Boston: Church Publ.
  66. Shevtsov, Sergey (2010). Roman Law in the light of the history of mentality. ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, 4(1), 9-31. (In Russ.)
  67. Stein, David (2008). On Beyond Gender: Representation of God in the Torah and in Three Recent Renditions into English. Nashim: A Journal of Jewish Women's Studies and Gender Issues, (15), 108-137.
  68. Stein, John. (1995). America's Bibles: Canon, Commentary, and Community. Church History, 64 (2), 169-184.
  69. Strauss, Mark (1998a). Distorting Scripture? Gender-Inclusive Language and the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
  70. Strauss, Mark (1998b). Linguistic and Hermeneutical Fallacies in the Guidelines Established at the ‘Conference on Gender-Related Language in Scripture’. The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 41(June), 239-262.
  71. Tantlevskij, Igor (2016). Further Considerations on Possible Aramaic Etymologies of the Designation of the Judaean Sect of Essenes (Ἐσσαῖοι/Ἐσσηνοί) in the Light of the Ancient Authors Accounts of Them and the Qumran Community World-View. ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, 10 (1), 61-75.
  72. Tantlevskij, Igor (2017). Possible parallels in Ecclesiastes’ and Aristotle’s reflections concerning the eternity and immortality of the soul in correlation with its intellectual and ethical merits. ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, 11 (1), 133-143.
  73. Tantlevskij, Igor (2019). Allegories of life, death and immortality in the book of Ecclesiastes. ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, 13 (1), 48-57.
  74. Terezis, Christos; Petridou, Lydia (2017) The theory of ‘union-distinction’ as a paradigm of Gr. Palamas’ methodology. ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, 11 (1), 117-132.
  75. Ward, Graham (1994). In the name of the father and of the mother. Literature and Theology, 8 (3), 311-327.
  76. Welch, Martin (1992). Anglo-Saxon England. London: English Heritage.
  77. Whitehead, Andrew; Perry, Samuel (2015). A More Perfect Union? Christian Nationalism and Support for Same-sex Unions. Sociological Perspectives, 58 (3), 422-440.
  78. Whorf, Benjamin Lee (1945). Grammatical Categories. Language, 21 (1), 1-11.
  79. Библейские переводы. Энциклопедический словарь Брокгауза и Ефрона в 86 т. СПб.: Изд-во Его Императорского Величества, 1890-1907. [Biblical Translations (1890-1907) Encyc­lopaedic Dictionary of Brokhauz and Efron (in 86 vols). St Petersburg: His Imperial Majesty’s Press. (In Russ.)]
  80. Bible Gateway (n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.biblegateway.com/versions.
  81. Biblical Revelation and Inclusive Language. A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. (1998). Retrieved from https://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=314.
  82. Biblical Translations (1890-1907) Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Brokhauz and Efron (in 86 vols). St Petersburg: His Imperial Majesty’s Press. (In Russ.)
  83. The Inclusive Bible: The First Egalitarian Translation (by Priests for Equality) (2009). New York: Sheed & Ward.
  84. The New Testament and Psalms (inclusive version) (1995). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  85. The Queen James Bible (2012). New York: Queen James Press.
  86. What does the Bible say about political correctness? (n.d.) Got Questions. Retrieved from https://www.gotquestions.org/political-correctness.html

Copyright (c) 2019 Sharov K.S.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies