LESSON 77.
SEX BIAS INFLUENCES TRANSLATORS.
616. It is well known that when a man gets lost on the
prairie, he begins to go round in a circle; it is suggested
that one side (the right, generally), being stronger than
the other, he pulls unconsciously with greater strength upon
the corresponding guiding rein of his horse. Just so does
the translator; he pulls unconsciously on the strong side of
preconception or self-interest. This may not be intended,
but it is none the less inevitable to the uninspired hand.
For this reason, neither class nor sex should have an
exclusive right to set forth the meaning of the original
text. It is notorious that the Samaritan Hebrew text,
even, has been manipulated to a considerable extent to suit
the Samaritan prejudices, so that that manuscript must be
corrected by comparison with others before it can be trusted
on points that involve Samaritan interests. The Alexandrian,
or Septuagint version, shows traces of an attempt to meet
the prejudices of Egyptians. What wonder that all versions,
having for all time been made by men, should disclose the
fact that, on the woman question, they all travel more or
less in a circle, in accordance with sex bias, hindering the
freedom and progress of women, since (in times past more
than at present), the self interest of man led him to
suppose that woman served God best as his own undeveloped
subordinate?
617. Let us first note two cases, brought to light by
the Revision Committee, by way of illustration of sex bias.
In Genesis 20, we read the story of the exposure of Sarah,
at Abraham’s request, in Abimelech’s harem (?). When the
king discovered that she was a married woman (through the
reproof of God), he sent for Abraham, reproved him, and then
paid a thousand pieces of silver to him for the injury done
her good name. The version of 1611 (A.V.) and the version of
1884 construe the language spoken by the king on this
occasion quite differently.
A.V.
¾“He
is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with
thee;”
R.V.¾
“It[3]
is to thee for a covering of the eyes, to all that are with
thee;”
A.V.
¾
“and with all other: thus she was reproved;”
R.V.¾
“and in respect of all thou are righted;” Abimelech did this so that all would understand that the wrong was his not Sarah’s; and she would be righted before all and ashamed before none, and would not need to cover her eyes (face) for shame. So the R.V.indicates; but the A.V. makes the blame fall upon Sarah, who is “reproved.” Abraham was no “covering to her eyes,”¾he was the primal cause of her shame and humiliation. It would seem as though the rendering of the A.V. was an attempt to fortify the supposed teaching of Paul that women should go veiled.
618. Another passage, bound to be corrected apace with
the improvement of woman’s social position, is Leviticus
19:20. This relates to wrong relations with a female slave,
who is, “not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her.”
The R.V.shows progress here toward the light, which is yet
obscured, however. The A.V. says:¾She
shall be scourged . . . and he shall bring his offering.”
The R.V.says: “They shall be punished . . . and he shall
bring,” etc. But the literal sense is, “There shall
be inquisition . . . and he shall bring.” That is, there
shall be rigid inquiry made, and when it is ascertained that
she is not in a state of freedom at all, then only he shall
bring the offering.[4]
619. Luther once said: “No gown worse becomes a woman
than to be wise.” Luther only held the prevailing views of
his day as regards women. Such men could not easily perceive
when Scripture expressed a different thought on the subject.
Proverbs 14:1 says, in Hebrew, “The wisdom of woman
buildeth her house,” but not being able to appreciate
the advantages of female education, men rendered it:
“Every wise woman buildeth her house,” that is, the
woman who devotes herself to housewifely duties is
pronounced “wise.” But this is not the thought; rather,
wisdom itself, in woman, will build her own (not her
husband’s) house,¾
elevate her to a place of honor. Every time there has been
an opportunity for the use of option in translation,
use has been made of that option, by this or that man of
learning, to build up one sex and to depreciate the other,
and so the result, through the ages, has been cumulative,
and that without actual intention.
620. Again, Cha-kam HEB
“wise,” occurs (on a hasty count) 130 times in the Hebrew
Bible. It is invariably translated “wise” excepting in the
following places: in 2 Samuel 13:3 “subtil;” and in 10
instances “cunning,” when used of skilful workmen, 1
Chronicles 22:15; 2 Chronicles 2:7 (twice); 13, and 14
(twice); Isaiah 3:3; 40:20; Jeremiah 10:9. But in Jeremiah
9:17 we read in our English, “Thus saith the Lord of
hosts, Consider ye, and call for the mourning women, that
they may come; and send for cunning women that they may
come, and let them make hast and take up a wailing for us,”
etc. The reference is to the low moral tone prevailing at
Jerusalem, which threatened the overthrow of the city. Now
here, surely, there is no reference to skilful workmanship
on the part of women, and moreover the A.V. leaves out the
rather important article “the”¾see
R.V.Here “the wise women” are called upon by Jehovah to show
their interest and concern in matters of State,¾the
moral corruptness of the city; and “the wise women” are
further instructed to teach their daughters to be concerned
about such matters,¾verse
20. Huldah (2 Kings. 22:14), admittedly the wisest prophet
of the times, may have been still living at this very time.
621. I think we find another case of prejudiced
translation in Isaiah 3:12. The word translated “children”
in this verse in Isaiah, is a plural masculine participle of
the verb “to glean,” “abuse,” “practice.” It is translated
“glean” in Leviticus 19:10, Deuteronomy 24:21, Judges 20:45,
and Jeremiah 6:9. The word has no translation such as
“children” anywhere else in the Bible, and it occurs 21
times. Another word altogether is used for “children,” and
“child,” in verses 4 and 5 of this same chapter; the sense
seems to have been fixed by the supposed context, to
correspond with “women.” As to the word translated “women”:
Two words, without the rabbinical vowel “points,” are
exactly alike. One is pronounced nosh-im and the
other na-shim. In appearance the only difference is a
slight mark under the first letter of the Hebrew word
na-shim. The first word means “exactors;” the one with a
vowel mark under the initial letter means “women.” The
entire decision, therefore, as to whether the word means one
or the other depends upon OPTION. Those who pointed the
word, evidently thought the nation could sink no lower than
to pass under women rulers, and then translated the word
“children” to match it. Commentators frequently call
attention to the alternate reading. See Adam Clarke on the
passage. The Septuagint translates: “As for my people,
tax-gatherers (praktores) glean them, and exactors
(apaitountes) rule over them.”
622. There seems little in the context to support the
translation “children” and “women.” But study the context as
regards the other reading. After complaining of the
“gleaners,” (that is, “tax-gatherers”) and “extortioners,”
they are threatened in the following language: “The Lord
standeth up to plead and standeth up to judge the people.
The Lord will enter into judgement with the elders of His
people, and the princes (“rulers,” masculine, not
feminine gender), thereof for ye have eaten up the
vineyard (the conduct of extortionate tax-gatherers),
and the spoil of the poor is in your houses. What mean ye
that ye crush (R. V.) my people, and grind the faces
of the poor?” Because of this context, we believe that
OPTION took the wrong turn when it decided to translate this
verse as it stands in our English version; and that this
translation would have had a strong showing up of its
sophistries, had educated women been on the last Revision
Committee.
These instances are trivial, when taken one by one, but many
straws floating in one direction prove that the current runs
that way strongly.
[3]
Hebrew has no word for “it,” which must be
represented by either “he” or “she.” [4] “Your opinion that the sentence, ‘they shall be punished’ of the R.V.is erroneous, is in my judgement very correct. You should, however, add that the Syriac Version has . . . (Syriac words) which means precisely, ‘there shall be inquisition.’ ” |