Journal Of The American Academy Of Religion Lxv/1

Journal of the American Academy of Religion LXV/1

REVIEW ESSAYS

Between Translation and Targum David L. Bartlett

The New Testament and Psalms- An Inclusive Version. Edited by Victor

Roland Gold, Thomas L Hoyt, Jr., Sharon H Ringe, Susan Brooks Thislethwaite, Burton H. Throckmorton, Jr, and Barbara A Withers Oxford University Press, 1995. 535 pages $14.95. In his descnption of the Targums, Aramaic versions of the Hebrew Bible from the early years of the common era, John Bowker draws the distinction between translation and the Targums. "The need to find ways of applying past revelation in the present was inescapable . . Translation became a part of the attempt to make scnpture meaningful in the present The Targums, like (the Septuagint), followed the Hebrew text verse by verse, but they incorporated in their representation of the text a great deal of explanation and interpretation Thus the text and its interpretation were woven together . . " (8).1 Our century has seen the publication of numerous translations or revised translations of the Bible, representing the range from fairly strict translation to explicit interpretation and paraphrase. The most popular among the contemporary targums is The Living Bible. The LivingBible calls itself a paraphrase, and the introduction to that work makes explicit the principles on which the paraphrase is based David L Bartlett is Lantz Professor of Christian Communication and Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at Yale University Divinity School, New Haven, CT 06511-2167 1 1 owe the reference to Targums as prototypes of some contemporary translations to Thomas Schattauer who heard the analogy from Robert Wilken

141

142

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

A word should be said here about paraphrases What are they' To paraphrase is to say something in different words than the author used This book is a paraphrase of the Old and New Testaments Its purpose is to say as exactly as possible what the writers of the Scripture meant, and to say it simply, expanding where necessary for a clear understanding by the modern reader. There are dangers in paraphrase as well as values For whenever the authors exact words are not translated from the original languages, there is a possibility that the translator, however honest, may be giving the English reader something that the onginal writer did not mean to say This is because a paraphrase is guided not only by the translators skill in simplifying, but also by the clarity of his understanding of what the author meant and by his theology .The theological lodestar in this book has been a rigid evangelical position (Preface) The actual comments and additions that The Living Bible makes to the texts range from the trivial to the substantial, but let one example serve as illustrative In John 13:23, the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, here following the Greek edition quite closely, translates the description of the Last Supper: "One of the disciples—the one whom Jesus loved—was reclining next to him " The Living Bible paraphrases the verse in this way "Since I was sitting next to Jesus at the table, being his closest friend .". . Then the editors add this footnote: "Literally, There was one at the table.' All commentators believe him to be John, the writer of this book" (853). In fact, a great many commentators doubt both that the beloved disciple was the author of the Fourth Gospel and that the beloved disciple in the narrative of the Fourth Gospel is to be identified with John, the Son of Zebedee Nothing in the text of the Fourth Gospel tells us the identity of the beloved disciple, nothing indicates with certainty that the beloved disciple wrote the Gospel 2 Nowhere in the Gospel is the beloved disciple identified as John, Zebedee's son. However, many evangelical commentators and Christians are devoted not only to the text but to traditions about the text, including the tradition that John, Son of Zebedee, wrote this Gospel. So an extra-biblical assumption is imported into the paraphrase to make a point that the text, left to itself, simply does not make. The Inclusive Version of the New Testament and Psalms falls somewhere between a translation and a targum or paraphrase. For the most part it simply replicates the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (1989) The NRSV, itself a revision of the Revised Standard Version (1952), seeks generally to translate the Greek and Hebrew texts as literally as pos'John 21 24 indicates that the testimony of the "other disciple" lies behind the Gospel but not necessarily that he is the author of the book as we have it

Bartlett. Between Translation and Targum

143

sible. The editors do note one exception: "Paraphrastic renderings have been adopted only sparingly, and then chiefly to compensate for a deficiency in the English language—the lack of a common gender third person singular pronoun" (in). Further, the Committee that produced the NRSV were "sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language." (in)3 Sometimes it was possible to change the language without altering the meaning, sometimes not. "In the vast majority of cases inclusiveness has been attained by simply rephrasing or by introducing plural forms when this does not distort the meaning of the passage" (in) Two examples may suffice to give the flavor of the NRSV's work In 1 Corinthians 16:19-20 Paul is sending final greetings to the Corinthian Christians "The churches of Asia send greetings. Aquila and Pnsca, together with the church in their house, greet you warmly in the Lord All the brothers and sisters send greetings." In the Greek (and in the RSV) only "all the brethren" send greetings. However since Pnsca, a woman, is clearly numbered among "the brothers"—and since Paul elsewhere typically uses "brothers" as a term for fellow believers, whether male or female—the NRSV Committee with some justice made explicit what was implicit in Paul's letter4 In Mark 8:34-35 the RSV keeps the masculine singular pronouns of the Greek: "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it" The NRSV tries to avoid the masculine bias of the text by moving to plurals: "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it "5 In a way this is clearly fair enough, since no reading of Mark's text would suggest that Jesus intended this call to discipleship to extend to males only As translated, this version is grammatically a little odd—why plurals for people but singular "cross" and "life"? Is this the creeping substitution of the plural pronoun for the singular as in, "if any one wants to follow me, let them take up their cross"? Further there is some shift from the stark individualism of Jesus' call, where each person chooses for himself or herself to this more communal invitation to join together in discipleship Yet a translation that tried to hold to the 'This is not only a problem with English New Testament Greek and Biblical Hebrew both sometimes use the generic masculine See, for instance, Mark 8 34-35, Ps 11 •"The Inclusive Language Version here follows the NRSV exactly 'The Inclusive Language Version here follows the NRSV exactly

144

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

singular pronouns but keep the inclusive thrust would be hopelessly wooden: "If any one would come after me, let him or her deny his or her self..." So perhaps it is fair to say that the NRSV is a translation with a touch of targum, especially in relationship to issues of gender inclusiveness. The Inclusive Version of the New Testament and Psalms moves somewhat farther along the spectrum from narrow translation to paraphrase Unlike The Living Bible, this version does not call itself a paraphrase throughout, but in regard to a particular set of issues it does seek to reinterpret the traditional texts for contemporary readers or hearers. Again the most important issue is inclusivity. The editors are concerned that language about human beings be inclusive "The English language has changed in recent years in many ways, and one important change has been in the direction of greater specificity with regard to gender . . We now have "firefighters" instead of "firemen," we are asked to contribute to "the pohceperson's ball," and even Star Trek now boldly goes "where no one has gone before" (vii) Not only do the editors seek to reflect the greater inclusivity of current usage, they seek to shape that usage toward a future when people will speak more inclusively as Luther's Bible shaped German, and—as we shall suggest—the King James Version shaped English (vin). While they do not use the term "paraphrase," the editors come close "This introduction is intended to inform the reader about the interpretive character of the text. Attention should be paid to the kinds of adaptations in language that have been made in order to express the intent of the text in the most inclusive way possible" (vn) (italics added). For the purposes of this review I want to ignore the shppenness of discovenng "the intent" of a text and to point to the more obvious problem: what if the intent of the text is not very inclusive at all7 In their own italics the editors give the clearest statement of their intention "This version has undertaken the effort to replace or rephrase all gender-specific language not referring to particular historical individuals, all pejorative references to race, color, or religion, and all identifications of persons by their physical disability alone, by means of paraphrase, alternative renderings, and other acceptable means of conforming the language of the work to an inclusive idea" (viii-ix).

The editors also note that the primary function of this version will be for use in liturgy, where worshiping communities are especially concerned to affirm the inclusive shape of Christian faith (IX) Furthermore, the editors seek to find the most inclusive language possible for God and for Jesus Christ They take as their starting point for their revisions of language about God the claim that language about God

Bartlett. Between Translation and Targum

145

is by necessity metaphoncal, especially language about the fatherhood of God. "When we say that God is Father, we are saying that God is like a human father in the kinds of qualities good fathers have, like love and concern. But obviously God is also not like every human father, since some do not always show love and concern." So the editors attempt to find new metaphors that will carry the significance the old metaphor was meant to carry but sometimes fails to do In the case of references to God they have "crafted new metaphors"—especially "Father-Mother" (x).6 Language about Jesus is difficult because, of course, Jesus was male, and not only metaphorically so The editors deal with this problem by a particular reading of the eternal life of the triune God ". .while we very frequently retain the masculine pronoun for the histoncal person Jesus, we have avoided using a pronoun for either the pre-existent or the postcrucifixion Jesus. If God the 'Father' does not have a sex, then neither does the 'Son'" (xi). In like manner also, "when in the Gospels the histoncal person Jesus is referred to as 'son,' the word is retained But when Jesus is called 'Son of God' or 'Son of the Blessed One' and the maleness of the histoncal person is not relevant. the formal equivalent 'Child' is used for 'Son' . ." The enigmatic phrase "Son of Man" used by Jesus of himself is translated more inclusively as "The Human One" (xiii). Here, for instance, is the story of the Transfiguration, Mark 9:7: Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, "This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him1" (NRSV) Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, "This is my child, the Beloved, to this one you shall listen'" (Inclusive Version—does the substitution of "one" for the masculine pronoun "him" mean that the editors want this to be seen as a transhistoncal event?) So also the editors suggest "Because the word 'Lord' is believed by some to be male-onented, but by others to be gender neutral, similar to the way in which 'God' is usually understood, this version retains 'Lord' in some instances, but makes a substitution for it in others" (xn): Therefore, "In this New Testament 'Lord' is retained in every instance in which the antecedent is ambiguous, being either God or Christ, it is also retained in phrases such as 'the Lord Jesus' or 'the Lord Jesus Chnst' Where the antecedent of 'Lord' is clearly God, 'God' is often substituted for 'Lord', where the antecedent is clearly the nsen Christ, 'Christ' is often substituted. The result is that references to 'Lord' in this version are considerably diminished" (xiii). 'In fact, in English this metaphor goes back at least to Theodore Parker who prayed to "Our Father and our Mother God" (Commager 120)

146

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

In trying to diminish the use of the term "Lord" in the Psalms, the editors have a further problem Two Hebrew terms for the deity are common in the Old Testament, Elohim and the unnameable name that we guess might be transliterated Yahweh.7 In the NRSV (as in the RSV) the first term is translated "God" and the second "Lord." In the early centuries of the common era (and often today) it was the custom among Jews to substitute the term Adonai (my Lord) for Yahweh when they came to the holy name in a text, thus avoiding blasphemy by a kind of theological euphemism The Greek translation of the Hebrew, the Septuagint, which was the Bible Paul and many of the early Christian wnters knew, used the Greek word kyrios (Lord) to translate the Hebrew Yahweh The editors of the Inclusive Version properly note that, whatever Yahweh meant in the Old Testament texts, it probably did not mean "Lord." For this reason and presumably to avoid the possible male connotations of "Lord," in most cases the editors have translated Yahweh in the Psalms as either "God" or occasionally "Creator," "Most High" or "Holy One" (xxi). So the most familiar Psalm of all begins in an unfamiliar way: "God is my shepherd, I shall not want" (Ps 23:1). The NRSV keeps the more familiar "The Lord is my shepherd " The Hebrew name translated differently by the two versions is Yahweh. (Perhaps as a minor matter, this familiar psalm counters the odd claim of the General Introduction to the Inclusive Version that Psalms is "the only book of the Bible whose entire content is addressed to God" (xxi) Here the Psalm begins by addressing the congregation about God, and moves to addressing God only with verse 4 Psalm 24 does not address God at all, and one could multiply examples) In the Inclusive Version's general avoidance of "Lord" as a name for God, an exception is made for a certain subset of texts: "When the psalmist speaks of God's concern for the poor and needy, and of God's coming to their rescue and delivering them with power, we have generally used 'Lord' . " (xxi-xxn). For example, Incline your ear, O Lord.and answer me, for I am poor and needy, Preserve my life, for I am devoted to you, save your servant who trusts in you (Ps 86-1-2) Again the Hebrew word used for the deity is Yahweh, so the decision to use "God" in Ps 23:1 and "Lord" in Ps.86:l is based on an understanding of the function of the psalm rather than on linguistic grounds The 'God tells Moses God's unnameable name in Exodus 3 14

Bartlett: Between Translation and Targum

147

editors do not make clear why "Lord" is the appropriate term for God when the psalmist is in trouble and "God" the more appropriate term for the assurances of Ps 23 The issue of inclusiveness is extends beyond issues of gender A particular concern for these editors as for many Christians is the apparent perspective on Jews and Jewishness in the Gospel of John The term 'the Jews' is used frequently in the Gospel of John, and in two different ways (1) It is used in a straightforward, histoncal way to refer to the ethnic people, of whom Jesus was one (2) It is used to connote unbelieving people or hostile groups A good case can be made for the argument that 'the Jews' in John is often a code-word for religious people (including Chnstians) who misunderstand the identity of the One who comes from God and is returning to God. 'The Jews' are religious people who miss the revelation In this version when 'the Jews' is used to refer to the ethnic people, it remains unchanged, when it is used to refer to unbelieving people, it is rendered "the religious authorities" or simply "the leaders" or "authorities," in order to minimize what could be perceived as a warrant for antiJewishbias (xvii) Here, for instance is John 9' 18-19 in the NRSV and in the Inclusive Version. The Jews did not believe that he had been born blind and had received his sight until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight and asked them "Is this your son, who you say was born blind7" (NRSV) The religious leaders did not believe that he had been born blind and had received sight until they called the parents of the man who had received sight and asked them, "Is this your son, who you say was born blind7" (Inclusive Version)8 In another instance the Inclusive Version editors use "crowds" instead of "Jews," in order to avoid identifying opposition to Jesus with any particular ethnic group. When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside and sat on the judge's bench at a place called The Stone Pavement, or in Hebrew Gabbatha. Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover, and it was about noon. He said to the Jews, "Here is your King1" They cned out, "Away with him' Away with him1 Crucify him'" Pilate asked them "Shall I crucify your King7" (John 19.13-15a NRSV) When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside and sat on the judge's bench at a place called The Stone Pavement, or in Hebrew Gabbatha "The omission of "his" may represent the fact that the pronoun is not present in the Greek If so, the editors are going beyond revising the NRSV around issues cned in their introduction

148

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover, and it was about noon Pilate said to the crowd, 'Here is your king1' They cned out, 'Away with him' Away with him1 Crucify him1'" (John 9.13-15a Inclusive Version) The editorial Committee does not attempt any way to soften the harsh reading of Pilate's word to Jesus in John 18:35 "Pilate replied, 'I am not a Jew, am P Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me'" (NRSV and Inclusive Version). Other language that is problematic for the editors is language that uses images of darkness in a negative way, because such usage might imply prejudice against people of color (xv). Passages that use reductionist language to refer to people's conditions—that refer to the deaf, blind, or lame—are expanded to make clear that a person is more than his or her physical condition: not "the blind" but "those who are blind." The editors suggest that this may be closer to the New Testament idiom than the older translations (xvi-xvii) 9 So, to take their example, we can compare the NRSV translation of Matthew 11:4-5 with that of the inclusive language versionJesus answered them, "Go and tell John what you hear and see; the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them." (NRSV) Jesus answered them. "Go and tell John what you hear and see, those who are blind receive their sight, those who are lame walk, the people with leprosy are cleansed, those who are deaf hear, the dead are raised, and those who are poor have good news brought to them" (Inclusive Version) One other principle of translation or paraphrase needs to be noted The editors rightly remind us that the Greek phrase traditionally translated "Kingdom of God" can mean both the "exercise of (God's) authonty ('rule') and the place where that authonty is exercised ('realm')" Because "kingdom" denotes only the "realm" in contemporary usage, the editors have adapted the more flexible "dominion" (xiv). Again there are reasons of inclusivity and openness to undergird this translation decision: "In the second place 'dominion' is preferable to 'kingdom' because of the latter's blatantly androcentric and patriarchal character, though, of course it is also recognized that etymologically 'dominion' is a male-oriented word" (xiv). We can illustrate from the familiar first petition of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew's version, Matthew 6:10 * The argument that because Matthew uses adjectives rather than nouns we are supposed to supply "people" seems somewhat tendentious The adjectives are here used substantivally, precisely as one can use such adjectives in English plurals "the blind" "the deaf" The case with the singular does represent a difference between Greek and English

Bartlett Between Translation and Targum

149

Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven (NRSV) Your dominion come Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven (Inclusive Version)

In assessing the value of the Inclusive Version of the New Testament and Psalms it needs to be said at the outset that this version represents serious work by excellent scholars They are reasonably clear about what they do and about why they do it The agenda is not hidden but open, as with the agenda of The Living Bible This is a deliberate mixture of translation and Targum edited with particular goals in mind There are three sorts of questions to be asked of any translation of the Bible. What is its literary value7 What is its value for scholarship and especially for the historical study of ancient texts7 What is its value for the life of the worshiping and believing communities that use it7 The first two questions can be addressed briefly; the third will require more thorough analysis What is the literary value of this translation? Of course for those who love the Bible especially as a model and source of English prose and poetry, the crucial battle was fought long before the Inclusive Version, or its literary parent the NRSV, and even before the publication of the literary grandparent, the Revised Standard Version. The biblical language that is still held up as "great literature" is the language of the King James Version (1611), which became the Authorized Version for the Church of England and, by extension, the standard version for all those English-speaking Reformed churches that grew up in the shadow of Anglicanism David Norton's fascinating study of the English Bible, A History of the Bible as Literature, makes clear that the committee that edited and translated the KJV had no intention of producing great literature. Their goal, like the goal of most of their successors, was to provide the most careful and accurate translation of the ancient texts that they could—for the sake of the faith and practice of seventeenthcentury English Christians "The combined evidence of the preface and Bois's notes makes the conclusion inescapable that, while the translators had a literary sense of their work, it was totally subordinated to their quest for accuracy of scholarship and translation. Whatever one considers the positive literary qualities of the KJB to be, they do not exist through a deliberate attempt on either the KJB translators or their predecessors' parts to write good English" (Norton: I, 158-159). Further, like the RSV and the NRSV the Kingjames Version was not a brand new translation but a revision of the. 1602 Bishops' Bible, using

150

Journal of the American Academy oj Religion

other translations as aids to the editonal committee (Norton:I, 145-147) Finally, Norton bnngs considerable evidence that the early reception of the KJV showed no particular enthusiasm for its literary merits- "When later critics, in the thoroughness of their literary reverence, put forward the idea that the KJB had always been greatly admired, they did so without evidence. The seventeenth century did admire the Bible as literature, but one has to be precise: it admired either the actual or the imagined originals, not the translations" (I, 236) Eventually one suspects that the power of the KJV as literature was in large measure its power to shape literature. One great tradition of English poetry and prose relies on allusion to that translation and sometimes on direct quotation. Norton sees the shift as coming from Milton, who used the KJV but relied primarily on Greek and Hebrew, to Bunyan for whose Pilgrim's Progress the KJV provided a sometimes implicit but ever present background (I, 297-311). The movement intensified with Blake, the Romantics, and their successors like Hazlitt for whom the Authorized Version (KJV) and the Book oj Common Prayer provided themes, motifs and phrases that ineluctably shaped English language and English letters (Norton: II, 126-175). It seems unlikely that of any translation in our time will have such power—there are too many of them, driven by the forces of denomination, scholarly enthusiasm, or the market When poets or novelists do take on the job of translation, as with Richard Lattimore and Reynolds Price, their books find their place on our literature shelves, not in the pew racks or church libraries. Chnstendom diminishes, Church becomes a multitude of sects. None of this augurs well for a new version that will shape our poetry. Nonetheless it is part of the courage of the Committee that edited the Inclusive Version that they dream not just to reflect language but to shape it. This new, inclusive version of the Bible, not only reflects the newest scholarly work on the most reliable manuscripts available, it also reflects and attempts to anticipate developments in the English language with regard to specificity about a number of issues such as gender, race, and physical disability. Bibles are widely read and therefore can serve to influence the development of important changes in language Martin Luther's translation of the Bible into the German spoken by the common people in his country is an example of this Luther's translation helped to develop and unify German as not only a spoken, but also a wntten language (vm) One suspects that part of the power of Luther to shape German and of the King James translators to shape English lay in their inattention to doing any such thing Nonetheless one can ask whether the language of this Inclusive Version is apt to help us as we try to find English that is legiti-

Bartlett Between Translation and Targum

151

mately more inclusive but at the same time not tone deaf to the rhythm and movement of language. The NRSV itself, the text on which this version is based, is a careful translation that generally reads well, though it stakes one reader as occasionally more flat-footed than the RSV which it revised Take one small instance In Acts 21:37 Paul is speaking to a tribune in Jerusalem In the RSV he says of himself "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city" In the NRSV, taking the Greek less literally and the English more prosaically, he says: "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of an important city" The point is made either way, but there is a distinction. "That woman is no fool" says almost the same thing as "That woman is pretty smart" But not quite the same The RSV, like the Greek, has an edge of interest, irony, understatement. In those places where the Inclusive Version paraphrases or changes the NRSV the English does become more inclusive but not necessarily more perspicacious. One does not have to dispute the importance of inclusive language to doubt that "Our Father-Mother in heaven" will become a common way to begin the Lord's Prayer. Psalm 24 works better, but one still hopes for other ways to avoid exclusive reference to divine masculinity than simply repeating "God" or "God's" every time the Hebrew text uses "he" or "his " The earth is the Lord's and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it, for he has founded it on the seas, and established it on the nvers Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord7 And who shall stand in his holy place? (Ps 24' 1-3 NRSV) The earth is God's, and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it, for God has founded it on the seas, and established it on the nvers Who shall ascend the hill of God? And who shall stand in God's holy place? (Ps 24 1-3 Inclusive Version) Of course, we want to shape language, but there needs to be continuity between the language we use and the language we shape What parent introduces his or her adult offspring by saying' "This is my child7" Not one "This is my son," or "this is my daughter" When at the Transfiguration God says of Jesus' "This is my child" (Mk 9 7 Inclusive Version) the not necessarily naive reader looks for the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, not the Christ cloaked in glory. When "This is indeed the will of

152

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in the Son may have eternal life" (John 6.40 NRSV) becomes "This indeed is the will of my FatherMother that all who see the Child and believe in the Child may have eternal life" (Inclusive Version), one wants more dialectic between the way we do talk and the way the editors hope we might. It helps not to see the Inclusive Language Version as the finished product of shifting theological language but as part of a helpful process This version probably will not provide the language that we need to be both inclusive and eloquent, but it provides useful attempts along the way. What is the value of this version for scholarship? In other words, would one recommend this translation for introductory courses in New Testament and Psalms? I should think not; I suspect that the editors would think not, too In studying the Psalms one wants to understand the difference between Yahweh and Elohim and get some sense of why a Psalm sometimes uses one, sometimes the other. In studying the New Testament one wants to ask why the term "Father" is used for God so much more often than it is in the Hebrew Bible, what the Aramaic "Abba" might mean (and whether "Father" is the best translation), what fatherhood looked like in first-century Palestine or first-century Corinth, why Chnstians cried out "Abba" when they worshiped. That is to say that while a Targum may be just right for some uses, a more narrow translation helps us raise the right histoncal questions when we are dealing with the text as itself histoncal, and as pointer to a history that lies behind it. But that leads to the hardest question. What is the value of this version for worship, preaching, reading of Scripture and Bible study in communities of

faith7 This is clearly where the editors think their work will be most useful Here I need to be honest about the context of my own reflections and to confess that issues of historical accuracy impinge more directly on questions of right worship and preaching for me than they may do for the thoughtful editors of this version My professional life has been divided between pansh ministry and teaching in divinity schools Long ago I was persuaded by sensitive feminists—both female and male—in congregations that I served that I needed to attend to the language I used in liturgy, prayer, and sermon. My professional life is dedicated to the proposition that words make an enormous difference in our lives, that they not only reflect the world, they shape the world Exclusive language can work great harm; inclusive language helps show forth the God who is God of all Nonetheless, when it comes to that moment in worship where a lector reads the lessons from the Bible, I have had to balance my commit-

Bartlett: Between Translation and Targum

153

ment to inclusiveness with my acknowledgment that Christianity is a faith based in history and rooted in ancient texts That is to say, I am all for Targum when it comes to the liturgy and open to paraphrased Scripture in the sermon; I am tied to translation when it comes to Scripture reading and Bible study, though I know that the line between the translation and paraphrase is not always easy to draw A number of issues in the Inclusive Version and its introduction simply serve to underline my uneasiness with such paraphrased texts in their role as Scripture.

First, the Inclusive Version frequently takes some standard outside of the text as a criterion for translation or paraphrase of the text. Sometimes the criterion is extra-biblical or post-biblical. The claim that references to the Risen Christ like those to the pre-existent Christ should be translated without reference to gender 1 take as a reading back into the New Testament of a particular understanding of the eternal life of the Triune God, based on explicit Trinitarian dogma which post-dates the New Testament itself. In the Resurrection accounts of the New Testament it is perhaps not accidental that the authors do not shift from the masculine pronouns they use for the earthly Jesus to some neutral or neutered post-resurrection syntax For the most part, the point of the resurrection stories is that the man, Jesus of Nazareth, is raised from the dead—not that the pre-existent Son has returned to the eternal Father. John's Gospel may perhaps be read in that way (though see John 2027), as may the Epistle to the Hebrews—but for Mark, Luke, and Matthew and for Paul when he writes 1 Corinthians, it is Jesus who is risen, not necessarily and certainly not simply that Person of the Trinity designated as the Son. The Risen One is the crucified one (Mark 166); he claims to have flesh and bones, and he eats fish (Luke 24:39-43) He may not have "a sex" (see Inclusive Version: xi), but he is appropriately designated by gender because he is still Jesus. Further, the editors are not consistent in their attempts to separate the post-Resurrection genderless Jesus from the earthly gendered one. Here is Luke 24.19-24 in the NRSV For purposes of clanty I have underlined those references to Jesus that refer to him after his resurrection and put asterisks beside those references that are pre-resurrection In the NRSV the references to Jesus by his proper name or by a personal pronoun reflect the Greek text Jesus begins by asking what they have been discussing. He asked them, "What things?" They replied, "The things about Jesus of Nazareth* who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how our chief pnests and leaders handed him* over to be condemned to death and crucified him.* But we had hoped that

154

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

he* was the one to redeem Israel Yes, and besides all this it is now the third day since these things took place Moreover, some women of our group astounded us They were at the tomb early this morning, and when they did not find his* body there, they came back and told us that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who said that he was alive Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but they did not see him." By the principles outlined in the Introduction, the editors should have left the masculine personal pronouns that refer to the earthly (masculine) Jesus, (those with astensks in our text) and substituted the proper name, Jesus, only when the reference is to the post-resurrection (genderfree) Christ—our italicized terms Instead all the pronouns have been changed to the proper name. Jesus asked them, "What things7" They replied, "The things about Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how the chief pnests and scribes handed Jesus over to be condemned to death and they crucified Jesus But we had hoped that Jesus was the one to redeem Israel Yes, and besides all this it is now the third day since these things took place. Moreover, some women of our group astounded us They were at the tomb early this morning, and when they did not find Jesus' body there, they came back and told us that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who said that Jesus was alive Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus " Sometimes the criterion for translation is a kind of canon within the canon. Galatians 3 28 is seen not just as a standard by which the Galatians are to judge their behavior, but the standard by which the whole New Testament is to be interpreted Additional authonty for this version comes from the function of the Bible itself The Bible is the book of the community of faith, an inclusive community in which there is "no longer Jew or Greek, . enslaved or free, male and female, for you are all one in Chnst Jesus" (Gal 3 28) The task of becoming Christians is aided by the clanty with which our Scripture calls us to be whole, well, and one.(ix) It would help to distinguish between a fundamental scriptural claim (like Galatians 3 28) as a norm for interpretation and such a claim as a cntenon for translation The perhaps painful truth is that neither the Gospel of Matthew nor the Pastoral Epistles were written with Galatians 3:28 in mind It might be nice if Scripture called us with one voice to be whole, well, and one—but it does not uniformly do so The reality of a divided church in part reflects the diversity of voices on this issue within Scnpture

Bartlett: Between Translation and Targum

155

itself, and one of the first steps to healing is honesty about the problem This is not a post-canonical issue alone, it is also a canonical one The problem with hearing only the Inclusive Version of Scripture read week after week is that people would think that patnarchy was an invention of the post-biblical church and wonder where it came from Was there some ternble fall from Sola Scnptura—that blessed age where everyone agreed that in Christ no distinctions counted any longer? The truth is more complicated but perhaps more helpful The division between inclusive and exclusive versions of the Christian faith is not only a postbiblical battle; it is a biblical one People need to have theological and ethical reasons for making choices between biblical claims, the Bible itself cannot be homogenized to give us any one version of the Bible—even the one that the editors and I all think most appropriate The same problem is equally true of cleaning up the derogatory references to "Jews" in the Gospel of John There is the problem of removing the text from its historical context I am persuaded by J Louis Martyn (1979) that John's Gospel represents a family feud between church and synagogue It is full of polemic—like American polemic between patriots and Torys in the Revolution—but we don't deal with the polemic by removing it but by analyzing it (any more than we clean up Tom Paine in the legitimate interest of American-British amity) Furthermore, how much does it help to relieve the "Jews" in John's Gospel from any taint of unbelief while placing all the blame on their leaders? That is a little like the Declaration of Independence absolving the British people of any bad faith while blaming everything on George III, or from the other side it is like British propagandists who insisted on the loyalty of the colonists but excoriated Jefferson and Samuel Adams The New Testament isn't any more fair to the Jewish leaders than it is to the Jewish crowds Furthermore does it really help contemporary conversation that "A good case can be made for the argument that 'the Jews' in John is often a code-word for religious people (including Chnstians) who misunderstand the identity of the One who comes from God . "? (xvn) If 1 were a Jew I would still read that as a polite way of saying that (along with some Christians and others) I had made a big mistake. The difficult truth is that John's Gospel may not be much help in working toward an appropriate and faithful understanding of contemporary relationships between Christians and Jews Jewish-Christian dialogue stands at the end of one explicable trajectory from the New Testament until now, but so, alas1 does Christian antisemitism Don't we need to name that, honestly, before we can fight it? I do suspect behind all this an honorable attempt to preserve Scripture from its own excesses Is there patnarchy and sexism in contemporary church and society? Of course. Is there anti-semitism abroad in the land7

156

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Of course. Where does it come from? Not from the Bible that our people will hear if they hear only the Inclusive Version. So they will think that all this sexism and anti-semitism is only a post-biblical aberration with no conceivable roots in Scripture itself. We exonerate our grandparents in order to blame our parents What happened to speaking the (painful) truth in love (Eph 4:15)—my own favonte canon within the canon? Another set of issues has to do with the understanding of language about God as "metaphorical" We have seen that the editors stress the metaphorical nature of much language about God, including the frequent use in the New Testament of the term "father." Metaphors are images whose power lies in the fact that the two things linked by metaphor (such as God and human fathers) are both like and unlike The metaphor stirs the hearer into puzzling about the likeness and unhkeness both So the editors explain their own preferred metaphor: "We have based much of this inclusive version on this insight into the nature of metaphor When we have crafted new metaphors, such as Father-Mother, we have done so to make the reader think about the power of metaphor to make us ask, How is this the same? and How is this different?" (x) This apparently means, how is the metaphor (Father-Mother) like the thing signified (God), but in the context of a translation of the Bible we are also bound to ask, how is this new metaphor like the old? In what ways does the language function similarly, how differently? In some ways it seems obvious that to call God "Father" is to employ a metaphor. John Calvin, who obviously took biblical language with uttermost seriousness, commented on Isaiah 46:3: "Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all the remnant of the house of Israel, who have been borne by me from your birth, earned from the womb." Here is what Calvin said' If it be objected that God is everywhere called a Father . and that this title is more appropriate to him, I reply, that nofigureof speech can describe God's extraordinary affection towards us, for it is infinite and various By no metaphor, therefore, can his incomparable goodness be desenbed . . God who has manifested himself to be both (Israel's) father and mother will always assist them " (Calvin.Ill, 436-437) It needs to be noted that Calvin does not envision faithful religious people trying to come up with a metaphor for God; he envisions God choosing those metaphors by which to reveal God's own self. (See also Calvin on Isa 49:15:IV,30) Calvin's most influential twentieth-century interpreter and reviser, Karl Barth, argues, however, that assuming language about God is metaphorical turns the actual case upside down

Bartlett: Between Translation and Targum

157

We use our words improperly and pictonally—as we can now say, looking back from God's revelation—when we apply them within the confines of what it appropnates to us as creatures When we apply them to God they are not alienated from their original object and therefore from their truth, but on the contrary, restored to it. For example, the words "father" and "son" do not first and properly have their truth at the point of reference to the underlying views and concepts in our thought and language, i.e in their application to the two nearest male members in the succession of physical generation of man or of animal creation generally They have it first and properly at a point to which, as our words, they cannot refer at all, but to which, on the basis and revelation of God, they may refer, and on the basis of the lawful claim of God the Creator they even must refer . in their application to God in the doctnne of the Trinity In a way which is incomprehensible and concealed from us, but in the incontestable pnonty of the Creator over the creature, God himself is the father and the Son If we apply these words to God, we do not withdraw from them their onginal meaning, nor do we speak "as if." On the contrary we speak in the onginal truth of these words. (Barttr 229-230)

Such a claim about the revelatory power of religious language, not simply reducible to its function as metaphor, at least chastens our rush to find new metaphors to serve the same intent as the old Nonetheless I agree with the editors that, whatever else it is, language about God's fatherhood is also metaphorical. Yet here, too, I retain my preference for a more narrow translation—even if that seems more exclusive and complicates the task of interpretation. If one is to argue that "Father-Mother" is an appropriate paraphrase of "Father" in New Testament language about God, one ought then to show how this new metaphor does "express the intent of the text in the most inclusive way possible" (Inclusive Version, via). I have suggested that in using "Brothers and Sisters" instead of "Brothers" for first-century believers the NRSV and the Inclusive Version do make explicit what is implicit in much of the New Testament usage. How would one argue the same case for Father-Mother? In prayers and sermons my own practice has been not to coin a new metaphor like Father-Mother but to turn metaphor into simile "Like a loving Father you have cared for us; like a strong Mother you have strengthened us." Related to this is the editors' assertion that "references to 'Lord' in this version are considerably diminished" (xiii). The problem is that in the Hebrew Bible and in its Greek translation, "God" elohim, theos, and "Lord" Yahweh, kyrios, are not simply interchangeable To put it too simply, in Hebrew "God" is the genenc name that the true God shares with other lesser or false gods, and Yahweh is the proper name of the God of Israel

158

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

(The editors recognize this in their discussion of the use of terms for God in the Psalms, xxi-xxii.) Sometimes, at least, when New Testament writers refer to either Jesus or the one who sent him as "Lord," they are echoing the Old Testament "Yahweh" (because their Bible is probably the Septuagint), not simply using a common Greek term for owners and masters. The editors say that they substitute "Jesus" for "Lord" when the antecedent "is the historical Jesus," but I doubt that in the Gospels the antecedent is ever the historical Jesus (xhi) The antecedent is always the Jesus who seen through the eyes of faith is sometimes confessed as Yahweh among us—and therefore kynos. At key points where the text unambiguously makes this high chnstological claim (John 20:28; Phil. 2:11) the editors appropriately keep "Lord " I wish that they would do so whenever kynos is used—except when it clearly means owner or sir—or that they would try to find some word that captures the nuances of the Greek so that readers, hearers, and preachers can decide for themselves what power kyrios has in a particular context For instance, in the story of the raising of the son of the Widow of Nain, the NRSV follows the Greek rather narrowly, translating kyrios as "Lord " A dead man is being carried out of the city, followed by his weeping mother. When the Lord saw her, he had compassion for her and said to her, "Do not weep." (Luke 7:13, NRSV) And seeing her, Jesus had compassion for her and said to her, "Do not weep " (Luke 7 13, Inclusive Version)

Maybe the editors of the Inclusive Version are right and Luke simply uses "Lord" as another word for "Jesus " Maybe, however, the kynos who has mercy reminds the readers or hearers of that kynos that our editors call "Lord" in those psalms "where the Psalmist speaks of God's concern for the poor and needy, and of God's coming to their rescue and delivering them with power." (xxi) From my personal and vocational bias the biggest problem with this version as a text for reading in worship is that it ignores the possibility and responsibility of preaching and the excitement of Bible study One task of the preacher is to talk about why the Fourth Gospel sounds antisemitic and may even be so; to ask how Paul can say that there is neither male nor female in Chnst (Gal. 3:28) and then apparently tell women to be quiet in the Corinthian churches (1 Cor 14:33-36); to discuss Ephesians 5 and its apparent patnarchalism in the light of first-century GrecoRoman and Jewish practice, the text's predictable orderliness and surprising

Bartlett. Between Translation and Targum

159

reciprocity, to puzzle about how the Risen Chnst both is and is not continuous with the Galilean Jesus; to ask why kynos is sometimes used of God the Creator, sometimes of Jesus (as thcos almost never is). The editors are trying to get the text to do the work that we have traditionally left to interpreters. The Reformers said that church happens when the sacraments are celebrated and the word is preached—not just read. Of course, if nobody ever gets to listen to a sermon again or go to Bible study, maybe we need to clean the text up with our paraphrases and emendations. But if preaching and Bible study are to continue, then we need to know where we came from as well as where we want to be—to recognize the Bible for the wondrous, confused, conflicted, sometimes gracious, sometimes mean-spirited, hurtful and saving word that it is. I think the Inclusive Version oj the New Testament and Psalms should be on the shelf of every pastor and every worship committee chair in Englishspeaking Christian churches to help with designing liturgy, prayer, sermon Probably not in the class on the historical study of the Bible Certainly not on the lectern on Sunday morning

REFERENCES 1952

Revised Standard Version oj the Bible New York: Thomas Nelson.

1971

The Living Bible. Wheaton. Tyndale House

1989

New Revised Standard Version Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc

1995

The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version. New York. Oxford University Press

Barth, Karl 1957

Church Dogmatics, Volume II, Part 1. Trans by T H L Parker et al Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

Bowker.John 1969

The Targums and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge' Cambridge University Press.

Calvin, John 1979 (repnnt)

Commentary on the Book oj the Prophet Isaiah. Trans by William Pnngle, Vols. Ill, IV. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

160

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Commager, Henry Steele 1960

Theodore Parker. Boston: Beacon Press.

Lattimore, Richard 1979

The Four Gospels and the Revelation. Newly Translated from the Greek by Richard Lattimore. New York. Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.

Martyn.J. Louis 1979

History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. Nashville. Abingdon.

Norton, David 1993

A History of the Bible as Literature. (2 vols.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Price, Reynolds 1996

Three Gospels. New York. Scribner.