Gender insensitivity in Matthew 8:28

All three Synoptic Gospels--Matthew, Mark, and Luke--record the story of Jesus allowing a swarm of several thousand demons to enter a herd of swine, which then committed mass sooey-cide. The textual matter of where this occurred can be saved for a later post; right now I'd like to focus on the question of just who was possessed by the Legion.

Both Mark and Luke give the story in some detail, but refer only to a man (Luke specifically uses the word aner) who was demon-possessed. Matthew, on the other hand, gives a much briefer account, but mentions "two possessed with devils." At least, that's how the KJV reads. The NKJ adds the word men, in italics because it is only implied in the Greek. This would not do, of course, in a gender-sensitive version, where females must be read into every context where they are not specifically excluded.

Or would it?

Yes, and even worse: all three translations of the CBT (NIV, NIrV, and TNIV) call them 'two men' without any italics. As does the Amplified, an earlier project of Zondervan's. Even the NLT does, in both editions.

What's up with that? There's nothing in the Greek of Matthew to even hint that the demonicas were both men. The NRSV at least allows for this, calling them "two demoniacs."

Nothing gender-sensitive about that, though; it turns out to have already been the reading of the RSV. And of the ASV, of which the RSV was a revision. The ASV, of course, was an update of the KJV--and we can continue this chain back through every English version all the way to Tyndale. Nobody called them 'men' until about 50 years ago, when the NASB began taking liberties with the text which have yet to be corrected.

The CBT still hasn't attained to the level of "gender-sensitive yet accurate" translation that some have enjoyed since 1525.

UPDATE: The NNIV is unchanged.

Dolphins are fish

I have before me two cans of Bumble Bee brand Dolphin Safe Premium Chunk Light Tuna. Each bears a logo reading, "FISH TALES: See Inside of Label."

What does the word 'fish' mean, according to Bumble Bee? Well, a couple of things, depending on which label you read.

According to label #1, a fish is a swimming creature that can communicate by means of coded electrical signals--a rather unscientific statement that errs in a couple of ways, even if the fish in question are elephant snouts.

According to label #2, a fish is a swimming creature with a bone structure in its appendages similar to that of humans. Interesting, if not particularly scientific, because the fish in question are dolphins.

It seems that all manner of pseudoscience is permitted in popular literature, so long as the theory of allele creation by natural selection on random gene mutations is upheld.

One more thing to crab about

This is so typical of the way governments respond to simple problems in the real world.

The Russian fishing industry, largely responsible for the Western Nations making their continental waters off limits to foreign fishing boats, got the brilliant idea way back in 1961 of introducing King Crabs to the Barents Sea. For several decades, it didn't appear that the experiment had worked. Then, suddenly the Northern Atlantic appeared overrun with the critters, ironically just as they appeared close to commercial extinction in their home waters of the Bering Sea on Russia's other coast.

The solution was all too typical of the government: the respective nations on both sides of Russia slapped heavy restrictions on their own fleets, while Russian fishermen proceeded to flood the world markets with crabs caught in their own newly expanded territorial waters.

While this action barely saved the King Crab in the Bering Sea--the quota was filled one season in only four days of frantic fishing--it did little to contain the explosive growth of the King Crab in the Barents Sea. Grudgingly, the governments raised the quota year by year--but, maddeningly, in both oceans. This, despite the clear evidence that the crabs were nearly extinct in one ocean, but a burgeoning invasive species in the other.

And note this--the Atlantic population had been assumed extinct for at least 15 years when they suddenly appeared out of nowhere, in numbers far more than the fisherman could initially handle. And they've already made it more than halfway to the North Pole, surviving even under the ice cap.

Humans only think they have the power to raise a species up, or put it down.

Praying Unbelievers: The NIV and Acts 21:5

Anyone trying to produce a gender-neutral translation of the Bible is going to run into a problem whenever they encounter a clearly androcentric passage. And, to their great detriment, it turns out that the Bible has quite a few of them. In this post we'll look at the opening verses of Acts 21.

1 And when we had parted from them and set sail, we came by a straight course to Cos, and the next day to Rhodes, and from there to Patara. 2 And having found a ship crossing to Phoenicia, we went aboard, and set sail. 3 When we had come in sight of Cyprus, leaving it on the left we sailed to Syria, and landed at Tyre; for there the ship was to unload its cargo. 4 And having sought out the disciples, we stayed there for seven days. Through the Spirit they told Paul not to go on to Jerusalem. 5 And when our days there were ended, we departed and went on our journey; and they all, with wives and children, brought us on our way till we were outside the city; and kneeling down on the beach we prayed and bade one another farewell. 6 Then we went on board the ship, and they returned home.

That from the RSV. Note particularly verse 5b: "They all, with wives and children, brought us on our way." Since "they" refers back to the Tyrian disciples, the passage clearly shows that the author of Acts used 'disciples' with a primarily adult male connotation, and had to specify when the term was intended to include others.

How did the NIV handle this passage?

We landed at Tyre, where our ship was to unload its cargo. Finding the disciples there, we stayed with them seven days. Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem. But when our time was up, we left and continued on our way. All the disciples and their wives and children accompanied us out of the city, and there on the beach we knelt to pray. After saying good-by to each other, we went aboard the ship, and they returned home.

Aha, so the CBT on this pass agreed that 'disciples' referred to adult men only. Clear enough. But look at what happened when the CBT put out an edition of the NIV for kids--the NIrV:

We landed at Tyre. There our ship was supposed to unload. 4 We found the believers there and stayed with them for seven days. Led by the Holy Spirit, they tried to get Paul not to go on to Jerusalem. 5 But when it was time to leave, we continued on our way. All the believers and their families went with us out of the city. There on the beach we got down on our knees to pray. 6 We said good-by to each other. Then we went on board the ship. And they returned home.

Since 'their families' is a distinct subset from 'all the believers', the CBT made the ridiculous assertion that a bunch of unbelievers not only accompanied their loony Christian relatives to the beach, but knelt with them to pray!

Did the CBT fare any better when they brought their gender-neutral strategy to bear on the adult version? Let's see:

We landed at Tyre, where our ship was to unload its cargo. 4 We sought out the disciples there and stayed with them seven days. Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem. 5 When it was time to leave, we left and continued on our way. All of them, including wives and children, accompanied us out of the city, and there on the beach we knelt to pray. --TNIV

See what happened? They managed to eliminate the praying unbelievers, but in order to pull it off, "the disciples" had to be erased from the text, and replaced with "them."

Just to be fair, let's see how some other gender-neutral translators handled the problem. First, the NRSV:

We left and proceeded on our journey; and all of them, with wives and children, escorted us outside the city. There we knelt down on the beach and prayed 6 and said farewell to one another. Then we went on board the ship, and they returned home.

Hmm. In this case gender neutrality had to go, in the interests of accuracy. OK, next the NLT:

The entire congregation, including women [or wives] and children, left the city and came down to the shore with us. There we knelt, prayed, 6 and said our farewells. Then we went aboard, and they returned home.

Same story here. The reading "including wives and children" is, to begin with, strikingly inarticulate. And notice how "and" has been replaced with "including" only where the text had to be wrested into a gender-neutral position. It took CBT two tries to make the switch!

"And" and "Including" are mutually exclusive terms in this context, so the CBT are in a real pickle. Either they were poor translators when they used the one, or they were denying their stated principles when they used the other. Which will it be in the Newer and Improveder International Version?

UPDATE June 10, 2011
There was no change in the NNIV.

UPDATE June 10, 2015
I'll grant the CBT another point here, as I encountered a quote in which AIG's "Bodie" Hodge wrote: "A feasibility study predicted that 1.6 million people will visit in the first year alone with hundreds of thousands who will not be Christians."  Thus using 'with' to mean 'including' is an acknowledged feature of English.  It's awkward, but usually its meaning is clear: in this example, 'unbelievers' are clearly a subset of 'people.' As in Philippians 1:1, where 'bishops and deacons' are subsets of 'saints in Philippi.'

But not so much in Acts 21.

Racism Defined

What is Racism?

I'll answer that question for myself. I trust that any who hope to understand racism will see why I define it thusly:

Racist: Characterized by racism, which is the belief that a certain race is superior to all others, and that with that superiority come certain rights and privileges. Primarily, a racist considers his own race to be superior, but will also expect those of other races to agree with his assessment, thus pulling into the definition those who hold up any race for special rights and privileges.

A good example is, of all people, Abraham Lincoln. In his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln argued:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

In March 1860, Lincoln's racism was evident in an address he gave in Hartford, Connecticut:

"I think I would go for enslaving the black man, in preference to being enslaved myself. ... They say that between the nigger and the crocodile they go for the nigger. The proportion, therefore, is, that as the crocodile to the nigger so is the nigger to the white man."

And this, from a man born the same day as Lincoln, but on the other side of the Atlantic:

I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit.... The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

--Charles Darwin in a letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881