# Women as Bible Translators?



## Pergamum (Nov 24, 2008)

Hello;


Most of us would object to women teachers, most also to women seminary teachers of systematics. Some would object to a woman teacher teaching the Biblical languages and others would say okay. 

Most would say that under the right circumstances women can be missionaries.




What about linguistics?


Should women become bible translators?


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 24, 2008)

I can't think of any biblical reason why women, automatically are not to be translators.

It would be difficult for me to conceive of, for example, Elisabeth Elliot, violating Scripture by her translating Scripture among a people group whose language she had unique knowledge of.

Ordinarily, one would expect to see men leading in the translation ministry, but even there (in leading the translation) I'm not sure there could not be extraordinary circumstances where a women could lead translation (E.g. husband killed by the people you were trying to evangelize and the wife was left to finish the translation work).

I am aware sometimes we use the term "missionary" to describe men and women involved in this kind of work, but we are working on more precisely and knowledgeably using that term on another thread.


----------



## TimV (Nov 24, 2008)

> It would be difficult for me to conceive of, for example, Elisabeth Elliot, violating Scripture by her translating Scripture among a people group whose language she had unique knowledge of.



Don't you feel inconsistant by saying this and a few posts earlier saying



> My only comment, not knowing of the faculty conditions you speak of, is that the condition itself does not mean something is biblical or right. God is never limited and can do things that seem impossible, often using obedient Christians as a means.



?


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 24, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> I can't think of any biblical reason why women, automatically are not to be translators.
> 
> It would be difficult for me to conceive of, for example, Elisabeth Elliot, violating Scripture by her translating Scripture among a people group whose language she had unique knowledge of.
> 
> ...



On that other thread, I see no reason to try to falsely make that term "missionary" more precise than it already is by common usage, if by "precision" we are restricting its usage to some members who, for hundreds of years, have been called missionaries (i.e. unordained men and also women in certain roles).




And Scott, I see that you are arguing from the "Deborah" type of example again..."well, if men won't do it, women will". That is a bad way to legitimize women's roles in Bible Translation. Either they should or should not.


----------



## TimV (Nov 24, 2008)

To those of you who know another language, and have had to translate: Is it sometimes necessary to make judgment calls on meanings? I've had to do it on three continents and to me it's a no brainer.

Are any of you not glad that the translators of the Bibles you have were not young arminian women???

Surely none but a church officer should be entrusted with such a task.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 24, 2008)

Some thoughts:


-women excel at teaching literacy so that people can read the translated Bible.

-Translating is not the same as publicly teaching or preaching, i.e. exercising authority over a man.

--A translator is not speaking for himself but is merely repeating (in another language)what the text says, i.e. the text's authority not their own.

Therefore, on the surface it appears that women are not exercising authority when they translate and so they are free to translate the Bible.


I can name 3 cases right now where single women are doing great work translating Scripture, while their male translation helper preaches the texts on Sunday. I praise God for this work. 


However, it is impossible merely to translate without knowing theology. Even men translators who major in linguistics but are theological dummies do great harm to the Word of God.

Right now I believe it is more a matter of theological knowledge than gender as to why some people should not translate the Word of God. I do not see translation as exercising ecclesiastical authority.



Now, Tim, you mentioned a case where a woman was on a translation team with a man and they disagreed. That example stirs things up a little bit, but disagreeing on a verb tense is different than usurping the leadership of a church, although I can see why you are uneasy about such an example.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 24, 2008)

TimV said:


> To those of you who know another language, and have had to translate: Is it sometimes necessary to make judgment calls on meanings? I've had to do it on three continents and to me it's a no brainer.
> 
> Are any of you not glad that the translators of the Bibles you have were not young arminian women???
> 
> Surely none but a church officer should be entrusted with such a task.



The adjectives young and arminian are more troubling than the adjective women.


If none but a church officer is to do this task, then 90% of Wycliffe Bible Translators are unfit becuase they are little m missionaries, i.e. mostly non-ordained Christians sent out by their churches as missionaries and are not elders or ordained.


I do agree that translation requires theological knowledge. And itis scary what some things get translated as.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 24, 2008)

> Pergamum
> The MacDaddy
> 
> On that other thread, I see no reason to try to falsely make that term "missionary" more precise than it already is by common usage, if by "precision" we are restricting its usage to some members who, for hundreds of years, have been called missionaries (i.e. unordained men and also women in certain roles).



Part of the need is to carefully define how we are using the term "missionary." 

As we can see from the other posts, some people are using it in an equivalent way with an office of the church (E.g. evangelist or apostle). The question is what is the biblical office of "missionary"?

It sounds like you are making a case for a broad, generic use of the term. Calling someone who assists in translation work on a foreign mission field a "missionary" but not everyone is understanding it that way, because they are thinking of it as a very specific office, with very specific biblical qualifications.

So, with your definition, how would the ministry of a woman linguist or translator be distinguised from a biblical office of evangelist or apostle or elder, which we know from Scripture, God requires men for the office?


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 24, 2008)

TimV said:


> > It would be difficult for me to conceive of, for example, Elisabeth Elliot, violating Scripture by her translating Scripture among a people group whose language she had unique knowledge of.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not starting with an assumption that women going to do linguisitic or translation work on a foreign mission field is necessarily unbiblical. This is something I would like to understand more fully, biblically, though.


----------



## TimV (Nov 24, 2008)

> That example stirs things up a little bit, but disagreeing on a verb tense is different than usurping the leadership of a church, although I can see why you are uneasy about such an example.



I'm trying not to post when I'm frustrated as I keep losing my temper and saying things I wish I wouldn't.

It's just so hard when things seem clear to me, and I can't understand why they aren't clear to others. It's frustrating on many levels because I often assume that I must be wrong (since I am so often) but I can't see where I'm wrong, and that makes it harder.

But babbling aside, and being in control by now.. they were not arguing about verb tenses. They were arguing about translating. I get the impression that Scott does not know another language fluently. I get the impression that although you do know another language you have not been involved in Bible translating yet, at least not in a serious level. Although I may be wrong on both accounts 

Translating is *NEVER* word for word. It *ALWAYS* requires *INTERPRETATION* at some time. We talk about this all the time on the board, and at Bible Studies and so on.

And it's not only words. _almah_ can either be translated young woman or virgin. Which do you chose and why? But that's just one word. There isn't a book in the Bible that does not require partial or even whole sentences *INTERPRETED* when bringing them into another language. The Bible translator is *TEACHING* people *EVERY TIME* they read their translations.

So I ask again, would anyone reading this like a young arminian woman who wasn't fluent in all the original languages translate the Bible, give it to you, and take away the versions you read now?

If not, why?


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 24, 2008)

Tim, I agree very much. One cannot "just translate".

_traduttore, traditore! _Translators are traitors!


But it seems like you have to broaden your argument to make a case that only elder-qualified men can translate. Is that the case you are making?


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 24, 2008)

> a young arminian woman who wasn't fluent in all the original languages translate the Bible



Well, no. But that's because you just said she isn't fluent in the original languages. Why would she be trying to translate them? All I know is that if I and others were charged with producing a translation for use in our local churches and my wife were a good Greek or Hebrew scholar, why would I not seek her input? She is not usurping authority over me or the church.


----------



## he beholds (Nov 24, 2008)

TimV said:


> To those of you who know another language, and have had to translate: Is it sometimes necessary to make judgment calls on meanings? I've had to do it on three continents and to me it's a no brainer.
> 
> Are any of you not glad that the translators of the Bibles you have were not young arminian women???
> 
> Surely none but a church officer should be entrusted with such a task.



I am also glad that the translators of the Bibles I have were not translated by young arminian men.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 24, 2008)

If we are looking into hypotheticals, try this one on.

What if a female in your church was a prodigious savant along the lines of Daniel Tammet ( Daniel Tammet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) and lets say she had an amazing memory of the original languages. Wouldn't it be best to have her on the translation team? I mean seriously, if a savant's expertise was Koine Greek that would mean that she would understand it and remember it better than probably everyone in the world. Also with this understanding would be the ability to never get confused or forget any grammatical rules, a words common usage, or even a words obscure usage. That is a valuable tool to have in your back pocket.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 24, 2008)

Translations are done by committees generally outside of church oversight. I think it's a shame that the Church has given over it's responsibility to the Scriptures in this way...much as it has given over it's responsibility to teach to seminaries.

I would like to see translators who are under church authority....men and women.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 24, 2008)

Others step in if I'm way off base here.

I think a lot of this "problem" can be circumvented by a simple category change. I think the authority here does not have to rest in the bible translation, but in the church elder who commends translations to his congregation, or even provides them for the congregation.

The pastor of the church should review translations and decide what is best for his congregation. It doesn't matter who translated it. It is not them exercising authority over the church or binding their consciences. It is the minister who finds their work the most able, and is thus able to read and interpret that translation for his congregation.

Is that just crazy talk?


----------



## larryjf (Nov 24, 2008)

To clarify...i know that not all seminaries operate independent of church authority....i was not speaking of such seminaries.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 24, 2008)

Women are not automatically "young" nor "arminian". An educated and Reformed lady, no problem.


----------



## TimV (Nov 24, 2008)

> Women are not automatically "young" nor "arminian".



Thanks. I thought we were discussing the woman Scott brought up.




> Well, no. But that's because you just said she isn't fluent in the original languages. Why would she be trying to translate them?



You are clearly unaware of what goes on in modern arminian missions.



> All I know is that if I and others were charged with producing a translation for use in our local churches and my wife were a good Greek or Hebrew scholar, why would I not seek her input?



Why? Well, let's see. Perhaps you disagree that translating the Bible requires making theological decisions which amount to teaching. Or perhaps you don't think it wrong for women to teach men. Or perhaps you do think it wrong for women to teach men but don't think the men in your church would read it. Or perhaps you think it best for men to teach, but are worried that if there aren't any women to do it it won't get done. Or perhaps you think it teaching but hold like many that a woman can do anything that a non ordained man can do. Or perhaps what you mean by input isn't the same as being in charge of a translation. I could go on and on, but you're asking me to speculate on why you wouldn't have a certain objection. 

Has anyone answered so far that is fluent in several languages and/or has done advanced studying of Bible translation?


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 24, 2008)

> You are clearly unaware of what goes on in modern arminian missions.


You're right. But again, what does that have to do with her being a woman? The problem is her lack of knowledge of the language, perhaps the age, and the arminianism.


> Has anyone answered so far that is fluent in several languages


Yes. 7, and studying several more. I know about translating. And I think this is a straw man. Of course translating requires a certain amount of interpretation. I don't think a woman helping a team of scholars or elders translate scripture is usurping authority or "lording it" over men.

Also, what do you think about my last post, regarding bible translations, ministers and authority (post 16)? The problem with this is that I think the lines we are trying to draw are altogether too fuzzy. Would you advocate that a woman cannot teach Greek at a liberal arts college? What about being a researcher who contributed to a text book? An editor of the lexicon you use? A spell checker for the bible translation the men have produced? I appreciate you trying to draw the line, I respectfully just don't think it quite holds up. I don't see how a woman helping with translation means she is usurping authority over men. I think it is impossible for us to have any work at all since the last few decades in which there will not be at least the contributing influence of a woman -- they've done a lot academically, and their contributions are now a part of our knowledge.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 24, 2008)

So women may have nothing doing with the Scriptures? We're ONLY permitted to read them? That's a mighty slippery slope there.


My apologies on the "young and arminian" part. It appeared that you were broadbrushing "women", rather than speaking of one in particular.


----------



## TimV (Nov 24, 2008)

> So women may have nothing doing with the Scriptures? We're ONLY permitted to read them? That's a mighty slippery slope there.



Jamal, I'd really appreciate you explaining the method you followed from

Tim says women shouldn't be Bible translators

to

Tim says women can't typeset a Bible an ordained Elder was in charge of translating. I'm trying to see how you went from



> And it's not only words. _almah_ can either be translated young woman or virgin. Which do you chose and why? But that's just one word. There isn't a book in the Bible that does not require partial or even whole sentences *INTERPRETED* when bringing them into another language. The Bible translator is *TEACHING* people *EVERY TIME* they read their translations.



when the clear context was that part of the translating process where passages had to be interpreted, to secretaries.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 24, 2008)

I'm simply trying to figure out the reasoning and how far you would take it. If a woman writes a books, laying out her beliefs, and a man chooses to buy and read that book, is she teaching a man? Should women not be permitted to write books? If a man asks her what she believes and why...is she not permitted to tell him? However, this is even to a lesser degree than those two examples: A woman doing mere translational work is not out to teach anyone. She merely using her education to do as she would if she were translating anything else. And yes, I would equate typesetting to mere reading and copying. I am questioning the former...a woman translating.

Again, I'm trying to understand this myself. I understand the initial reaction of "no", but when viewed further, I do have questions about it.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 24, 2008)

I am not familiar with the science and skill of translating as are some who have been associated with Wycliffe and other translation groups.

Here is a brief account of how the KJV was translated from its original tongues, according to a web site King James Bible




> King James Bible - The Translators
> Of the original 54 men chosen to translate the King James Bible, only 47 finished the more than seven-year project, which was governed by very strict rules of translation. The translators were scholarly men who were experts in the biblical languages, and they were convinced of the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. Dr. Henry M. Morris, President of the Institute for Creation Research, said of these men, "It is almost certain that no group of Bible scholars before or since has ever been as thoroughly fit for their task as was the King James Translation Team."
> 
> The planning of the translation project stipulated that the translators should be broken up into six panels, and each panel was given certain books of the Bible to translate. After the translations were done, a committee of 12-two translators from each of the six panels-reviewed the work based on a detailed set of guidelines that was established to ensure that the translators' personal eccentricities and political prejudices were not included in this new version.



The translators (selected by King James) were all men. They reviewed each other's work systematically.

This example, of course, does not mean necessarily that women could never be involved in any way with Bible translation. Here, we do not have information about ancillary and support functions. 

It seems to me, women could be involved in translation under a framework like this (the King James Translators) in support roles to the translators, in consulting, proof reading, typesetting without violating Scripture.

Why could not the translators consult a female Greek scholar, for example in the KJV translation approach above, before moving the translation up to cross review at the next level?

This would not be a violation of biblical requirements for ecclesiastical office, nor of the priority reflected in the creation order, as best I can tell.

It is a bit more difficult proposition for me to consider women independently translating under their own final authority. I must confess my instincts say the project and final review, ordinarily, should be under the authority and review of people with (eminant) ecclesiastical authority but am still trying to establish this by God's Word, not by my instinct or opinion.

Ordinarily, men would lead and serve in this and women would follow and help as evidenced by the (beautiful) complimentary order of creation.

I would only want to say what God reveals through Scripture, no more, no less and not limit the freedom of men or women to use their God-given talents in anything not expressly prohibited by Scripture.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 24, 2008)

TimV said:


> > Women are not automatically "young" nor "arminian".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tim:

The way you phrased the imagined translator already biases the answers: 

young arminian woman who is not fluent in the languages. 


How about an older reformed women (who nonetheless wants to serve God by translation because she feels that this role is open to her) and who has spent 5 years learning the local tribal dialect before she even begins to translate?


I have been through the SIL training course and spend more time speaking the language here many days than I do speaking English and this mostly in the local dialect and am just beginning learning yet another tribal language.

You are right that theological issues come into play in every chapter that a translator translates. There is no "totally literal" translation. I have seen some horrendous choices...mostly made by older men by the way.


I would argue however, that women are not to exercise ecclesiastical authority over a man, and quietly translating Scriptures with the help of several language helpers is a long way from preaching the Gospel and acting in the role of an elder. If a difference in kind of role is not granted by you, at least a difference in degree needs to be granted by you.

In the ___river valley I know of 3 single women who work with male language helpers to produce translated materials. All 3 are part way through the NT. These 3 girls, ladies, who have been here 15 years, are not arminian and they never speak in church. The locals have their own church leaders who use the translated materials, but the female translators themselves do not exercise ecclesiastical authority.

I think that when they die God will say "Well done good and faithful servant" instead of denouncing their work as trash because they run on estrogen.

I do not see linguistic work as an exercise of ecclesiastical authority.



About church committees and Bible Translations: This would be ideal, but there are 200 languages just here that need translating. 

One is always torn between waiting and waiting on the glacial speed of church committees and getting the job done through a smaller number of trained specialists. 

Also, many Third World churches have no such trained specialists and even if the national churches commissioned such a body, the translation they produced would not be adequate by any standards. 

EXAMPLE: We have been advising a national church denomination now for several years to value mother tongues and in 2003 they created a dept. of translation, but only last week appointed someone to man it, someone with no linguistic training. Therefore, in many parts of the world (precisely those parts of the world that need the translations) the emerging indigenous church structures rely on highly trained specialists from the outside, i.e. SIL or Wycliffe or other missionary linguists.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 24, 2008)

I also believe that a woman can teach Biblical Greek and Hebrew and a few other subjects at seminary, if we want to start another thread on that.


----------



## TimV (Nov 24, 2008)

> How about an older reformed women (who nonetheless wants to serve God by translation because she feels that this role is open to her) and who has spent 5 years learning the local tribal dialect before she even begins to translate?



I feel I'm forced to be repetitive again and again in this thread. If I don't believe women should teach men, and I believe that any translation of the Bible requires choosing one sense over another (teaching) then any woman would be excluded. I have very obviously not made myself plain, and the fact that several of you haven't been following me make it clear that the fault is mine, and I'm sorry.

The analogy is with a teaching elder. He is helped in most churches by women (and often would be totally lost without them). But while there are almost always women around who are willing and anxious to step up to the plate and do all those things women do, from choir, to nursery to secretary, to those with the give of helps, encouragement, language, health and so on forever that women do, women aren't asked to fill the pulpit when the Pastor is sick. And my personal experience is that mature Christian women don't clamor to take his place.



> quietly translating Scriptures



You can't quietly translate Scripture. The deliberate choices one makes in translating are proclaimed every Lord's Day. You are teaching, even from the grave.

Where are the KJV onlies when you need them? I guess I shouldn't have spent so much time bashing them (even though their teachings need to be bashed) because now I'm on my own, or it seems that way. Not that I really mind.

They go on about how W&H were into weird theology, and so we should be leery of their translations. I do confess to a few pet irritations myself. I know Grymir would disagree with me, but one of the reasons I don't like Barth (he leads the KB fan club) is that the "new and improved" Afrikaans Bible translates _almah_ as young woman rather than virgin, and a Barthian lead the translation of that Bible. He injected his teaching into the translation, which all translators HAVE TO DO, and I don't like what he did.

Please no one try to be clever and say that the translator of that Bible was a man, since it has nothing to do with the subject. The subject is that Bible translators TEACH MEN.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 24, 2008)

Teaching and translating are not synonymous. 

Choices must be made, but your view would disallow any woman from writing any book or article about any subject that touches on theology, lest a hapless man stumble upon it and be taught something. For that matter, your interpretation would require women to shut up and just listen anytime any conversation among a mixed crowd meanders towards religion.


I understand your position. You have made yourself clear. I even agree with much of what you say. But I disagree that translating is exercizing ecclesiastical authority.

I think this must be a pet peeve of yours perhaps due to bad past experiences.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 26, 2008)

Translating is not teaching.
If a woman was to be a translator she would have authority over the texts that she works with, not over any men.
It would be a different question if she were to head up a translation team that included men.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 26, 2008)

Larryjf: Yes, I think you are right about that translation team point. Maybe this was the bad incident that TimV refers to - a women being a boss over a translation team. Most translators work as a 1 or 2 person unit though, so it is not much of a team.


----------



## TimV (Nov 26, 2008)

> Translating is not teaching.
> If a woman was to be a translator she would have authority over the texts that she works with, not over any men.
> It would be a different question if she were to head up a translation team that included men.



Those who do not think the Bible translator is acting as a teacher fail to realize that Bible translation is not a neutral activity. It is not like doing a math problem. Any Bible translator knows this. The Bible translator is engaged in an act of teaching. Here is a part of an article written by a feminist



> The evidence seems clear and Chrysostom, writing in the fourth century, had no doubts that Junia was a female apostle. Therefore, the only reason to translate the name as male is a presupposition that a female could not be described as an apostle. However, although the KJV, NRSV and GNB do use Junia, the NIV, RSV, JB and NEB all prefer Junias.



She give many other examples of how words and phrases are translated according to the bias of the translator.
http://www.biblesociety.org.uk/exploratory/articles/evans04.doc


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 26, 2008)

And yet, you just proved that men not only can be unbiased, but they can be biased as well. And same with women.


----------



## TimV (Nov 26, 2008)

> And yet, you just proved that men not only can be unbiased, but they can be biased as well. And same with women



Jamal, I asked in post 27



> Please no one try say that the translator of that Bible was a man, since it has nothing to do with the subject. The subject is that Bible translators TEACH MEN


.

It has nothing to do with who's wrong. The point is the fact that there is the potential to be false teachers. A man that is a false teacher is wrong. A woman who is a false teacher is wrong.

I man in a pulpit who is a false teacher is wrong. A woman in the pulpit who is a false teacher is wrong.

The point is that the translator and the person in the pulpit are teaching. Not that they are wrong.

A woman in the pulpit would be wrong in the majority of churches or denomination of the people participating or reading this thread. If the woman was RIGHT in what she said, she is still WRONG for being in the pulpit, because she is TEACHING men.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 26, 2008)

This Junia topic would make a good new OP.
-----Added 11/26/2008 at 12:08:27 EST-----


TimV said:


> > And yet, you just proved that men not only can be unbiased, but they can be biased as well. And same with women
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, she is wrong "in the pulpit" exercizing ecclesiastical authority. 


If she is not exercising ecclesiastical authority than she has greater freedom to "exchange ideas" with a man.


----------



## turmeric (Nov 26, 2008)

Women often have a greater facility in languages than men, I think that would be useful in translating.


----------

