The Catholic Biblical
Association of
America
Inclusive Language and the Bible
At their meeting of November 1990 the American bishops approved the final text of a document with the lengthy but precise title of Criteria for the Evaluation of Inclusive Language Translations of Scripture Texts Proposed for Liturgical Use.
These criteria were prepared by a committee of members drawn both from the bishops' Committee on Doctrine and from their Committee on the Liturgy. The group was therefore called the Joint Committee on Inclusive Language. The document the J.C.I.L. approved was long in preparation, went through several drafts and was approved at the bishops' meeting by an overwhelming vote. In its first section, it notes that "some segments of American culture have become increasingly sensitive to `exclusive language,' i.e., language that seems to exclude the equality and dignity of each person regardless of race, gender, creed, age, or ability. . . . English vocabulary itself has changed so that words which once referred to all human beings are increasingly taken as gender-specific and, consequently, exclusive."
Referring explicitly to texts destined for use in the liturgy, the Criteria states: "Words such as men, sons, brothers, brethren, forefathers, fraternity, and brotherhood, which were once understood as inclusive generic terms, today are often understood as referring only to males. In addition, although certain uses of he, his, and him once were generic and included both women and men, in contemporary American usage these terms are often perceived to refer only to males. Their use has become ambiguous and is increasingly seen to exclude women. Therefore, these terms should not be used when the reference is meant to be generic. . . ." (No. 18).
The J.C.I.L. also observed that "the Word of God proclaimed to all nations is by nature inclusive, that is, addressed to all peoples, men and women. . . . Consequently, every effort should be made to render the language of biblical translations as inclusively as a faithful translation of the sense permits" (No. 14).
"Inclusive language" is described as one of those principles that apply to the public communication of the biblical meaning, "since the text is proclaimed in the Christian assembly to women and men who possess equal baptismal dignity and reflects the universal scope of the Church's call to evangelize" (No. 15).
"Language that addresses and refers to the worshipping community," the document remarks, "ought not to use words or phrases that deny the common dignity of all the baptized" (No. 17). Specifically with reference to translations destined for the liturgy, the Joint Committee says that "because their immediate purposes are somewhat different, [biblical] texts translated for public proclamation in the liturgy may differ in some respects from those translations that are meant solely for academic study, private reading, or lectio divina" (No. 12).
One can be certain that the bishops did not lightly reach the conclusion that "English vocabulary itself has changed." The Hebrew vocabulary in the Old Testament is at the same stage English vocabulary was before the "change" referred to took place. That is to say, words such as "men" and "sons" could be understood as inclusive generic terms. A case in point is Psalm 1. Its opening lines in earlier translations, literally following the Hebrew, read "Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked . . . but his delight is the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night."
However, men and women are frequently treated in parallel fashion in the Old Testament. For example, all, both men and women, are to hear and learn and observe the law and fear the Lord (Dt. 31:12; Jos. 8:35; Neh. 8:2-3), all share in liturgical ceremonies (2 Sam. 6:19; cf. Ex. 15:20-21; Ps. 68:26) and sacrifices (Dt. 12:12,18; 16:11,14), and in the Lord's wrath when they sin (Dt. 32:19). Both men and women were givers of wise instruction (Pr. 1:8; 31:1,26), were addressed by the prophets (Jer. 44:20,24), shared in the prophetic office (Jdg. 4:2; 2 Kgs. 22:13-14), and will share in the messianic blessings (Jl. 3:1; Zech. 8:4).
When, therefore, Old Testament Hebrew uses the third person masculine in generalized contexts, it is used as it formerly was used in English, i.e., in an inclusive sense. But since in English this usage no longer has that inclusive sense, to maintain the third person masculine would not be a literal translation--that is, one which gives the true meaning of the text--but a mistranslation. Even the Hebrew 'ish, which is the primary term for (an individual) "man" (and which is the term used Ps. 1:1), is not infrequently used in the generalized sense of "human being."
Perhaps it is for this reason that when the Old Testament speaker wanted to designate males unambiguously he used an expression that the Douay-Rheims rendered "any that pisseth against a wall" and which all modern translations render by a euphemism (1 Sam. 25:34; 1 Kg. 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; 2 Kg. 9:8). The euphemism is legitimate, for it renders the sense and does not violate sensibilities. By the same token, if this procedure is not false to the Word of God, neither is a translation that does not express as masculine generalized expressions that can and should apply to both men and women.
Now, it can be argued from a scholarly point of view, and indeed has been argued, that the subject of the beatitude in Ps. 1:1 is necessarily a male. In ancient Israel, only men devoted themselves to the study of "the law of the Lord"--see, for example, Sirach's praise of the vocation of the scribe (Sir. 39:1-11). We can recall the Jewish prayer in which the male thanks God that he was not born a woman (largely because women had nothing to do with study of the law), or the dictum that compares teaching one's daughter the law to allowing her to be a harlot.
But when Psalm 1 is used in the Christian liturgy, we ought not to restrict its meaning to a narrowly historical understanding. Were we to do that, the "law" in question would remain simply the Torah of the Old Testament. When this psalm is used in the Christian liturgy, however, it applies to all, and the "law" includes, in addition to the richness of the Old Testament legislation, all the New Testament instruction, the Sermon on the Mount and the epistolary exhortations.
This approach to translation accords with modern hermeneutical theory, which recognizes that a text, once produced, obtains a certain autonomy from the historical setting in which it was composed, and is susceptible of newer meanings in new situations. The mere fact that Psalm 1 is now part of a canon that includes the Sermon on the Mount and St. Paul's dictum that "in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female" gives it a new nuance that ought not be ruled out by a literalistic translation.
Richard J. Clifford, S.J., a Scripture scholar who has been rector of Weston Jesuit School of Theology, president of the Catholic Biblical Association, and general editor of The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, responding in to Father Fessio's claim, noted that "only a minority of patristic authors ever held it [the christological reading of Psalm 1]" and continued in part: "According to St. Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367), `the contents of the first Psalm forbid us to understand it either of the Person of the Father or of the Son.' Basil of Caesarea (d. 379) . . . rejects a Christological interpretation. One can infer that Origen . . . opposed a Christological meaning. The Antiochenes, Diodore and Theodore, . . . repudiated it. St. Jerome is unambiguous: `such an interpretation certainly shows a lack of experience and knowledge, for if that happy man is Christ, and Christ gave the law, how can the words: "But delights in the law of the Lord," apply to Christ'" (National Jesuit News, April/May, 1994, pp. 8-9).
It has sometimes been argued (even by a bishop or two) that the use of the plural instead of "man . . . son of man" in Psalm 8 is not legitimate because this is a "messianic" psalm. The argument is based on the use of this verse in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The psalm asks, in effect, "What are human beings that you are mindful of them? Yet you have made them little lower than the gods" (or "than God" or than "the heavenly beings"--the Hebrew is susceptible of various interpretations).
Basically this and the following verses constitute an exclamation of wonder that weak humanity is placed on a level so close to the divine. This is a thought that, in these days when so much in our culture would drag us into the gutter, is worth emphasizing. The psalm does not use 'ish, the usual Hebrew term for an individual man, but 'enosh, a term found mainly in poetry and, though singular in form, often in the plural sense (cf. Dt. 32:26; Is. 24:6). The Hebrew expression "son of man," which here again simply means the human being, comes in to serve as a parallel expression and means no more than 'enosh. The psalm, therefore, exalts God for creation in general (vv. 1-4) and then, with expressions of wonder, exalts God for the role given human beings within creation (vv. 5-9). The proper translation of Ps. 8:5 will correspond to what the author intended to say in the Hebrew words and expressions used. It is not a matter of a single human being, no matter how exalted, but of what God has done for humankind.
In its literal sense therefore, this psalm is in no way "messianic." The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews exploits the term "son of man" (no doubt with an eye to its use in the Gospels) and, following the Greek of the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew text, speaks of the humiliation undergone by Jesus in becoming "for a little while lower than the angels." In the light of the use made of the Old Testament in the New Testament and in rabbinic writings, this is both a legitimate and a brilliant use of the text. But this does not make Psalm 8 "messianic" in any sense, nor should it dictate how the psalm should be translated.
The use of Ps. 8:5 in Heb. 2, could in fact, be designated as an "accommodation," that is to say, the words are used to serve the author's purpose even though they are taken out of their context and without regard for the literal sense. Another example of accommodation would be the use of Hos. 11:1 in Mt. 2:15 (where even the formula "to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet" is used): "Out of Egypt I called my son." The Hosea text, which goes on to say "the more I called them, the farther they went from me, sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols" (v. 2) does not become "messianic" because a Gospel author has applied it to Jesus.
What is especially sad about the opposition to the sort of inclusive language discussed here is the attitude it reveals toward the Church, the hierarchy and the way things ought to be done. The American bishops formulated and approved the J.C.I.L. Criteria for liturgical texts over a period of years, and the work on the New American Bible revised psalter was carried out under the supervision of a board of five bishops (the late Archbishop John F. Whealon, the late Bishop Enrique San Pedro, and Bishops Richard J. Sklba, Donald W. Trautman and Emil A. Wcela), all Scripture scholars and all highly respected by their fellow bishops. The Psalter was overwhelmingly approved by the American bishops. Yet Father Fessio has cavalierly denounced this work and charged that "the American bishops . . . are depriving their flock of the Christ of the Psalms."
Recent tactics in the debate about inclusive language have been more like the maneuvers of the gun and tobacco lobbies more what might be expected of Catholics. It is an open secret that appeals to Rome from archconservatives among both bishops and laity in this country are largely responsible for holding up approval of a new lectionary, approved by the American bishops in 1991 and 1992, and incorporates the new psalter. Perhaps the claim may be made that this is only invoking papal authority, but in reality it is a return to the curialism that Vatican II tried to bring under control.
Decisions about these questions of vernacular translations devolve not upon the Pope but upon non-American prelates and priests. Some are British, others are persons for whom English is not their native language. Often arch-conservatives who are not in tune or in sympathy with American culture. (One remembers that the New American Bible was not used in the new catechism because the English members of the catechism's translation committee judged this Bible to have "too many American idioms.")
The blame for the delay in approval of the new lectionary is on the heads of those who would choose to render ineffectual the decisions of the American hierarchy for the sake of preferences that have nothing to do with faith or dogma.
Joseph Jensen, O.S.B., associate professor of Scripture in the School of Religious Studies at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., has since 1970 been the executive secretary of the Catholic Biblical Association. He chaired the editorial board responsible for the revised psalter of the New American Bible.