Language matters. Calling an animal 'it' denies them something. They are beloved by God. They glorify God. God’s covenant is with humans and animals. God cares about animals. I would think that’s a rather unanimous opinion among biblical scholars today, where that might not have been the case 200 years ago.
The call has come in response to the development of 'gender inclusive' language in latest version of the NIV Bible translation, released last month. The Committee on Bible Translation have explained that the change in the latest version reflects the original intention, as well as our current use of gender specific terms.
In general, much more often than not ... "People” and "humans” (and "human beings”) were widely used for Greek and Hebrew masculine forms referring to both men and women. ... "Ancestors” was regularly preferred to "forefathers” unless a specific, limited reference to the patriarchs or to another all-male group is intended.
And so, PETA have figured that if language can be gender inclusive, why not inclusive for animals too.
Whilst it is clear that God cares for his creation, Mouse reckons this is a bit of a stretch.
This has all led to a fascinating debate on a couple of secularist websites. The New Humanist blog and Heresy Corner (both well worth bookmarking) have covered the story. Heresy Corner questions whether God really does love animals, given the number of animals which are slaughtered in the Bible.
Mouse reckons the most interesting part of this comes in some of the surrounding detail given by CNN. They outline how Bruce Friedrich is a Catholic, and believes that the Bible encourages vegetanariasm. This seems pretty directly contrary to both Christ's eating of fish and Peter's vision in which God tells him to eat all kinds of animals. So this looks to Mouse like a demonstration of how we can project our own opinions and beliefs into the way we interpret the Bible.
However ridiculous and far fetched it seems and whatever strange arguments may sometimes be employed, I do believe that animal rights will be the next big arena for debate in society as well as in Christianity.
ReplyDeleteOnce women and gay people are firmly included in the fold at all levels, animal rights and the environment will become our next level of awareness.
It will be fascinating to see how that debate will change society.
Ah Mouse, if you had held that story back for 24 hours you could have set all sorts of hares running and red herrings swimming.
ReplyDeleteYes, I thought it was 1st April until I checked the date!!!!
ReplyDeleteAlas, my rabbit cannot read and thus is unable to appreciate such inclusivity.
ReplyDeleteAs a little girl I occasionally read the bible to my hamster and the family's black labrador.
They didn't have very much to say about it, if I'm honest.
I have the gender inclusive NIV New Testament and Psalms
ReplyDeletehttp://www.e-n.org.uk/p-477-NIV-Bible-Inclusive-Language-Edition.htm
The church has yet to catch up with the rest of society in gender equality. Some apparently have picked up their frocks and run back to Rome in the the horror that a woman may hold a position of leadership.
So mouse I think you will have to wait a long while for rodents to be inclusive. I think the Old Testament saw your larger cousins as a form of plague. Sorry.......
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere is absolutely nothing wrong with this idea. I think that what PETA would need to do is to organise a group of Bible translators to get working on this and contact a publisher.
ReplyDeleteI have learnt over the years a valuable principle: it's no use "calling" for something to be done - you need to do it! Of course PETA would need to initially fund the project themselves and hope that the sales would then provide some income.
Ok, first off this is one of the most ridiculous ideas anyone has suggested for translating the Bible. As has already been pointed out, it's not like the animals care. And just to add a bit more realism to the "person of questionable intellect" (read idiot) that suggested it, I am sure that if he had read the Bible he would notice that it is lacking in names for the animals, so how we are supposed to accurately specify gender in almost all cases?
ReplyDeleteSecondly, how is being gender specific to animals in any way benefiting the people who the Bible is intended for? People should respect animals, but does knowing the gender of the donkey that Mary was taken from Nazareth to Bethlehem make any difference to this or the more important message of salvation? People are dying all around the world without hearing the Gospel, surely people should be looking to put money towards mission and practical assistance for people around the world before targeting inane and near impossible efforts like this!
And, as a final aside, regarding the quote "picked up their frocks" please grow up! They hold theological views on the leadership of the church that you disagree with. That's fine, I happen to disagree with them too, but why mock them for their convictions? Inclusiveness and acceptance fine for all so long as you don't happen to have a belief that goes against political correctness? Take your own illiberal log from your own eye before slating others!
Mary wasn't taken to Bethlehem on a donkey. Or if she was it wasn't deemed important enough to be included in the text. Specifying the gender of an imaginary or assumed donkey may be taking this a little too far.
ReplyDeleteI often forget that the Internet doesn't convey the proximity of my cheek to my Tongue very easily.
ReplyDeleteLeviticus 11:29 (NRSV). Sorry, Mouse, it was the only reference to your species I could find, and only in some translations...
ReplyDeleteThere were a lot of vegetarians in the early church, who saw eating meat as a sign of the fallen creation, post-Noah, so you can make an argument for vegetarianism from the Bible. There's also a decent one from stewardship, given the quantity of feed/energy etc. required to produce 1 ton of animal protein vs a ton of vegetable protein.
ReplyDeleteGod does care about animals, but not in the same way, or to the same degree, that he cares about humans. And we're the same: if we had to save our grandmother or our gerbil from a burning building, it would be roast gerbil every time.
Is there a poster of a shapely naked woman to go with this announcement, or have PETA moved on from that kind of appeal to our animal instincts?
Sounds good. Use "it" for every pronoun that might otherwise specify species AND we will also include the so-called non-living. Animists will come into the fold! So will the trees and rivers!
ReplyDeleteBut isn't that what the Greek word translated 'all' is like? One needs to see the context, no? Conclusive proof!
So from the ugly "human-kind" I see in some gender-inclusive translations, we'll see kindness (yes, the pun is intended, and is intended to be horrid) spread out to all of creation -- which is waiting on tenterhooks for salvation.
When we talk about whether the Cross was a boy-cross or a girl-cross, please wake me up.
ReplyDeleteForget 'him' and 'her' - I want names. As Mr C H Worship alludes to above, if we are going to accord the Donkey full rights, surely we should know its name.
And Mary entered Bethlehem on Dwayne the Donkey ... "Little Dwayney, Little Dwayney"
It is the logical next step, mark my words!
The point about inclusive language and gender pronouns would be to make people realise that animals aren't just matter for us to use.
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit like giving a lamb a name makes it much harder to cook it afterwards.
The trend is already there: "a dog is for life not just for Christmas", more species appropriate zoos and safari parks, an awareness that battery farming is cruel... society is slowly becoming sensitive to these things.
I predict that over the next 100 years this will be like all major social develoments. At first a fringe movement proposes them and is ridiculed. Then awareness slowly moves through society until a serious debate can be had with pros and cons on both sides. Then the balance will tip and the fringe will be the ones who still hold firm to the old views.
They could always try the King James version, which AFAIK always uses male/female gender pronouns for animals.
ReplyDeleteSo being "inclusive" means avoiding gender-specific expressions for humans and using gender-specific expressions for animals?!
ReplyDeleteThings tend to get really out of whack when you start worshiping the created over the creator. I believe we should treat animals well, but to give them an equal playing field to humans is just plain nonsense!
ReplyDeleteTony
ReplyDeleteraising awareness means using whatever words it takes.
It was never about avoiding gender specific expressions for humans, it was about avoiding the use of male language when women were included and about making sure that jobs, for example, are advertised without gender stereotyping.
With animals the need is different. Language that classifies them as things is potentially not helpful and the task is to see them as creatures in their own right who are not just there to be used by us. If calling them he and she helps to get there, then it's a valid approach.