Re-discovering God’s Word: The Inclusive Bible!

For someone who has had the equivalent of two years’ full-time graduate study of the Bible, it takes quite a lot to make the Bible feel new. And, after finishing my master’s degree, I’ll confess that I haven’t been reading the Bible nearly as much as I did in seminary (when I was also preaching regularly) – which itself is less (though much more analytical) than I did as an evangelical child.

But I’ve found a one-volume English translation that is making we want to read the Bible all over again. And, more importantly, it is a translation that I am ready to endorse for public use in Christian worship everywhere. The Inclusive Bible: The First Egalitarian Translation, the culmination of a 20-year process by Priests for Equality, a Catholic organization of laypeople, religious, and clergy to produce an anti-sexist and anti-classist version of Scripture. PFE’s translations have appeared in separate volumes before, but these volumes were too large to be lug around together – making them fine for a personal study but not for wide communal adoption.

The fact that this version comprehensively does away with all patriarchal ways of naming both human beings and the Holy One alone recommends it for serious consideration. But it is actually a complete re-translation of both the scriptures that are held sacred by Jews and those held sacred by Christians. I’ve read selective passages of it from across the two (Christian) testaments. While it is more “dynamic” than, say, NRSV, NIV, or NAB, it is NOT a paraphrase in the way that The Message or the Good News Translation are. If the original languages are defined as the right-most point and a very loose English paraphrase as the left-most, I would judge that it is just right-of-center. The proper way to judge it, however, is to read it for yourself and see how it opens up scripture. (See this interesting review by a self-identifying “conservative” Christian.)

Along with being a complete re-translation of the Bible on the basis of inclusive-language principles, several other qualities mark it off from almost every other single-volume translation that would be acceptable to liberal, progressive, or liberationist Christian communities:

• What for Christians is the First Testament is divided according to the Jewish practice into three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings; these are ordered in the Jewish manner as well (i.e., Ruth, Daniel, Lamentations, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah in the Writings). This is preferable, in my opinion, because that is closer to the division of Scripture as Jesus knew it (although the contents were not finalized in the way they are today).
• The use of “Lord” as a name for God is carefully avoided, and the replacements for “Son of God” are thoughtfully chosen.
• In place of “Father” as a name for God, the translation frequently uses the Hebrew/Aramaic “Abba,” which means father in those languages but does not have the same patriarchal connotations when we say it in English. “Abba” also sounds loving and close, which is what is meant when Scripture addresses God as “Father.” This is about the most perfect solution to this vexing issue – except, of course, for actually referring to “Mother” as well as “Father” (“Imma” and “Abba”).
• The text itself is physically arranged according to sections of narrative, rather than strictly by chapters (although chapter and verse numbers are fully indicated).

I should note some drawbacks, too:

• Although there are many footnotes that explain the translation’s choices (especially some of the expectedly controversial ones), there is little specific reference (and if, only by name) to the current biblical scholarship that undergirds these translation choices.
• The translation does make good use of a variety of different registers of formality in English with respect to either the speech-context (a royal court versus a private chat) or the relationships of the various speakers. Most annoyingly, there is no consistency in terms of when contractions (“don’t”) are appropriate and when not.
• Some will object to the dynamism employed on particularly difficult inclusive-language points. For instance, in Paul’s discussions of circumcision, the translation usually refers to “the Law of Moses.” Now, this certainly gets to the intent, and Paul Paulself frequently uses “the law” in the sense indicated here. But one does sacrifice something when one loses the sense of a physical action rather than the abstract concept. (On the other hand, this translation didn’t invent the misogyny and patriarchy of the biblical eras, and these translation choices must be judged within the tension/question of literalness vis-à-vis ancient terms versus the need to proclaim the Living Word of God today.)
• The font is very small, and will be a challenge even for many readers who have decent reading-sight.

Nevertheless, if one wants a translation that consistently inclusivizes language about both humans AND the Holy One, one’s choices are somewhat sparse. The main alternative is Oxford’s inclusive revision of the NRSV’s New Testament and Psalms, but this, obviously, is only a quarter of the full Bible.

To put it in one sentence: The Inclusive Bible is more inclusive (and more carefully and comprehensively inclusive) than any other “literal” translation and more literal than any other “dynamic” translation. On this ground alone, I urge it for the consideration of all individuals and communities who use the Bible.