The Inclusive Bible: The First Egalitarian Translation (ISBN 1580512135)

Fine for some, but (mostly) not for me:
First of all, I have to confess that I have not read The Inclusive Bible in its entirety. That would take months. But I have poked through it enough to get a sense of where it is going. I picked up this translation after a fellow worshipper at my Church stated that using it, he was able to get through the book of Job for the first time. I thought this was odd, in that Job, concerned as it is with the mystery of evil, is not a particularly sexist book. In any event, the authors of "The Inclusive Bible" have several goals that could be considered laudable. One is to provide a reasonable paraphrase of the biblical text that is accessible to modern ears and idioms. In Job 40:7, for example, the Lord's command that Job "gird up your loins" is replaced with "hitch up your belt." This is rather imperfect, because hitching up one's belt is not usually performed in preparation for work or battle. But then "saddle up your ponies" would be even worse. Anyway, close enough for biblical scholarship, as they say. Another of the translators' goals is to insert "YHWH" into the text where it was found in the originals. YHWH, of course, is the name of the Deity, and is usually not pronounced when reading, the word "Lord" (Hebrew "Adonai") being substituted in its stead to preserve the sanctity of the Holy Name. I am on board with this change, in that it a) respects Jewish sensibilities (not that Jews are likely to read a paraphrased Bible that contains the New Testament) and b) moves us closer to the original texts. I also am appreciative of the attempt to reduce the demonization of "the Jews" in John's gospel, especially in the Passion and post-resurrection narratives. In John 20:19, rather than having the disciples hiding from "the Jews" after the death of Jesus, they are in hiding "for fear of the Temple authorities." While this rendition makes the assumption that among the Jews only the Temple authorities were feared, at least it eliminates the absurd ideas that the Jewish disciples were hiding from themselves. But whether such changes should be made to the Scriptures themselves or limited to the Bible-based documents used during liturgies is a valid question that needs more debate. Most notably, especially in light of the title of this work, is the translators' attempt to widen the use of gender-neutral language in the Bible. This sometimes seems fine, or at least tolerable. In Mark, the *man* with the withered had becomes the *person* with the withered hand. The *father* whose *son* is possessed by a demon becomes a *parent* whose *child* is thus afflicted. OK. But there are some times when genders are retained, for not altogether cogent reasons. The *woman* with the hemorrhage could have become a *person*, but this blunts the issue that her bleeding (which is menstrual in nature) rendered her ritually impure in a way that bleeding from a man might not have. But what of the Syro-Phoenician woman with the demon-possessed daughter? Why not make *them* a parent/child combo? Sometimes, the translators split the difference, as when in Matthew 7, instead of a father offering his son a stone or a snake, "you" offer the stone to a newly-minted daughter and the snake to a son. When it came to Jesus' admonishment against divorce, he is heard to state that "God created male and female, and this is why one person leaves home and cleaves to another" This verse can be read, in an era of homosexual marriage, as appropriately ambiguous regarding gender -- the male and the female in question might not have left home to marry each other, but some other male and/or female who have left their own homes. But in the preceding verses, Jesus specifically speaks of heterosexual divorce, which the quotation about males and females is supposed to clarify. It seems that the translators are trying to have it both ways. The inconsistency of method for dealing with gender -- sometimes keeping it, sometimes concealing it and sometimes expanding it -- was distracting. Maddeningly, it was never clear to me when changes were being made. In Matthew 8, where two demoniacs are discussed, I suspected that the translators had invented one of them in order to allow use of the gender-neutral "they" rather than "him." As it turns out, Matthew does speak of two demoniacs. In this case, my suspicion of the translators' hand was unfounded. The translators sometimes take paraphrase way too far. The "Son of Man" -- an apocalyptic figure with biblical roots -- becomes in this translation "The Promised One." This is not only terrible translation but is also very misleading. Gone are the relationships to the apocalyptic figure of in the book of Daniel and the link to the Aramaic reflective idiom meaning "me, myself." Some attempts at gender neutrality are silly, as in the story in Luke of the paralyzed "person" whose genderless friends schlep him up to the roof, cut through it and lower the him (I mean, the sick "person") into the house where Jesus as teaching. Anyone who thinks that these folks are women has more imagination than I. And what's up by not neutralizing the gender of the woman in Luke who sweeps her house looking for a lost coin? Men can sweep too, ya know! And while paraphrasing "Amen, amen, I say to you" as "The truth of the matter is" lends clarity to the original idiom, it is clumsy and faintly ridiculous to have Jesus state (Matthew 10:38) that "those who will not carry with them the instrument of their own death -- following in my footsteps -- are not worthy of me." Such inept paraphrasing made me cross! Well-meaning and bias-weary non-scholarly readers may find comfort in this translation of the Bible. Personally, though I found it easy to read and understand, I wondered what I was missing. And I wondered how much I could trust the translators. What agendas were they following, and how consistent were they? I also wondered why they were not even more thorough in their attempt to erase every gender distinction. If that kind of thing is important to you, go all the way and make Mary and Joseph a genderless, agnostic couple; make Jesus' gender ambiguous; have Jesus pray to his Parent who art in heaven. But, your mileage may vary, and this may be the Bible you have been waiting for. It may appeal to priests and religious educators who tire of having to explain every third word of scripture to those ignorant of Scripture's subtleties and historical setting. It may also appeal to those who have been hurt by discriminatory gender-based policies, customs and laws. For me, I would rather read the words the authors actually wrote, and adjust for gender and religious bias on my own. I would also like to remember that even the authors of the Bible were human beings with faults and biases, and that God chose to work with and through them in spite of their shortcomings. Besides, who is to say that the gender of the person with the withered hand is not as vital to the story as that of the unnamed house-sweeper?

Waited a long time...:
I've waited a long time for an inclusive language translation of this quality. It is an excellent translation.

Excellent and Poweful Translation:
For those that don't like the translation, please go back to your Kings James Version with all its inconsistencies or whatever your version is that you think is accurate. The truth is, we need a translation that speaks the language of today rather then something that is EXCLUSIVE of the more then half the population. Please don't waste time arguing what you think is a more accurate translation. You have your opinion and I have mine. In reality, this translation is LONG overdo. If you do not wish to own an inclusive language Bible, then do not purchase it. But, if you are tired of the translations that are very out of date as far as the language of today goes, by all means, purchase this! Honestly, it is the only translation I will use going forward. This Bible is really big, so it isn't want that you could just throw in a backpack, but the text is a nice size on THICK paper that is not the see-through kind. Very good quality overall.

If you could only own one bible:
The translators have taken great pains in this work. It is a great shame that this is the FIRST egalitarian translation but a great boon that THIS is the first egalitarian translation. Now we all have somewhere to start.

Like opening a window in a stuffy room:
For more than 30 years, I have wished for a Bible translation of the quality of this one, and finally, it is here! I could not ask for a more sensitive treatment of so many "issues" that plague the several other English language Bible versions to which I have been exposed. The authors have done far more than eliminate the plethora of androcentric images of the deity which make it so hard for readers like me to get through even a single Verse of traditional Bibles (including the New Revised Standard Version) without grumbling in frustration. For instance, they have retained the "Hebrew-ness" of the Hebrew Scriptures by using a number of techniques, e.g., arranging the Books in an order consistent with preserving the Tanakh per se, and not just presenting it as a precursor to the New Testament. Also, the authors' footnotes provide rich explanations for changes in traditional Biblical wording. The notes should help readers accustomed to traditional Bible versions understand, for example, that references to a male deity who is a "lord" can offend a variety of readers, including women, people of color, anti-imperialists, and pacifists, among others. I am SO excited about The Inclusive Bible that I'm spreading the "good news" of its arrival to all my friends and family--regardless of their faith traditions, or lack of same. I want to share my excitement with readers of this review, as well as thank its creators for bringing The First Egalitarian Translation into the world!