The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth, by Beth Allison Barr, Brazos Press, 2021.

Chapter 5 is entitled, ‘Writing Women out of the English Bible.’  Barr’s main point is that some popular translations of the Bible (she singles out the ESV for particular mention) distort Scripture by projecting an unduly patriarchal view of the text.  This, she claims, is a relatively modern, ideologically-driven phenomenon: in the Middle Ages, the biblical text was presented in a much more gender-inclusive way.

Things had come to something of a head in the 1990s.  With translations such as the TNIV (published in 2002) going down the gender-inclusive route, critics such as Wayne Grudem complained that the very truth of the word of God was at stake.  Already (in 2001) the ESV had been published as a determined effort to retain gender-specific language.  Barr asserts:

‘The ESV was a direct response to the gender-inclusive language debate. It was born to secure readings of Scripture that preserved male headship. It was born to fight against liberal feminism and secular culture challenging the Word of God.’

That, of course, is putting an excessively negative complexion on things, and to impugn the motives and integrity of those who thought (rightly or wrongly) that what they were doing was to preserve in translation what is already there in the original manuscripts.

As a historian, Barr finds herself both ‘amused’ and ‘scared’, because modern evangelicals have ‘forgotten’ that concern for gender-inclusive language existed long before the rise of second-generation feminism in the 1960s.

Access to the Bible in the Middle Ages

Of course, copies the Bible (in whole or in part) did not exist in large numbers until the coming of the printing press in the 15th century.  But (claims Barr) it would be quite wrong to suppose that people in the Middle Ages did not have access to the biblical text in English:

‘English translations of biblical text existed long before the Reformation. By the eleventh century, English translations had been made of the Psalms, the first six books of the Old Testament (the Old English Hexateuch), and the Gospels (the West Saxon Gospels). Although this biblical text circulated in clerical circles, scholars argue that they were also intended for use by “literate laymen.”’

This is a rather slippery claim.  It leaves unanswered a number of questions, such as:

• How many copies of these English translations of biblical text were in circulation?
• Which scholars ‘argue that they were also intended for use by “literate layman”‘, and what evidence do they adduce in support of their argument?
• What proportion of the laity was sufficiently literate as to be able to read the Bible in the vernacular?

With such questions left unanswered, Barr’s claim remains unsubstantiated.  There are more unsubstantiated claims about how widely Wycliffe’s Bible was in use in the late Medieval English church services.  The claim that ‘ordinary Christians in late medieval England were not strangers to the Bible in their own tongue’ is simply too vague to be of any use in her argument.

Barr then goes on to say that most lay people, however, did not learn the Bible from reading the text, but from listening to sermons.  And, she assures us, ‘Scripture flows through medieval sermons’.

Gender-inclusive language – Genesis 1:27

Barr finally reaches the main claim of this chapter: the biblical text used in the medieval period ‘often includes gender-inclusive language’.

Genesis 1:27 is spotlighted –

Vulgate: ‘Et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam ad imaginem Dei creavit illum masculum et feminam creavit eos.’

Wycliffe (translating directly from the Vulgate): ‘And God made out of nothing a man in his image and likeness; God made out of nothing a man in the image of God; yea, God made them out of nothing, male and female.’

AV: ‘So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.’

NIV: ‘God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.’

TNIV: ‘So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.’

Vern Poythress is cited as objecting to the TNIV translation: ‘The change to a plural obscures the unity of the human race.’

It is rather odd that Barr quotes Poythress at this point, because, obviously, Poythress’ complaint is not about gender-inclusiveness, but about something else (obscuring ‘the unity of the human race’ by failing to use a collective noun).  This is another matter altogether, and therefore irrelevant to Barr’s argument.

Barr then goes on to state that

‘The Hebrew word ’adam is a gender-inclusive word for “human.” Indeed, the text of Genesis 1:27 explains this for us: God created humans in his image, both men and women.’

No.  The Hebrew word ’adam can be either gender-inclusive or male-specific, depending on context.  Interestingly, this verse is both singular and male-specific (first part), and plural and gender-inclusive (last part).  And it is the ESV – so despised by Barr – that captures this accurately:

‘So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him [masculine singular]; male and female he created them’ (emphasis added).

(See here for some more detail on this.)

Having ignored this (or not being aware of it), it is beside the point for Barr to state that some medieval sermons quote Genesis 1:27 as saying, ‘For God made man and woman in his likeness’.  No complementarian has ever denied it.  But some complementarians observe, quite properly, that the text refers to ‘man’ both as singular and male and as plural and generic.

So, on this evidence, whose reading of the biblical text appears to be more influenced by a desire to shore up pre-existing ideologies?

John 6:44

Also beside the point is Barr’s brief discussion of John 6:44.  Just as a 15th-century sermon can quote our Lord as saying…

“No man nor woman comes to me, but my Father that sent me, draw him”

…so every English translation I have consulted (including the ESV) uses gender-inclusive language (“any one…”) in the first part of the verse.  So how does this advance Barr’s argument that some modern translations (especially the ESV) have ‘written women out of the Bible’?

Luke 14:11

Barr moves on to Luke 14:11.  She cites another 15th-century sermon which also ‘writes women into biblical text:

‘The sermon recites Luke 14:11: “For every man that exalts himself, he shall be lowered, and he that humbles himself, he shall be raised.” The sermon then addresses the “male-oriented details” of the text and rewrites the verse: “For every man and woman that exalts himself in this sin of pride, he shall be made low.” Piper and Grudem accused the translators of the TNIV of intentionally “obscuring” biblical text to make it more gender inclusive; authors of Middle English sermons apparently thought that writing women into the biblical text made the translation more accurate.’

It’s a little bit ironic that this text, concerning which Barr accuses Piper and Grudem of male bias in their interpretation, is, if those authors are correct, focusing on male faults (not virtues)!  But Barr’s main weakness here is that she fails to consider the possibility that Piper and Grudem might be correct.  She simply assumes that they are wrong to treat the text as male-specific.  And she assumes that her 15th-century preacher is right.  Her assumptions may or may not be correct; but they remain unargued assumptions, and therefore without merit.

Barr has offered just two examples of medieval sermons that use gender-inclusive language.  She concedes that ‘certainly not all preachers did this, but enough did that it is easy to find examples.’  There is no way of telling, from what Barr says here, how common or how exceptional the use of gender-inclusive language was in medieval preaching.  Simply to say that ‘it is easy to find examples’ constitutes the flimsiest of evidence.  It certainly does not support her far-reaching conclusion, which is that

‘The medieval world was far from promoting equality for women in everyday life. Yet medieval English clergy, charged with communicating the Bible to ordinary Christians, seemed more concerned about including women in biblical text than about emphasizing masculine authority.

When Barr concludes that…

Modern evangelicals denounce gender-inclusive language as a dangerous product of feminism.
Medieval clergy used gender-inclusive language to better care for their parishioners.

…she should at least have prefaced each of these claims with the word ‘Some’ (‘Some modern evangelicals…’; ‘Some medieval clergy…’.  But then her polemic would not have seemed so convincing to any unsuspecting reader.

Textual variations

Barr touts herself as ‘a historian who studies manuscript transmission’.  She rightly says that the vast majority of textual variations have negligible impact on the overall narrative of of the Bible and its message of salvation.  But, writes Barr,

‘if these changes do not affect the big story of Christianity,…they do affect little stories—like if Junia is a prominent apostle in the early church or simply a noteworthy woman.’

This is careless.  As far as I am aware, there is no dispute about the Greek text at this point.  According to Dunn, P46 reads Ἰουλίαν, but this is ‘probably just a slip’; the question of whether the name is masculine or feminine depends on how it is accented – and because the ancient Greek texts were unaccented this then becomes a translation decision based on other factors.  (Incidently, Barr could have strengthened her own case by discussing why a generation or more of Bible translators and commentators regarded ‘Junia’ as a man and not a woman, but she misses out on that opportunity.)

To be sure, the question of whether Junia (Rom 16:7) should be regarded as ‘a prominent apostle’ or ‘simply a noteworthy woman’ has nothing to do with any textual variations, for there are none.  The question is not about what the text says, but how it should be interpreted.

More historical slips

Barr’s discussion of the Authorised (King James) Version of the Bible as a replacement for the Geneva Bible is not, I think, relevant to the question of ‘writing women out of the Bible’.  I pause, however, to question the following statement:

‘Radical Puritan translators like John Calvin and John Knox had influenced the study notes of the Geneva Bible with their more extreme views, especially concerning the nature of the church and the role of government.’

Excuse me?!  To label Calvin and Knox as ‘radical Puritans’ is an anachronism.  And, while Calvin was celebrated as a preacher, commentator and theologian, he can hardly be regarded as an influential ‘translator’ of the Bible.  Still less was Knox a ‘translator’ of the Bible.

‘False Universal Language’

Barr then proceeds to discuss ‘false universal language’ – language that puports to refer to both men and women but which, by the use of masculine terminology, favours the former.  Barr writes:

‘Early modern English pretended to include women through male generic words (like the universal “man”) but excluded women by gendering examples, metaphors, and experiences in masculine ways.’

This is indisputable.

Barr’s contention is that modern translations of the Bible use male-oriented language, not because the text of the Bible requires it, but because such language belongs to the inherited culture.  But she has not, from the couple of examples given, established her premise, and so her conclusion is left floundering.

Deacons

1 Timothy 3:1-13 is cited as an example of a passage in which translators have assumed that Paul is talking about men in leadership roles, whereas (Barr asserts, following Lucy Peppiatt) his language is gender-inclusive, apart from in verse 12 (which says, literally, that a deacon should be a ‘one woman man’; but see verse 2, which says exactly the same thing about an overseer).

Now, it is true that some modern translations introduce more male-specific pronouns into this text than occur in the original.  But this is to clarify what is already there, in the original.  It is clear, even from the TNIV, that the passage is talking exclusively (or primarily, if v11 is talking about female deacons) about male leaders.

Looking now at verse 11, it is simply not the case that modern translations have undertaken, by some sleight of hand, to ‘transfer Paul’s words in 1 Timothy into a comment directed towards the wives of deacons’ (here Barr quotes Rodney Stark’s words).  The women mentioned here may well be deacons, but even feminist scholars concede that they might be the wives of deacons.  Writing in the Women’s Bible Commentary (not habitually biassed in favour of patriarchical interpretations!), Joanna Dewey is more cautious:

‘The women referred to in 3:11 in the midst of the discussion of deacons may be women deacons, or they might be wives of male deacons. We know that there were women deacons in the early churches (possibly ministering particularly to women), but we cannot determine what the author intended in this instance. Being male is not listed as a qualification for either bishop or deacon, although the author of the Pastorals may simply assume it.’

Kevin DeYoung, in his review of Barr’s book, asks:

‘Is “female leadership” the best description for the order of deaconesses that emerged in the third and fourth centuries? Early church documents like the Apostolic Constitutions explain that deaconesses were to visit women in their homes, help bathe infirm women, and assist the presbyters in baptizing women so as to maintain proper decorum. Robert Cara’s summary is apt: “there were two gender-separate ordained deacon bodies in at least part of the church during the third and fourth centuries AD and no example of a mixed-gender diaconate. The ordained deaconesses had restricted responsibilities compared to the male counterparts.” If deaconesses were “leaders” in the church, Barr should explain what that leadership looked like, lest we commit the historical fallacy of anachronistically reading modern notions of “female leadership” back into Chrysostom’s sermons.’

Marriage

Dr Barr then turns to the question of marriage.  She informs us that the word never appears in the Hebrew Bible.  And, very frequently, English translations use ‘wife’ where the original simply refers to ‘woman’.  In doing this, Barr says, the translators perpetuate their own, and their readers’, cultural assumptions about the (subservient) role of women in society.

To take a notable example.  Genesis 2:22-24 is presented, in English translation, as being about the institution of marriage.  But neither the word ‘marriage’ nor the word ‘wife’ appear in the Hebrew text.  But readers of the Authorised Version, and numerous other translations, would have too easily inferred 17th-century ideas about marriage into the text.

Barr comments that

‘the word translated as “wife” in verse 24 is the same word translated as “woman” in verses 22 and 23. The reason the word is translated as “wife” in verse 24, argues Tadmor, is to emphasize a woman’s “status within a social framework of marriage.” The 1611 KJV even places these verses under the subheading “Institution of Marriage.” The English Bible makes it clear that Genesis 2:22–24 sanctifies marriage. Yet neither the word marriage nor the word wife appear in the Hebrew text…The translators of early modern English Bibles thus added one more layer to the growing idea of biblical womanhood.’

But, as Tom Nettles notes in his review of Barr’s book, an answer lies ready to hand as to why translators would opt to use the word ‘wife’ (rather than ‘woman’) in verse 24.  It is because our Lord himself in debate with some Pharisees about divorce (Mt 19:3-10), used ‘wife’ and ‘woman’ as synonymous terms when referring to this passage in Genesis.

In any case, Barr’s observation about the absence of ‘marriage’ and ‘wife’ from the text of the Old Testament does not advance her argument.  It is recognised on all sides that the Old Testament world – like it or not – was a heavily patriarchal world.  And it remains so whether the notion of marriage was more flexible that perhaps we assume it to have been.

Summary and conclusion

Dr Barr maintains that cultural views about patriarchy have led to women being written out of the Bible.

She touches on the following texts:

Genesis 1:27
Genesis 2:22-24
Luke 14:11
John 6:44
Romans 16:7
1 Timothy 3:1-13

I think I have shown that in not one of these cases does her argument stand up to scrutiny.