Anyway of interpreting adultery verses in Proverbs 2,3,6,7 & 9 in a more gender-neutral / gender-inclusive / politically correct manner [closed]

Question

• Proverbs 2:16-19

• Proverbs 5:3-20

• Proverbs 6:24-35

• Proverbs 7:5-27

• Proverbs 9:13-18 ( may be more broader than just adultery, sexual fornification, sexual lust because it could also include being engaged in financial / material theft or robbery or corruption )

Most of the aforementioned Bible book of Proverb's verses deal with adultery, sexual, fornification, sexual lust, etc., except maybe Proverbs 9:13-18 ( see reason above ). In all the aforementioned verses, it seems that:

A) the women are the culprits/miscreant ( I suppose to be more lawyerly or to use legalese, we could say that the women in said verses lean towards being the "principle of the crime" )

B) the men seem to be like Naive Accomplices in a crime.

I read both

1. a formal equivalence literal translation of the Bible like New American Standard Bible 1995 ( NASB1995 )

2. , and also a dynamic / functional equivalence relatively gender-neutral / gender-inclusive politically correct translation of the Bible like Christian Standard Bible ( CSB )

, and both translations seem to make the women seem like the "principle of the crime" , and the men seem like Naive Accomplices.

Essentially, it seems like male chauvinistic because the aforementioned proverbs verses seem to be warnings to naive men about the dangers of the sexually promiscuous women. The aforementioned verses fail to address the case of

1. lonely hardworking working wives, and her handsome promiscuous male colleague
2. lonely housewife, and the handsome promiscuous male neighbor/male supervisor(if she lives in an apartment)

Could someone please give some insight as to whether or Not the aforementioned verses could be interpreted so that they can be more gender-neutral / gender-inclusive / politically correct?

Answer 1

The issue with taking this approach with translation is that it's extends to more than one book or chapter or passage, since the culture in which it was written expected everything to be framed for male readers — the only readers of the time. It wasn't chauvinistic, but patriarchal — a society ran by its men. Just as they believed men should rule the household, so men should rule societies (quite logical when you think about it, if the logic of the former were sound).

That is, the reason these passages are framed in terms of wicked women is because it is spoken with regard to male readership. The same applies to the New Testament just as much — hence all the "brethren"s.

So by no means does the Bible teach or imply that only women are at fault, but rather than, for the primarily (of not exclusively) male readership, things were written in terms of advice from men to other men, about what is other, namely, women. No book of the Bible was written by a woman, nor is it thought that women were generally literate among the literate class.

Therefore, when Jesus taught, "anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her," He is clearly adressing the men, not including the lesbians in his audience. Therefore, by its nature, it isn't putting the blame only on men or women, but speaking to a male audience.

We must remember that the modern Western notions of the exact equality and sameness of the sexes was nowhere to be found before the modern era, least of all in Biblical times, in the Middle East. There was no 'Brothers and sisters'ing in their translations because books were written to men, to read and teach to their communities.

Your question is not really one about translation as such, but about reimagining a work from a completely different religo-cultural context to make it comform to modern ones. While a certain amount of this is necessary to bridge the gap between the source language (inextricably linked with the culture which gave rise to the work in the first place) and the target language, completely reworking the whole Bible to say everything in terms of men and women both, equally, seems to me to misappreciate the original — if you can't respect the different culture of that time with regards gender roles or expectations, for example, how are you sure you're not projecting other cultural and religious differences on the rest of the translation? That would be my worry.

Answer 2

The Proverb verses that you quote are all framed as Solomon's (Proverbs 1:1) teaching to his son (frequently mentioned, for example 1:8). That is they are directed to a royal, Israelite male. If you are willing to apply that meant to royalty to commoners, and that written to an Israelite to a westerner then I do not see why you would not apply that written to a man to a woman.

In addition, I would raise some points with some of the texts you use.

1. Proverbs 2:16-19

This set is warning the son of wicked women follows immediately after a warning the man off wicked men. It cautions the son against thinking that danger only comes from one sex (the male), not that it does only come from the fairer sex.

2. Proverbs 9:13-18

This is metaphorical. Wisdom is constantly portrayed as a woman, and thus her sister folly is a woman also.

But why is the son always the naïve one?

Because, that's the genre of the book. The book is wisdom literature. The core conceit of all wisdom literature is that "You are missing the mark on account of a lack of wisdom, increase in wisdom by reading this book", thus the book portrays a dangerous situation for the naive son and gives wisdom on how he can avoid it. The book is concerned for the particular individual, he has to navigate the external world and whatever it is that motivates the external world (quite possibly a lack of wisdom!) is irrelevant to what Proverbs is trying to do which is to give the reader wisdom to navigate it.

And the first readers of the book - not all being sons of Solomon - will have to interpret the wisdom to their situations, and apply it to their lives and their own situation. It is a truth now, as it was a truth then is that the clear majority of those that market and provide sexual services for money are women. Thus when cautioning against many things one will caution against men, when cautioning against people marketing paid-for sexual services then you will caution again women. And, of course, the initial situation would make women the more dangerous sexual threat for the first reader's as Sola Gratia's answer so excellently explains.

Let us look at your examples:

1. lonely hardworking working wives, and her handsome promiscuous male colleague
2. lonely housewife, and the handsome promiscuous male neighbor/male supervisor(if she lives in an apartment)

The son of Solomon did not have "colleagues", and certainly did not live in an apartment. In general, the son of Solomon did not live in our isolated, frantic, anonymous world. But the wisdom can be applied all the same, and that doesn't suddenly stop being true when the difference between you and the son includes your sex.