Animals as the Absent Referent in English Translations of the Bible. By Dr. Chapman Chen

American feminist scholar/activist Carol J. Adams puts forth in her groundbreaking book, The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory (1990) the concept of the “absent referent”, which refers to the way of language and imagery obscure the identity of the abused individual (animal or woman), and dissociate the abuser from the abused. For example, by renaming the animal (cow to beef, pig to pork), we sever the connection between the flesh on the plate and the living, sentient being it once was. This distancing makes it easier for people to consume animal flesh and animal products without confronting the ethical implications of animal agriculture.  This concept can well be applied by us to English translations of the Bible.

1. Animal = Living Soul or Living Thing?

For instance, Genesis 1:21 describes how God created every animal as a “living (chay) soul (nephesh)”. Per Strong’s Lexicon, the Hebrew word "chay" primarily denotes the state of being alive or living; per NAS Exhaustive Concordance and Brown-Driver-Briggs, the primary meaning of nephesh is soul. But KJV renders this Hebrew phrase as “a living creature”, depriving them of the soul; NIV even renders them into “a living thing”, a soulless object rather than a sentient being. It’s exactly in this way that theologians like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas argue that since animals are soulless objects, humans are entitled to exploit them for food, for clothing, for labour, for transport, for sports, etc.

2. Paul Will Never Eat MEAT Again?

Another example. “Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat (kreas κρέας ) again,” diplomatically stated Paul the anti-vegan apostate (1 Cor. 8:13), after the vegan Jerusalem Council issued a vegan apostolic decree around  (Acts 15:19-20, 29) AD 50.  Per Strong’s Lexicon, the Greek word "κρέας" (kreas) refers to meat or flesh, typically in the context of food. In the New Testament, it is used to describe the physical substance of animal flesh that is consumed as food. Shortly afterwards, Paul unabashedly advised people to “eat anything that is sold in the meat market without raising any question about it on the grounds of conscience” (1 Corinthians 10:25). Paul was at least willing to make some effort to lip service to the decree because the Jerusalem Council was then still the centre of Christianity in AD 50, and Paul’s group was merely a peripheral organisation.

In this connection, to quote Adams (2005), “Behind every meal of meat is an absence: the death of the animal whose place the meat takes. The absent referent is that which separates the meat eater from the animal and the animal from the end product. The function of the absent referent is to keep our ‘meat’ separated from any idea that she or he was once an animal, to keep the ‘moo;’ or ‘cluck’ or ‘baa’ away from the meat, to keep something from being seen as having been someone.”

3. Dominion Doesn’t Mean Domination

Adams herself applies the concept of “absent referent” to traditional interpretations of Genesis 1:26, where humans are granted "dominion" over animals. She argues that this dominion is often misconstrued as a license for exploitation. Instead, Adams points to Genesis 1:29, which prescribes a vegan diet, suggesting that the original intent was one of peaceful coexistence rather than domination (cf. Andrew Linzey 1995:35). 

Similarly, in the compassionate spirit of Jesus Christ, I propose that “dominion” be interpreted as servanthood with no authority whatsoever on the part of humans over animals. For the ancient, pre-Masoretic Hebrew word in consonantal form for “dominion” is yirdu ( ירדו), which could refer to either radah (רָדָה /subjugate) or yarad (יָרַד /lower oneself) (cf. Ehrenfeld and Bentley 1985:301). IMO, only yarad could be the right interpretation, because, firstly, Jesus stresses that he “came to serve, NOT to be served!” (Matthew 20:28) and that “anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all” (Mark 9:35); secondly, “dominion” (Gen. 1:28) is immediately followed by a vegan diet prescribed by God to humans (Gen. 1:29) (cf. Linzey 1995:34); thirdly, humans are particularly assigned merely to be a humble caretaker of the Garden (Gen. 2:15) (cf. Ritenbaugh 1999). To "have dominion over animals" in Genesis 1 therefore signifies that God commands humanity to lower themselves and wait upon other animals as a powerless servant rather than a God-like authority (Chen 2024).

4. Conclusion

In a word, to quote Prof. Simon Chau (2011), “Christianity is a religion based on mistranslation.” We had better be careful about the “lying pen of the scribes” (Jer. 8:8), which tends to make the miseries and rights of abused animals invisible by turning them into the absent referent. #VeganChrist  #VeganGod #VeganTheology

Full Text: https://www.vegantheology.net/post/animals-as-the-absent-referent-in-english-translations-of-the-bible-by-dr-chapman-chen