Gender-inclusive Language in Bible Translation

[Caedmon]

OK, I don't know exactly how I'm viewed here (liberal or otherwise) and I don't really care, but I suppose that this may strike some as counterintuitive for me. But anyway, something that I've been really noticing lately is gender-inclusive language in Bible translations used in mass and just in my personal reading. My concern is not a "conservative" one, but rather one of proper translation. I agree that a translation should convey the meaning of a text as a whole, but I'm also a stickler about things like translating gender, number, etc. correctly, in order to render a more faithful translation. I mean, if they translate God as "we" (plural) in the Old Testament, why wouldn't they just leave in words like "man" and "mankind" in the New Testament? I'm not a koine Greek expert. Were these words masculine in the original texts?

 

[Epiphanygirl]

I'm not up on Greek.....but I don't like anyone changing the meaning of the text to suit their own agenda. We should always stick to the original meaning of the text....period....

 

[Jamza]

Hi Caedmon; with words like 'man' and 'mankind' in the Greek, they were indeed masculine. Sometimes the context implied everyone, sometimes it was gender specific. Translations such as the NRSV use gender-inclusive language, and have been criticized for doing so when inappropriate. That's a shame because otherwise its a fantastic translation. I'm not sure what the American Standard Bible is like, i've heard it is good; but if you want to be on the safe side I do know the New Jerusalem Version (I think called Ignatius version in US) has resisted political correctness and reproduces the the ancient languages very well while using great form. You may find it a little Anglicised though (as in British English, not the Anglican Church; its the official translation used in English Catholic churches.)

 

[AMDG]

the New Jerusalem Version (I think called Ignatius version in US) has resisted political correctness and reproduces the the ancient languages very well while using great form. You may find it a little Anglicised though (as in British English, not the Anglican Church; its the official translation used in English Catholic churches.)

Actually the RSV-CE is the Ignatius Bible and it does not have inclusive language. The New Jerusalem Bible does, however the 1966 Jerusalem Bible does not.

 

[Jamza]

My mistake about Ignatius; the RSV is okay with gender language, but its old so I didn't mention it; it was only the NRSV that made the change. The NJB has only changed in specific cases where inclusiveness is explicitly clear. Its a far better translation than the Jerusalem Bible; between 1950s and 1980s there was much research and refinement in Biblical languages.

 

[Caedmon]

I'm not up on Greek.....but I don't like anyone changing the meaning of the text to suit their own agenda. We should always stick to the original meaning of the text....period....

Well that's what I'm saying. If I remember correctly, in the pentateuch, God refers to himself in the plural at least once. I don't know if that's reflected in the versions mentioned in this thread, but I have seen it preserved in some translations. I just can't remember which. And my point is, if you can preserve something like that, surely you can preserve the original text outside of this unusual example.

On a related note, I've seen a lot of gender-inclusive terminology used in contemporary hymns, like those published by Oregon Press. But when I look at the hymns in my St. Joseph's missal, I see words like "man" and "mankind" used. Now granted, this is music we're talking about, but many hymns are based in scripture, and it follows logically for me, that you would try to maintain the integrity of scriptural texts as much as possible, even when placing them within the context of song.