Gender neutral or gender accurate translations?

[FerventDisciple]

This issue of course has become well publicized now with the release of the NIV2011. While I don't have a problem with anthropos being translated as brothers and sisters and I think this is better than the ESV's "brothers" (maybe the NASB's brethren is the best solution though the NIV translators probably considered it archaic) it does at times feel rather forced and awkward reading as seen in Rev 3:19-21:

Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent. 20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me. 21 To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne. (NIV)

Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. 21 He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. (NASB)

Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. 21 The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. (ESV)

This is a passage that even Daniel Wallace said should be revised in a future NIV revision. It just feels at times in reading that it does go over the top. Is this gender accurate?

 

[MoreCoffee]

One cannot be sure which is the intent of the author if the translator changes the gender to fit a current view of pronouns in the English language. The authors of the holy scriptures used the words that they used, if the pronouns are masculine when the intent seems to be to address all humanity regardless of gender it is okay to use masculine pronouns in English because no loss of intent is involved by doing that. English has traditionally used masculine pronouns as inclusive of both sexes. The majority of readers know that.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

There 's just too much political correctness flying around any more. This was NEVER an issue until recently. Women for nearly 2,000 years understood that when the bible spoke of "him", "brothers", etc that the context involved them too. I don't like the NIV at all. Not because of the gender language, but I just feel it is HORRIBLE at translating ideas. Literally several passages that more than one scholar feels is mistranslated. Even Derek Prince called them out on stuff.

 

[FerventDisciple]

There 's just too much political correctness flying around any more. This was NEVER an issue until recently. Women for nearly 2,000 years understood that when the bible spoke of "him", "brothers", etc that the context involved them too. I don't like the NIV at all. Not because of the gender language, but I just feel it is HORRIBLE at translating ideas. Literally several passages that more than one scholar feels is mistranslated. Even Derek Prince called them out on stuff.

I believe the NRSV was the first one to do it. The NLT does it too but for some reason it doesn't get anywhere near the same criticism the NIV does for doing it. I think Derek Prince was an NKJV guy.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

I believe the NRSV was the first one to do it. The NLT does it too but for some reason it doesn't get anywhere near the same criticism the NIV does for doing it. I think Derek Prince was an NKJV guy.

I do too. The gender neutral thing doesn't bother me at all, the NIV just doesn't jive well with me anymore.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I believe the NRSV was the first one to do it. The NLT does it too but for some reason it doesn't get anywhere near the same criticism the NIV does for doing it. I think Derek Prince was an NKJV guy.

I do too. The gender neutral thing doesn't bother me at all, the NIV just doesn't jive well with me anymore.

I am not very fond of gender neutrality whenever it means changing the gender of the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek words when translated into English. English has masculine and feminine forms for most of the equivalents in the source languages and "it" with its cognate forms is available for neuter forms in the source languages - admittedly "it" is usually seen as inappropriate when referring to a person and if the person's sex is known it is especially inappropriate. Hence I view the NRSV as rather unhelpful despite being a good translation for most passages; it's zealous use of gender-neutral substitutes for masculine pronouns and other masculine usages is very unhelpful when using the text for serious study. The NIV, NLT, and others (including the NAB and NJB) are less zealous in their use of gender-neutral substitutes and as such are less unhelpful nevertheless it is, in my opinion, damaging to a translation to use gender-neutral substitutes in the target language as replacements for masculine words in the source language unless there would be a serious risk of misunderstanding in the target language because of some peculiarities in it that render the use of the masculine inaccurate.

 

[ebia]

One cannot be sure which is the intent of the author if the translator changes the gender to fit a current view of pronouns in the English language. The authors of the holy scriptures used the words that they used, if the pronouns are masculine when the intent seems to be to address all humanity regardless of gender it is okay to use masculine pronouns in English because no loss of intent is involved by doing that. English as traditionally used masculine pronouns as inclusive of both sexes. The majority of readers know that.

Do they?

And even if people do at the intellectual level contempory English doesn't use masculine pronouns in that way and language doesn't entirely work at an intellectual level. If we are serious about the bible (and liturgy) in the vernacular then we have to do the best that is possible to match the meaning of scripture to the way the venacular language actually works.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Do they?

And even if people do at the intellectual level contemporary English doesn't use masculine pronouns in that way and language doesn't entirely work at an intellectual level. If we are serious about the bible (and liturgy) in the vernacular then we have to do the best that is possible to match the meaning of scripture to the way the vernacular language actually works.

In the Catholic Church liturgical texts retain masculine words when the source language (Latin) uses them and the scripture readings in nations that use the Jerusalem Bible (modified) for the readings in the lectionary also retain masculine words when the source languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin) uses them. The people in my parish understand when "men" or "he" refers to both men and women. In your parish is that not the case?

 

[ebia]

In the Catholic Church liturgical texts retain masculine words when the source language (Latin) uses them and the scripture readings in nations that use the Jerusalem Bible (modified) for the readings in the lectionary also retain masculine words when the source languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin) uses them.

I know. I'm qualified and experienced in teaching RE in Catholic schools.
Our liturgy is gender neutral and most Anglican churches use the NRSV. Because liturgy and scripture in the venacular is a core founding principle we take it seriously.

The people in my parish understand when "men" or "he" refers to both men and women.

my experience in catholic communities makes me skeptical about how well that is understood. But even if we take it as being known at an intellectual level, that's not how contempory Australian English works, and so that doesn't fix the problem.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I speak contemporary Australian English and I understand.

I hope I am not such a grandpa that I don't count any more.

 

[Unix]

I use the clearly gender neutral versions much less and when I use the NIV11 and NRSV I use them only for some parts of the Bible and with tools to check the original languages. On the other hand, I don't have the ESV - I don't use it, there are way much better versions than it and there sure is a difference.