Is Gender Accurate translation a good thing?

[Xeno.of.athens]

The CSB states that it is a gender accurate translation, similarly ESV 2011, NIV, and some others are in varying degrees gender accurate, is this a good thing?

 

[BobRyan]

Accuracy is best

 

[KevinT]

The CSB states that it is a gender accurate translation, similarly ESV 2011, NIV, and some others are in varying degrees gender accurate, is this a good thing?

Can you elaborate on this? I.e. some examples? I don't know anything about this.

KT

 

[RileyG]

Accuracy is best

Yes.

 

[PloverWing]

I had to go to the CSB website to see whether "gender accurate" meant "gender inclusive" or "gender exclusive". As described on their website, the CSB's philosophy seems reasonable, although I haven't read the CSB to know how it works out in practice.

In general, in 21st-century American English, "man" no longer means "human"; it means "male human". So it's misleading to translate a Greek or Hebrew word as "man" or "men" (or a similarly masculine word) unless the original really means males in particular. The translations I use most (NRSV and REB) both follow this philosophy of trying to avoid masculine language unless it's genuinely the meaning of the original. I'm quite happy with that. (Pronouns are a stubborn problem, because English doesn't have a singular gender-neutral personal pronoun. Sometimes gender-inclusive translations will use "they", or sometimes they just fall back on "he". No choices are perfect here.)

I'll add a personal anecdote, to hint at why this matters. When the NRSV was new, the first time I heard its translation of Genesis 1 was in church. The lector read "So God created humankind in his image...", and suddenly I had tears in my eyes. That word, "humankind", touched me immediately and deeply. I'm in the image of God too. You can say it in the sermon, of course: "man" doesn't really mean "man", it means human, as we see later in the verse, etc. But there's a power to having it right there in the text, when the text genuinely allows it.

 

[The Liturgist]

The CSB states that it is a gender accurate translation, similarly ESV 2011, NIV, and some others are in varying degrees gender accurate, is this a good thing?

In theory, yes, but in actual practice, “gender accuracy” is being used as a pretext for distorting the Bible so as to change the meaning of the text.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Can you elaborate on this? I.e. some examples? I don't know anything about this.

KT

Christian Standard Bible Finds Its Place in ‘Crowded’ Evangelical Market - Christianity Today

The six-year-old CSB translation has recently climbed to the No. 2 spot on monthly bestseller list.

www.christianitytoday.com

"The climb in sales for the CSB is “an interesting and even surprising development especially because it shows that new translations can still break into a very crowded market,” said Peter Gurry, director of the Text & Canon Institute at Phoenix Seminary. He said among scholars, the CSB has been most popular among Southern Baptists and some Presbyterians, and that it’s often ESV readers he sees making the switch.

“It is slightly more gender inclusive than translations like the ESV and NASB without being perceived as too far in that direction like NIV or CEB sometimes are,” he said, referencing the New American Standard Bible (NASB) and Common English Bible (CEB). “It’s marked as hitting the sweet spot between word-for-word and thought-for-thought.”

Critics of the ESV cite inconsistencies in gendered language, where male terms are used in many places to refer to generic people or mixed groups. The CSB regularly broadens masculine language to “gender-accurate” terms when the original context did not exclude females, such as in letters from Paul that would have been read to the whole congregation (“brothers and sisters”).

The CSB was last updated in 2020 and maintains a committee of ten Bible scholars to oversee needed changes."

 

[The Liturgist]

In general, in 21st-century American English, "man" no longer means "human"; it means "male human"

Only to persons who either intentionally subscribe to such a bias, or who are not well-versed in literature written before the late 1970s.

If someone is well-read in pre-1970s literature and rejects the politically correct ideology that sought to suppress words like “mankind”, man still means man, and not male. Likewise, chairman should never have been replaced by “chair.” These changes are particularly silly when we consider that many languages, such as French and German, have masculine, feminine, and in the case of German and other Germanic languages, neutral words, but English lost these, along with grammatical cases, making it a semi-analytical language almost like Mandarin Chinese. And these changes, as George Orwell pointed out, make the English language vulnerable to abuse.

 

[jas3]

"Gender accurate" is a loaded marketing term. Who doesn't like accuracy? But what it describes is actually intentional inaccuracy.

If you were given the phrase, "ἄνδρες, ἀδελφοί," in a Greek class and told to translate it accurately, you would lose most or all credit for that part of the assignment if you translated it, "brothers and sisters." But apparently the translators of the CSB think that's a fine way to translate the phrase "men, brothers" in Acts 2:29.

If they marketed their version as a "gender inclusive" version, that would be a more accurate description. It wouldn't make it any better that they're adding to or changing the words of Scripture in the name of political correctness, but at least it would be more honest.

 

[A_JAY]

I read my Bible to study God's word primarily. I have a CSB and don't have any problems with it. NRSV has gone over board with gender accuracy IMO. It went so overrboard that it ceases to be gender accurate. It is easy to read and has a nice flow. But when you get to changing any references from Son of Man to Mortal, then I can no longer use it. I use NASB and RSV and they are the gold standard AFAIAC.

 

[The Liturgist]

I read my Bible to study God's word primarily. I have a CSB and don't have any problems with it. NRSV has gone over board with gender accuracy IMO. It went so overrboard that it ceases to be gender accurate. It is easy to read and has a nice flow. But when you get to changing any references from Son of Man to Mortal, then I can no longer use it. I use NASB and RSV and they are the gold standard AFAIAC.

Indeed, even the NIV version 3, which has serious problems, did not make such a change.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

NRSV is gender confusing, NIV is fairly gender accurate, same goes for CSB, NABre and RNJB (both Catholic translations) are bordering on gender confusing. I am not really sure why "mankind" and "men" or "his" and "he" are seen as either offensive or excluding women. I can't help but think there is a degree of manufactured outrage about gender exclusion in words like he, his, men, and mankind.

 

[A_JAY]

.........but think there is a degree of manufactured outrage about gender exclusion in words like he, his, men, and mankind.

!

 

[ozso]

It's the nonbinary words that trip me up.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It's the nonbinary words that trip me up.

We could use "it" and its cognate forms as our gender-neutral pronoun but people would likely be upset by that.

 

[RandyPNW]

The CSB states that it is a gender accurate translation, similarly ESV 2011, NIV, and some others are in varying degrees gender accurate, is this a good thing?

I don't think a clear sense of proper gender distinction in our contemporary language has arrived yet. They're hopefully doing the best they can without offending anybody, and distracting them from spiritual matters.

 

[BobRyan]

I had to go to the CSB website to see whether "gender accurate" meant "gender inclusive" or "gender exclusive". As described on their website, the CSB's philosophy seems reasonable, although I haven't read the CSB to know how it works out in practice.

In general, in 21st-century American English, "man" no longer means "human"; it means "male human".

Fine.... then they can use the term "mankind" as an update for those cases in which that is what is meant.

(I see some like "humankind" - but it is not as prevalent as "mankind"
)

 

[okay]

So it's misleading to translate a Greek or Hebrew word as "man" or "men" (or a similarly masculine word) unless the original really means males in particular.

A pastor of mine once mentioned this during a sermon - the newer translation used had a more accurate representation of the original language for the particular passage. It was almost off-hand since the sermon wasn’t about bible translation, but it gave me appreciation of why such changes can be desirable.

I'll add a personal anecdote, to hint at why this matters. When the NRSV was new, the first time I heard its translation of Genesis 1 was in church. The lector read "So God created humankind in his image...", and suddenly I had tears in my eyes. That word, "humankind", touched me immediately and deeply. I'm in the image of God too. You can say it in the sermon, of course: "man" doesn't really mean "man", it means human, as we see later in the verse, etc. But there's a power to having it right there in the text, when the text genuinely allows it.

Thanks for sharing that story. It really did five me a glimpse of why this matters.

 

[KevinT]

We could use "it" and its cognate forms as our gender-neutral pronoun but people would likely be upset by that.

I had some Chinese friends that had imperfect English skills. They once said, "My daughter, it is hungry." Apparently pronouns are gender neutral in Chinese (I am not sure about the details of Chinese). I knew what they meant, but it was jarring.

I got into a disagreement with someone younger in my family about wanting to use the apparently outdated terms for airline attendants as "steward" and "stewardess". Apparently "stewardess" is disfavored now (and "steward", but extension, is also out). I found this article that discusses some reasons why. My counter argument was that by using a gender-neutral term to describe a person that was, in-fact, gendered, is loosing information and is more bland. "Why do you feel the need to discuss the gender of a person?" was the counter argument. I don't know-- I think I am just getting old.

KT

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I had some Chinese friends that had imperfect English skills. They once said, "My daughter, it is hungry." Apparently pronouns are gender neutral in Chinese (I am not sure about the details of Chinese). I knew what they meant, but it was jarring.

I got into a disagreement with someone younger in my family about wanting to use the apparently outdated terms for airline attendants as "steward" and "stewardess". Apparently "stewardess" is disfavored now (and "steward", but extension, is also out). I found this article that discusses some reasons why. My counter argument was that by using a gender-neutral term to describe a person that was, in-fact, gendered, is loosing information and is more bland. "Why do you feel the need to discuss the gender of a person?" was the counter argument. I don't know-- I think I am just getting old.

KT

I am of an older generation and I prefer terms like steward and stewardess, as well as actor and actress, because they specify gender. The term 'actor' for females can be misleading, and alternatives like 'act-person' or 'stew-person' feel awkward. In my school days, 'man', 'men', and 'mankind' were inclusive terms unless context specified males only. It wasn't until the late 1970s that these terms began to be seen as exclusively male. While 'it' and 'its' are gender-neutral, some might find these terms insulting when applied to humans.