Mary Kassian of CBMW says NIV 2011 hurts women

[clp28]

I also consider myself a complementarian, and I like Mary Kassian. I guess I just feel that there are bigger and better issues for us (as the church universal) to focus on.

That being said, I prefer the ESV to the NIV for many reasons, and prefer the traditional gender references. But that is my preference, not a mandate. And I don't think reading the ESV makes me a super cool rebel.

[Elijah Craig]

Quote:Gender inclusive Bibles imply that women are too stupid to figure out that in the Bible, the words "man" and "brothers" are inclusive terms. The male translators have to fix the words for us, since we're not theologically astute enough or bright enough to get it on our own. Quite frankly, I feel like gender-inclusive Bibles insult a woman's intelligence.

The chairman of the translation committee for the NIV 2011 is an advocate of a traditional reading of the Bible's teaching on sex and gender. Not only that, he actually wrote a chapter in the CBMW's hallmark book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood!

Wonder how he feels about Ms. Kassian's words? The CBMW in its current iteration is driving off believers who would otherwise be sypmathetic and is doing more harm than good for their own cause, methinks.

[oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest]

In a society that has comes to terms with its oppression of women (or at least much of society) and has consequently developed an heightened sensitivity to gender issues in language, I think anything less than inclusive language is unworthy of the gospel. God favours the oppressed. So should we. JMHO.

[Elijah Craig]

I believe the only agenda that translators should have is to accurately convey the meaning of the text in terms the target audience will understand. It shouldn't be twisted for or against any theological position.

[Josh]

"War is peace"

"Freedom is slavery"

"Gender inclusive Bibles are bad for women"

Redefining terms to their opposites isn't a new control technique for oppressive governments, cults, and other such organizations.

[oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest]

(10-13-2011 09:29 PM)Elijah Craig Wrote:  I believe the only agenda that translators should have is to accurately convey the meaning of the text in terms the target audience will understand. It shouldn't be twisted for or against any theological position.

Who is the target audience? If language that was unoffensive 2000 years ago is offensive to the target audience now, should the language be changed to prevent offence if the meaning can be retained? For example, if "brothers and sisters" means the same thing as "brothers" (i.e the entire Christian community), and if "brothers and sisters" is less offensive, is that a better translation now since the meaning is the same though the words are different? Either might be understandable, but one may carry more negative baggage than another.

[oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest]

(10-15-2011 01:02 AM)Donb123 Wrote:  

(10-14-2011 11:58 PM)oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest Wrote:  Who is the target audience? If language that was unoffensive 2000 years ago is offensive to the target audience now, should the language be changed to prevent offence if the meaning can be retained? For example, if "brothers and sisters" means the same thing as "brothers" (i.e the entire Christian community), and if "brothers and sisters" is less offensive, is that a better translation now since the meaning is the same though the words are different? Either might be understandable, but one may carry more negative baggage than another.

Offensive? Given that it is not a contemporary text to a contemporary audience with contemporary sensibilities I don't think it makes much sense to be offended about ancient linguistic idioms.

It makes all the sense in the world for a translation methodology of dynamic equivalence which tries to express complete thoughts in modern language to be gender neutral. It follows that a literal word-for-word style of translation would not want to do this. It would also follow as an exercise for the reader to understand historical context and interpret gender language issues for themselves in the more literal translation.

Quite a number of problems flow from lack of historical understanding of biblical texts in their historical context and it's obvious from Church history that gender has been one of them. I think I'd prefer a very small bit of education on the part of reader as opposed to fiddling around with the text but I don't think one method is "good" or "bad". They're just different.

But the translation is a contemporary work for a contemporary audience. The original is what it is as a product of the day. To me the question is what is the role of a contemporary translation with respect to language? It is not a matter of fiddling around with the text since the text is basically set (allowing for textual criticism to do its work). It is a matter of how to translate something like adelphoi - literally it is translated brothers but it's real meaning in our modern day usage is brothers and sisters. In fact, in modern usage, "brothers" could be misleading.

[oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest]

I think fidelity to the original text and a literal translation do not always go together. I would argue that the translation "brothers", though literal, is less faithful to the originl text than "brothers and sisters" because in modern english "brothers" refers to a group of males whereas "brothers and sisters" refers to the entire group, which was the original meaning of adelphoi. It is false to assume that a literal translation is most faithful. It can often be off target. I am not saying you believe that literal is best, this is just my observation. For me, words are secondary to meaning so that a word for word translation is inferior to one that translates meaning. The translation "cleaness of teeth" (Amos 4:6) in a literal translation is inferior to "empty stomachs" in a meaning based translation since for us, clean teeth is a good thing. The literal translation does not convery the meaning in english since we don't use that idiom.

I am getting off topic I think. At any rate, I appreciate an inclusive translation. Ironically, the NRSV is both fairly literal and inclusive.

[dthatcher]

NRSV FTW.

[M Go Blue]

(10-19-2011 11:22 PM)dthatcher Wrote:  NRSV FTW.

Indeed.