Featured How Many here Like Gender inclusive translations?

Perhaps Paul was quoting the Septuagint, and not providing a translation from the Hebrew?

 

The problem with that view is that Greek can very easily say "Brothers and sisters," but Paul did not say that. Again, such a rendering is anachronistic, putting modern thinking back into a male-centric society. So, the NLT paraphrased anachronistically, adding data which was not in the original. A professional secular translator can get fired for doing that.

 

What was the common practice John? I have always been taught that when they wanted to address both "brothers and sisters" αδελφοι was an acceptable way of doing that.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

I don't know any historical data for that view. Do you have any? I do know that in the teachings of Jesus, when he talked about leaving family (Matt. 19:29, etc.), He used "brothers and sisters." So it was entirely possible in koine Greek--yet Paul did not.

Even in American church history years ago, the simple term "Brothers" or "Brethren" pointed to everyone. Example: the hymn, "Brethren we have met to worship."

 

Oops.

What do we make of this line then?

♪ "Brethren, join your cries to help them; Sisters, let your prayers abound"

Note also the hymn's contrasting refrain:

♪ "...Brethren, pray, and holy manna Will be showered all around."

♪ "...Sisters, pray, and holy manna Will be showered all around."

Lyrics - Brethren, We Have Met To Worship

 

Historical data....I do not have. I was hoping you did.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Yet teams of Greek scholars doing peer reviews still chose to do this.
I understand that the ESV is closest to the actual Greek word being used and it is my preferred version. However, I compare the two versions and recognize that the meaning of the text is not altered by the NLT.
If the meaning were being altered, I would agree with your argument, but the times when the NLT uses inclusive language you do not find a change in the meaning of the text. Therefore, I am fine with how the NLT has done its translation work.

 

Okay, I'll concede that. But my point still stands without this illustration.

 

Yes, "teams of Greek scholars" with a dynamic/functional equivalence theory of translation. Another team of scholars with an essentially literal method of Bible translation did not make the ESV gender equivalent. When you say "scholar" in the area of Bible translation, you have to distinguish the translation theory. If you simply say, "Scholars said it, so it must be okay," you are leaning on a broken reed.

Again, my point is that to say "Brothers and sisters" when the Greek says simply adelfoi, brothers,' is anachronistic. Paul did not talk that way, so it is making Paul into somebody he was not. It panders to the modern reader instead of authorial intent.

 

So when the CSB use the words 'brothers and sisters' -- does that mean the principle of optimal equivalence has been compromised? In those instances is the principle reduced to merely minimal equivalence? In the book of 1 Corinthians the CSB uses the term 24 times. Even the NLT uses it only 21 times.

 

I'm looking at The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy by Grudem and Poythress, and they don't seem to have any historical data for the phrase (as opposed to simply "brothers") either. They do point out the difference between verses where adelfoi clearly means male and female, both, and cases where it clearly means only men (263-268). I can live with that distinction, though I still maintain that translating "brothers and sisters" when Paul only said "brothers" is anachronistic.

 

It's better to be anachronistic, than to be using archaic expressions.

 

Conservative theologians and Greek experts worked on the NLT. These aren't "Charles Taze Russell" type Greek scholars. These are people who actually know their Greek.

I understand you may reject their methodology. That's fine.
The meaning of the text does not change, therefore I have no contention with the approach.

 

Well of course they are not heretics. Didn't say they were. And of course they know their Greek. Didn't say they didn't.

What I did say was that their translation methodology was dynamic (also called functional) equivalence. Are you familiar with what that means?

The meaning of the original text does not change. The meaning of the translated text can change from the original, especially when DE is used. Here is an example from the TEV, the first translation done specifically with DE. It says in Col. 1:15,

Christ is the visible likeness of the invisible God. He is the first-born Son, superior to all created things.
The Greek is: 15. ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως·

The problem here is in the final phrase, "superior to all created things." That changes the meaning of the original, which was "firstborn of all creation." What the TEV did was take away the difficulty of exegesis. It must be the Holy Spirit Who is our teacher, not the translator.

 

The standard spelling is adelphoi. Pardon me, my fone is ringing.

 

"If we're dealing with a text in which the reference is generic/inclusive, then the translation must reflect the same generic/inclusive reference if it is to be accurate....True, some passages are disputed as to whether or not they are generic/inclusive, but the debate then must be exegetical, not translational. It is not valid to simply simply reject all such usage as theologically/sociologically driven carte blanche invalid." (From Rod Decker's blog of July 8,201, in a post reply)

 

I have never read the TEV. I am only referring to the NLT and their team of translators.

 

I understand that. I was simply giving an illustration of dynamic equivalence translation.

 

The REB renders Col. 1:15 as "He is the image of the invisible God; his is the primacy over all creation."

A part of the NET note for this kind of rendering :"In Col. 1:15 the emphasis is on the priority of Jesus' rank as over and above creation."

So the NLT reading is legitimate "...He...is supreme over all creation."