Gender-Sensitive Bible Translation

[Deacon]

THE JPS TANAKH: Gender-Sensitive Edition has been published (October 2023)


From the Introduction:

A Flood of Shifts in English Usage

Much as a flooding river can reconfigure the channel through which it subsequently flows, rapid changes in English usage have, in the years since NJPS was published, reshaped how its achievement is viewed. Whereas NJPS had frequently employed both the masculine pronouns he/him/his/himself and the noun man in their classic generic sense, such usage has since been swept away—largely disappearing from everyday parlance. The language’s altered course has thus skewed the gender picture that NJPS’s readers see in many passages. ...

...nearly all jurisdictions in the USA have intentionally replaced he and man as generic terms in the wording of their laws or ordinances. That way of speaking and legislating has become rare—and is therefore unexpected, if not jarring or even alienating.​

Some of their translational choices have been available to us for decades.
CONSIDER:

(1)
Exodus 21:12 (NASB) He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 21:12 (ESV) Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.


(2)
1 Samuel 11:13 (NASB) But Saul said, “Not a man shall be put to death this day, for today the Lord has accomplished deliverance in Israel.”
1 Samuel 11:13 (NIV) But Saul said, “No one will be put to death today, for this day the Lord has rescued Israel.”

(3)
1 Kings 21:3 (AV 1873) And Naboth said to Ahab, The Lord forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee.
1 Kings 21:3 (NIV) But Naboth replied, “The Lord forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my ancestors.”

(4)
Numbers 1:2 (YLT) Take ye up the sum of all the company of the sons of Israel by their families, by the house of their fathers, in the number of names—every male by their polls;
Numbers 1:2 (AV 1873) Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;

What is your opinion of these translational developments?

Rob

 

[Logos1560]

Are these older examples involving the 1560 Geneva Bible and the KJV?

Gen. 10:22 The sons (Geneva, NKJV) The children (KJV)

Gen. 10:23 sons of Aram (Geneva, NKJV) children of Aram (KJV)

Gen. 36:22 And the sons (Geneva, NKJV) And the children (KJV)

Gen. 36:23 sons (Geneva, NKJV) children (KJV)

Gen. 36:24 sons (Geneva, NKJV) children (KJV)

Gen. 36:26 the sons (Geneva, NKJV) the children (KJV)

Gen. 36:27 sons (Geneva, NKJV) children (KJV)

Gen. 36:28 sons (Geneva, NKJV) children (KJV)

Exod. 13:13 among thy sons (Geneva) among thy children (KJV) among your sons (NKJV)

Exod. 13:15 the firstborn of my sons (Geneva, NKJV) the firstborn of my children (KJV)

Num. 24:17 all the sons (Geneva, NKJV) all the children (KJV)

Num. 26:18 sons of Gad (Geneva, NKJV) children of Gad (KJV)

Num. 26:44 sons of Asher (Geneva, NKJV) children of Asher (KJV)

Josh. 5:3 circumcised the sons of Israel (Geneva, NKJV) circumcised the children of Israel (KJV)

Josh. 5:7 their sons (Geneva, NKJV) their children (KJV)

 

[JonC]

THE JPS TANAKH: Gender-Sensitive Edition has been published (October 2023)


From the Introduction:

A Flood of Shifts in English Usage

Much as a flooding river can reconfigure the channel through which it subsequently flows, rapid changes in English usage have, in the years since NJPS was published, reshaped how its achievement is viewed. Whereas NJPS had frequently employed both the masculine pronouns he/him/his/himself and the noun man in their classic generic sense, such usage has since been swept away—largely disappearing from everyday parlance. The language’s altered course has thus skewed the gender picture that NJPS’s readers see in many passages. ...

...nearly all jurisdictions in the USA have intentionally replaced he and man as generic terms in the wording of their laws or ordinances. That way of speaking and legislating has become rare—and is therefore unexpected, if not jarring or even alienating.​

Some of their translational choices have been available to us for decades.
CONSIDER:

(1)
Exodus 21:12 (NASB) He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 21:12 (ESV) Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.


(2)
1 Samuel 11:13 (NASB) But Saul said, “Not a man shall be put to death this day, for today the Lord has accomplished deliverance in Israel.”
1 Samuel 11:13 (NIV) But Saul said, “No one will be put to death today, for this day the Lord has rescued Israel.”

(3)
1 Kings 21:3 (AV 1873) And Naboth said to Ahab, The Lord forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee.
1 Kings 21:3 (NIV) But Naboth replied, “The Lord forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my ancestors.”

(4)
Numbers 1:2 (YLT) Take ye up the sum of all the company of the sons of Israel by their families, by the house of their fathers, in the number of names—every male by their polls;
Numbers 1:2 (AV 1873) Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;

What is your opinion of these translational developments?

Rob

I don't have a major issue with 1-3. #4 is a bit awkward.

 

[Deacon]

Josh. 5:3 circumcised the sons of Israel (Geneva, NKJV) circumcised the children of Israel (KJV)

I don't have a major issue with 1-3. #4 is a bit awkward.

Hummmm....!
I had to ponder these a bit too.

One of my concerns with gender-sensitive translations is necessary modification of the pronoun from a singular grammatical form to a plural form.

Example 1
Psalm 8:5-6 Revised Jewish Publication Service (RJPS)
What are human beings that You have been mindful of them,

mortals that you have taken note of them,​

that You have made them little less than divine,

and adorned them with glory and majesty?
​

COMPARE
Psalm 8:4–5 NASB 2020
What is man that You think of him,

And a son of man that You are concerned about him?​

Yet You have made him a little lower than God,

And You crown him with glory and majesty!
​

Example 2
Leviticus 19:33–34 RJSP
When strangers reside with you in your land, you shall not wrong them.
The strangers that reside with you shall be to you as your citizens;
you shall love each one as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt:
I the ETERNAL am your God.

(**you shall love each one - interesting!)

COMPARE
Leviticus 19:33–34 NASB 2020
When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.
The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you,
and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt;
I am the Lord your God.

​

While singular and plural forms of a word are a concern, there are only a few instances where their interchange presents a problem.

It's curious that singular and plural forms of various Hebrew words are interspersed in a passage very little notice in the translations.
In some languages it may be possible to retain these plural forms, but at least in English, most of them are ignored.

​

Rob

 

[JonC]

Hummmm....!
I had to ponder these a bit too.

One of my concerns with gender-sensitive translations is necessary modification of the pronoun from a singular grammatical form to a plural form.

Example 1
Psalm 8:5-6 Revised Jewish Publication Service (RJPS)
What are human beings that You have been mindful of them,

mortals that you have taken note of them,​

that You have made them little less than divine,

and adorned them with glory and majesty?
​

COMPARE
Psalm 8:4–5 NASB 2020
What is man that You think of him,

And a son of man that You are concerned about him?​

Yet You have made him a little lower than God,

And You crown him with glory and majesty!
​

Example 2
Leviticus 19:33–34 RJSP
When strangers reside with you in your land, you shall not wrong them.
The strangers that reside with you shall be to you as your citizens;
you shall love each one as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt:
I the ETERNAL am your God.

(**you shall love each one - interesting!)

COMPARE
Leviticus 19:33–34 NASB 2020
When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.
The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you,
and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt;
I am the Lord your God.
​

While singular and plural forms of a word are a concern, there are only a few instances where their interchange presents a problem.

It's curious that singular and plural forms of various Hebrew words are interspersed in a passage very little notice in the translations.
In some languages it may be possible to retain these plural forms, but at least in English, most of them are ignored.

​

Rob

Good point. I was just thinking "men" verses a gender neutral word (like "all men are created equal" compared to "all people are created equal").

I didn't even consider the plural form. That is a problem I missed.

 

[Deacon]

Well I've got a book that I'll need to look at again.

The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God's Words
by Vern S. Poythress and Wayne Grudem​

Unfortunately I'm moving in another 2 weeks and most of my books are wrapped and packed.
I weeded my library down to about 14 large boxes and almost let this one go... but I think I may have kept it.
It's one that I personally disagreed with; one I think the authors might be embarrassed to be reminded of.

I'll have to revisit this thread in a month and look for some examples offered in the book.

Rob

 

[Silverhair]

Well I've got a book that I'll need to look at again.

The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God's Words
by Vern S. Poythress and Wayne Grudem​

Unfortunately I'm moving in another 2 weeks and most of my books are wrapped and packed.
I weeded my library down to about 14 large boxes and almost let this one go... but I think I may have kept it.
It's one that I personally disagreed with; one I think the authors might be embarrassed to be reminded of.

I'll have to revisit this thread in a month and look for some examples offered in the book.

Rob

My wife thought it was excessive when I had five boxes of books when we moved, if I had 14 I would be sleeping in the woodshed.

 

[Deacon]

Gender-sensitive,
Gender-neutral,
Gender-inclusive,
are various terms with the same meaning.

*****************
Simply employing "THEY" as a singular pronoun may be effective, however its use may cause subtle changes in how one may interpret the text.

Simple case-in-point is Psalm 1.

The first Psalm taken in concert with Psalm 2, has been considered a Messianic psalm even in ancient times.
Note that the TNIV, by using "those" and "they" hides this connection.

PASSAGE COMPARISONS

Psalm 1:1 (RJPS 2023)
Happy is the one who has not followed the counsel of the wicked,
or taken the path of sinners,
or joined the company of the insolent;,
rather, this one delights in GOD’s teaching,
and studies that teaching day and night.,
Such a one is like a tree planted beside streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season,
whose foliage never fades,
and whatever it produces thrives.

Psalm 1:1–3 (NASB 2020)
Blessed is the person who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked,
Nor stand in the path of sinners,
Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!
But his delight is in the Law of the LORD,
And on His Law he meditates day and night.
He will be like a tree planted by streams of water,
Which yields its fruit in its season,
And its leaf does not wither;
And in whatever he does, he prospers.

*Psalm 1:1–3 (TNIV)
*Blessed are those who do not walk in step with the wicked
*or stand in the way that sinners take
*or sit in the company of mockers,
*but who delight in the law of the LORD
*and meditate on his law day and night.
*They are like a tree planted by streams of water,
*which yields its fruit in season
*and whose leaf does not wither—
*whatever they do prospers.

Psalm 1:1–3 (ESV 2016)
Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
He is like a tree planted by streams of water
that yields its fruit in its season,
and its leaf does not wither.
In all that he does, he prospers.

JPS (1985)
Happy is the man who has not followed the counsel of the wicked,
or taken the path of sinners,
or joined the company of the insolent;
rather, the teaching of the LORD is his delight,
and he studies that teaching day and night.
He is like a tree planted beside streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season,
whose foliage never fades,
and whatever it produces thrives.​

I think there has been some progress in the way gender-sensitive translations communicate the written Word of God.
One must however recognize that the simple process of translation is not as simple as it appears.
For a fuller understanding of the text, one should become familiar with the original text.
The NASB provides a very close literal translation.

Rob

 

[MrW]

THE JPS TANAKH: Gender-Sensitive Edition has been published (October 2023)


From the Introduction:

A Flood of Shifts in English Usage

Much as a flooding river can reconfigure the channel through which it subsequently flows, rapid changes in English usage have, in the years since NJPS was published, reshaped how its achievement is viewed. Whereas NJPS had frequently employed both the masculine pronouns he/him/his/himself and the noun man in their classic generic sense, such usage has since been swept away—largely disappearing from everyday parlance. The language’s altered course has thus skewed the gender picture that NJPS’s readers see in many passages. ...

...nearly all jurisdictions in the USA have intentionally replaced he and man as generic terms in the wording of their laws or ordinances. That way of speaking and legislating has become rare—and is therefore unexpected, if not jarring or even alienating.​

Some of their translational choices have been available to us for decades.
CONSIDER:

(1)
Exodus 21:12 (NASB) He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 21:12 (ESV) Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.


(2)
1 Samuel 11:13 (NASB) But Saul said, “Not a man shall be put to death this day, for today the Lord has accomplished deliverance in Israel.”
1 Samuel 11:13 (NIV) But Saul said, “No one will be put to death today, for this day the Lord has rescued Israel.”

(3)
1 Kings 21:3 (AV 1873) And Naboth said to Ahab, The Lord forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee.
1 Kings 21:3 (NIV) But Naboth replied, “The Lord forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my ancestors.”

(4)
Numbers 1:2 (YLT) Take ye up the sum of all the company of the sons of Israel by their families, by the house of their fathers, in the number of names—every male by their polls;
Numbers 1:2 (AV 1873) Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;

What is your opinion of these translational developments?

Rob

Lying liar translators showing modernistic woke bias.

 

[Deacon]

Lying liar translators showing modernistic woke bias.

Psalm 1:1–3 AV (1873)
Blessed is the man That walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly,
Nor standeth in the way of sinners,
Nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
But his delight is in the law of the LORD;
And in his law doth he meditate day and night.
And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water,
That bringeth forth his fruit in his season;
His leaf also shall not wither;
And whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.​

My guess is that any preacher that preaches this passage would note that the word 'man' means man and woman.
It's not a "woke" thing; in this passage, "man" is an expression that means both man and woman.
If it means man and woman, why not translate the expression that way.

Sometimes the KJV needs translating, as you noted in the "Real Reasons to Use the KJV" thread.

For doctrine I always take my KJB. I use several alternates to clarify or verify what I think the obscure word is.

For example, I was reading of the transfiguration, and the Lord’s clothing became whiter than “any fuller” could make them. I thought, “Must be a word that we would say use ‘bleach’ for”, and I was right. Also, sometimes word order is easier when I do the comparison.

Rob

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Gender-sensitive,
Gender-neutral,
Gender-inclusive,
are various terms with the same meaning.

Gender accurate.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Lying liar translators showing modernistic woke bias.

Upon reflection you will confess that you have been a wee bit excessive and wrong.

 

[MrW]

Upon reflection you will confess that you have been a wee bit excessive and wrong.

No. If the Hebrew or Greek says “man”, translate it “man”. We can figure out if it means mankind.

We don’t circumcise girl babies.

Be honest; translate correctly. We don’t require pablum.

 

[Deacon]

We moved in our new home on Wednesday, the house is chaotic with boxes, paper wrap, and furniture scattered about.

My first priority was leveling and securing my book shelves. I spent half of Thursday filling the shelves, order will come later.

I found Poythress’ and Grudem’s book, The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy.

• The first few chapters target the late TNIV (no longer in print).
• The author’s focus primarily on the New Testament text although there are a few OT examples offered.

The authors have a chapter called, “Permissible Changes”.

1. Replacing “all men” with “all” or “everyone” when translating Greek pas (example, Romans 3:9))

2. Replacing “men” with “people” when there is no masculine term in the original text (example, Matt. 5:15)

3. Replacing “men” with “people” for Greek arthropos (plural) (example, Romans 2:16)

4. Replacing “a man” with “a person” when translating Greek anthropos (singular) in certain cases (example, Romans 3:28)

5. Replacing “a man” with “anyone” when translating Greek tis (example, John 15:6)

6. Replacing “he who” with “the one who” or “the person who” (example, Proverbs 14:2 and John 3:18)

7. Replacing “sons” with “children” when translating Hebrew banim (example, Exodus 19:6)

Rob

 

[MrW]

We moved in our new home on Wednesday, the house is chaotic with boxes, paper wrap, and furniture scattered about.

My first priority was leveling and securing my book shelves. I spent half of Thursday filling the shelves, order will come later.

I found Poythress’ and Grudem’s book, The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy.

• The first few chapters target the late TNIV (no longer in print).
• The author’s focus primarily on the New Testament text although there are a few OT examples offered.

The authors have a chapter called, “Permissible Changes”.

1. Replacing “all men” with “all” or “everyone” when translating Greek pas (example, Romans 3:9))

2. Replacing “men” with “people” when there is no masculine term in the original text (example, Matt. 5:15)

3. Replacing “men” with “people” for Greek arthropos (plural) (example, Romans 2:16)

4. Replacing “a man” with “a person” when translating Greek anthropos (singular) in certain cases (example, Romans 3:28)

5. Replacing “a man” with “anyone” when translating Greek tis (example, John 15:6)

6. Replacing “he who” with “the one who” or “the person who” (example, Proverbs 14:2 and John 3:18)

7. Replacing “sons” with “children” when translating Hebrew banim (example, Exodus 19:6)

Rob

Changing to genderless is not honest translation.

I thank God for my KJB.

 

[Deacon]

Changing to genderless is not honest translation.

I thank God for my KJB.

7. Replacing “sons” with “children” when translating Hebrew banim (example, Exodus in 19:6)

Exodus 19:6 (AV 1873): and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Rob

 

[Deacon]

I've been studying through the preface of the recently published Revised Jewish Publication Society these past few days.
It's quite an interesting translation.
Except for the large print "GENDER-SENSITIVE EDITION" on the front cover, one might not initially recognize its focus.

The third paragraph of the preface points how the RJPS translators approached the text (I've reformatted, added underlining and the bullet points).

THE JPS TANAKH: Gender-Sensitive Edition (scholarly abbreviation: RJPS or Revised JPS edition) aims to once again open up the biblical text to contemporary readers.

In particular, it aims to restore the ability of NJPS to provide an accurate picture of how gender is handled in the Bible—the original text’s presuppositions, ascriptions, and prescriptions.

Drawing upon advances in scholarly understandings of how gender functioned in the ancient world, it introduces a wide range of changes in the language used both for people and for God, as well as in related areas.

• It offers gender-inclusive renderings when appropriate and gendered ones when called for historically and linguistically.
• It also makes changes in other areas, especially regarding archaic language and ritual terminology.
• It thus strives to be gender sensitive—to be attentive to the complex ways in which gender and language function, both in the Bible’s world and in our own.

The intended result is to restore the vital access that a translation of the Hebrew Bible can afford to its world and its timeless lessons.​

It can be a daunting task for the Hebrew language is rather heavily gendered but there are many inconsistencies.
It is quite common for a singular, masculine noun to take a feminine, plural ending.

For example, the masculine word 'father' (av) carries a feminine plural ending (avoth) whereas the word for 'woman' has a masculine plural ending.​

Rob

 

[MrW]

The more I learn, the greater my appreciation for my KJB.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Regarding Psalm 1, I haven't heard that it is considered Messaniac.

In verse 4, it speaks of the wicked, which refers to many, not a singular person.In the following translations the word they occurs : NLT, NET, ISV, EHV, CEB, CSB and NIV. There may be more versions doing the same thing.

The NLT has those in verse 1.

Does anyone here think that abrupt change came about between the first section of verses 1 to 3 and the latter verses 4 through 6? I think the Psalm addresses people in general throughout.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

THE JPS TANAKH: Gender-Sensitive Edition has been published (October 2023)


From the Introduction:

A Flood of Shifts in English Usage

Much as a flooding river can reconfigure the channel through which it subsequently flows, rapid changes in English usage have, in the years since NJPS was published, reshaped how its achievement is viewed. Whereas NJPS had frequently employed both the masculine pronouns he/him/his/himself and the noun man in their classic generic sense, such usage has since been swept away—largely disappearing from everyday parlance. The language’s altered course has thus skewed the gender picture that NJPS’s readers see in many passages. ...

...nearly all jurisdictions in the USA have intentionally replaced he and man as generic terms in the wording of their laws or ordinances. That way of speaking and legislating has become rare—and is therefore unexpected, if not jarring or even alienating.​

I agree with all of the above, and it is in accordance with the ideas of the CBT. The NIV translators used the results of the Collins Report to establish guidelines regarding inclusive and non-inclusive language,