Inclusive language in the Bible?

itullian · #1 Jun 15, '12, 3:29 pm

Are you for or against and why?

i'm very conservative on these kind of things myself. and don't agree with the changes.

thank you

**buffalo** · #2 Jun 15, '12, 3:32 pm

We do not have authority to change Jesus' words.

Lutheranische · #3 Jun 15, '12, 3:39 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by itullian

Are you for or against and why?

thank you

I am for the original text. English does not have a neutered pronoun; one could argue that the "singular they" is acceptable. Terms such as Adelphoi should be translated as brothers and sisters or siblings instead of just as brothers because the original languages were inclusive. If the originals are inclusive, the English should be inclusive. If the originals are referring to a specific gender, the English should be specific.

Abrigham · #4 Jun 15, '12, 5:14 pm

Agreed. I think it just allows for even more confusion. People have already been able to take one verse and translate it's meaning into multiple meanings, pretty much anything they want. It doesn't need to be even more complicated by actually changing or adding words in the versions they're reading that were never there just to be politically correct.

Justice_Mercy · #5 Jun 15, '12, 6:19 pm

Inclusive language sounds like a good idea on the surface.
However, as was already said here, it involves tampering with God's word. To change the word of God is not something we should do. Passages that refer to "men" are easily recognized as being directed at males or at human beings in general, anyway. If someone is offended by language that is supposedly "non-inclusive", they probably have other, deeper issues with God and the Church.

God personifies wisdom as female in Proverbs and we know that it specifically refers to Christ (a male) in the New Testament, so God is not a chauvinist. I believe it is best just to accept the scriptures as they are written, because we were given them as they are for a reason.

tabycat · #6 Jun 15, '12, 6:32 pm

:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lutheranische

I am for the original text. English does not have a neutered pronoun; one could argue that the "singular they" is acceptable. Terms such as Adelphoi should be translated as brothers and sisters or siblings instead of just as brothers because the original languages were inclusive. If the originals are inclusive, the English should be inclusive. If the originals are referring to a specific gender, the English should be specific.

**po18guy** · #7 Jun 15, '12, 6:33 pm

Our Lord did not ask "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" Matthew 16:13 NAB/NJB/NIV/NASB

tabycat · #8 Jun 15, '12, 6:35 pm

:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abrigham

Agreed. I think it just allows for even more confusion. People have already been able to take one verse and translate it's meaning into multiple meanings, pretty much anything they want. It doesn't need to be even more complicated by actually changing or adding words in the versions they're reading that were never there just to be politically correct.

DaveBj · #9 Jun 15, '12, 6:43 pm

As a retired professional translator, I'm for translating what the original says. Period. Women should get used to the fact that in Biblical language, unless the obvious meaning is male men or male siblings, then they are included in the concept of "men" (humans) and brethren. I don't think the women of St. Paul's time had any problem with it; why should the women of our day get bent out of shape?

CalCatholic · #10 Jun 15, '12, 7:05 pm

That is why we have choices in our translation; D-R, RSV-CE/2CE & Jerusalem Bible for those who don't wont inclusive language and the NRSV, NABRE & NJB for those who don't mind (or want) inclusive language.

Lutheranische · #11 Jun 15, '12, 11:31 pm

I'm sorry, but if the original language is inclusive, the English should be as well. If not, then we are perverting the meaning of the source text and are, therefore, perverting the word of God. Why would we even hesitate to inclue our women when the original languages force us to include them? It is not about being politicially correct (a straw man and red herring if I ever heard one!), it's about being transparent to the source.

Now, are there problems with "gender-inclusive" translations? Yes. The NRSV, in particular, suffers in the Psalms, IMHO.

Another thing we have to consider is the genre of the particular section we are translating.

patg · #12 Jun 16, '12, 12:12 pm

All of the "absolute" kind of talk would actually be meaningful if we had any of the original gospels, if we had any of the "original words" of Jesus,, or if Jesus spoke English. We don't have anything close to any of this and yet some are making pretty strong judgmental statements as to how minor pronouns should be translated. As the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI stated in the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels, we don't have anything close to first hand accounts: "...the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving (their) sense".

Taking this into account, statements like "We do not have authority to change Jesus' words" are pretty much meaningless and indicate a basic misunderstanding of what the gospels are.

As Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J. (the English translator of the document) states, "...the Biblical Commission calmly and frankly admits that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is not the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists."

Justice_Mercy · #13 Jun 16, '12, 12:17 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by patg

All of the "absolute" kind of talk would actually be meaningful if we had any of the original gospels, if we had any of the "original words" of Jesus,, or if Jesus spoke English. We don't have anything close to any of this and yet some are making pretty strong judgmental statements as to how minor pronouns should be translated. As the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI stated in the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels, we don't have anything close to first hand accounts: "...the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving (their) sense".

Taking this into account, statements like "We do not have authority to change Jesus' words" are pretty much meaningless and indicate a basic misunderstanding of what the gospels are.

As Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J. (the English translator of the document) states, "...the Biblical Commission calmly and frankly admits that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is not the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists."

While we do not have original mss and the gospels are probably secondhand in source, most of the NT books are the epistles (mostly from Paul), which is exactly the part that most people have inclusive language issues with, not the gospels.

The Biblical Commission's statements does not concern the epistles specifically.

Lutheranische · #14 Jun 16, '12, 11:19 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by patg

All of the "absolute" kind of talk would actually be meaningful if we had any of the original gospels, if we had any of the "original words" of Jesus,, or if Jesus spoke English. We don't have anything close to any of this and yet some are making pretty strong judgmental statements as to how minor pronouns should be translated. As the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI stated in the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels, we don't have anything close to first hand accounts: "...the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving (their) sense".

Taking this into account, statements like "We do not have authority to change Jesus' words" are pretty much meaningless and indicate a basic misunderstanding of what the gospels are.

As Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J. (the English translator of the document) states, "...the Biblical Commission calmly and frankly admits that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is not the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists."

Very well said!

**edwest2** · #15 Jun 17, '12, 5:58 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalCatholic

That is why we have choices in our translation; D-R, RSV-CE/2CE & Jerusalem Bible for those who don't wont inclusive language and the NRSV, NABRE & NJB for those who don't mind (or want) inclusive language.

"inclusive" has become a code word for "we must change the words because we want to." There is no reason to change the words. I am against having two different Bibles and dividing people or encouraging tampering for no apparent reason or to establish an agenda that is purely human in origin and not Biblical.

Peace,
Ed