(16 votes, average: 4.88 out of 5)
Loading...One more issue connected with Bible translations: what does one do with shifts in usage in the English language toward inclusive language. It’s a hot topic, and somehow I suspect one that a lot of people on the blog have strong views of. I certainly have them. I talked about it once on the blog, in connection with my work with the NRSV Translation Committee.
********************************************
One of the most difficult issues that the New Revised Standard Version translation committee had to address involved the use of inclusive language. Part of the problem was that this issue was not a generally recognized issue (by the wider reading public) when the translators began their work, but was very much an issue when they were already finished with a large chunk of it. The translators were mainly senior scholars who had acquired their linguistic skills before virtually anyone in the academy knew (or at least said) that there even was a problem with inclusivity, and so they themselves were learning how to communicate in the new idiom. And it took a while before they figured out how exactly to handle it.
I myself was first introduced to the problem when I entered graduate school, and like a lot of people from my generation (especially, but not only, us males) at first I thought it was much ado about nothing and that writing inclusively simply threatened to destroy the beauty of the English language. But at Princeton Seminary, when I arrived, it was already a hot issue. There I learned that there were people who did not think that the term “men” referred to “men and women” but to “adult males,” that “man” did not refer to the human race but to only half of it, that the pronoun “he” did not refer to someone without male genitalia.
It took me a long time to accept this view or get used to it. For about thirty years now I’ve been completely and passionately on the side of speaking and writing inclusively. But at the time it was hard to get used to, and I put up some serious resistance. I suppose growing up in a town in the Midwest didn’t help me much there….
But now I firmly believe that it is of utmost importance to speak and write inclusively. This is not simply because of wide-eyed liberal political correctness. It is because …
The Rest of this Post is for MEMBER ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!! You’ll do yourself good, you’ll be contributing money to help the needy, the world will be a better place, and we’ll all live happily ever after. So JOIN!!!
One could say, that the authors of the Bible were sexist pigs. Or, one could say that they were sexist, and leave out the pigs. If we want to be true to the original intent and world view of the authors, then one could say: leave it alone, and let it be as sexist as the authors were. If we try to tame it for modern sensibilities, how can we ever know just what kind of book the Bible really is? Don’t whitewash the brutality, the bigotry, the sexism. Let it be exposed for what it is. For that matter, let the God of the Bible be exposed for what IT is. Disclaimer: I am not necessarily that “one” but my sympathies might well be with such a “one”.
” It is because language masks power’,” And so, no new translation should lose the familiar and comforting wording of the older translation, or seem to be self-absorbed in its attempts to be “correct.” So are you comfortable in leaving the Bible as it stands, a patriarchal context written by authors who were not inclusive in their thinking ? Theologically, doesn’t the whole premise of Creation found in Genesis 1: 26-28 NASB, was man (him) created first, 26″ Let us make man in our image”,27,” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. The Creation of man and woman in Genesis 2: 15-23 NASB, clearly shows a *helper* being created for man, thus Adam calling her a woman,taken from his bones, is very distinct ? When we personify God and modern humanist(feminist) worldviews are considered, gender becomes a reaction to the masculine portrayal of God in Christianity. Moreover, we don’t know if God has/had genitalia, I concur, but go and tell the Mormons that, who believe God was a man and had a wife and the whole church governance is men….
I think it’s a very fine line. Yes, I’m perfectly happy to leave the Bible as a patiarchal document that shows the ancient suppression and oppression of women; I’m happy to leave every work supporting patriarchy the way it is, to illustrate its inappropriateness to modern times. But I also think that if an ancient document uses masculine pronouns for things that we do not, that we should not follow suit, or else, in those cases, we are miscommunicating.
I’m not sure I see the problem here. Was the original Greek New Testament patriarchal in its grammar, or inclusive? Have our traditional English (and Latin) translations changed an inclusive text into a patriarchal one? If so, then that really changes my understanding of the text (God is not the Father?!). If not, then changing the language to be inclusive should not be a concern of a scholarly translator.
Ancient Greek writers did not have the choice that we do. When we refer to men and women today, we do not say “men.” Or at least we should not. Ancients did. So did English speakers until recently. But if I say “men” and I mean “men and women” peole reading it, today, since we dont’ speak that way any more, using men as an inclusive category, can/will be misled that I am speaking only of males, when in fact I’m speaking of both males and females. That’s the problem. If ancient texts are speaking of both males and females, modern readers will be confused if we say “men.” It’s a sticky issue, not easily resolved.
Thomas Jefferson wrote “all men are created equal”. He meant “men” to be inclusive, and at the same time he understood women to be inferior to men. Jefferson was a brilliant writer and could have formulated his idea in an inclusive way, as the framers of the Constitution did – “We the people…”. We now understand our founding document to mean “all people are created equal”, but historians don’t change the original words to match our modern understanding. I just don’t see why a translator should have that license.
Did he mean that?
But DID they mean “man and women” when they said “men”? I think modernized “inclusive” translations overly blur the line at times. Let me ask this: Are women ever spoken of as having an afterlife as men were supposed to have?
Sometimes they did. And when they did the NRSV wanted that to be clear. Yes indeed, same afterlife for both in the Xn tradition.
The Apollo 11 moon plaque reads, “We came in peace for all mankind.” This meant half the population (less because no mention of boys.) And the men were all young, tech elitist, white Americans. Right off the bat, humanity’s greatest technological achievement was riven with imperialism, hierarchy, elitism, racism, ageism and sexism.
Should we change the history books? Should we remove the plaque? Would snowflake humanity students find it confronting to their virtuous eyes?
Same with the bible.
Forget the word “man”, the people who seek to bend the bible to contemporary politics care nothing for its content. Indeed, they recognize, as Bart put it, “language masks power.” An adulterous and drug addled generation justifies itself by seeing the bible as racist, imperialist, exclusivist, sexist, patriarchal, homophobic, hierarchical, authoritarian, narrow minded, intolerant, moralistic, paternalistic, militarist and fake news (oh, and, “oppressing the working class” if you are a “Liberation Theologist.”)
Fully amending the bible (better still, banning it) SHIFTS MORAL AUTHORITY of the bible to academics and progressives. And that’s why language is power – ask Orwell.
Triggered much???
Jesus is a Jewish version of Paul.
Paul converts from Judaism to a larger Gentile audience within the Roman Empire. He makes a Jewish version of himself (Pauline Christology) because he was an observant Jew first.
This is why Jesus speaks of God as his father and Paul does not. (I am referencing the the Jesus-Paul debate circa the beginning of the 20th century.) God the Father has to refer to the God of the Torah or the Septuagint at-large. God is the Father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not the descendant of those outside those three patriarchs.
Question:
I do not recall you doing a post on the Jesus-Paul debate which compares the Christology of Jesus to the Christology of Paul–how much content DID that vision on the way to Damascus inform Paul.
Other than Paul being weak about God the Father, is there anything else Paul does not pick up from Jesus?
It has been established that the only Redeemer killed under Pontius Pilate was the Samaritan Redeemer; therefore, Jesus is a literary creation but also a backdated Jewish version of a converted Paul.
I don’t think that Paul is at all weak on the Father. And I think most of Paul’s theology does not come from jesus.
Sounds like “Where did Paul’s theology come from” would make an interesting blog post.
William Wrede
Many lines of connection may unquestionably be drawn from Jesus to Paul;
but these by no means suffice to demonstrate an influence of Jesus on Paul.
Steefen
Insufficient evidence for demonstrating an influence of Jesus on Paul?
Wrede
Both men belong to the Judaism of the same age. It is then self-evident that their religion must of necessity exhibit a number of features in common.
Must we look to Jesus’s preaching for an explanation if Paul calls God ‘our father’ or glories in being a child of God?
Before Jesus, Judaism was acquainted with ‘father’ and thought of God not only as the father of Israel, but of each individual man.
In the same way Judaism counted childhood or sonship of God among the essential benefits of religion.
But there is a special aspect of God which Jesus associates with “Father”.
Steefen (leaning in)
What is THAT?
Wrede
Jesus associates the name of “Father” to a Father-God who
1) directs and governs all
2) cares with inexhaustible kindness for each
3) counts the very hairs of our head, and
4) Jesus continues with the exhortation: “Trust in God.”
One scarcely finds an echo of this in Paul. [even in the list of father verses in the Pauline Letters.
… Many women in the Mormon church do not feel inferior to men, but rather strong and bold and motivated to be beside a man who is upright in his faithfulness as the head of the household. Like you say Bart, it’s a long story, but you are bordering on political correctness, in my view, and accept your feelings. Today, inclusivity should be written and spoken for all people, no doubt, I firmly believe that because of the diverse and cultural world we live in. Until we all * love and accept and act on * humanity as equal,universally, and not for gender, race, color, economic/financial status, faith and unfairness, I don’t think we can achieve this in our present direction. It is predicated on historic cultures of hierarchy and oligarchy, and unfortunately many will, for different reasons, taste suffering, persecution, and eventually death without any chance in life. This is the world we inhabit. When we are living comfortably, the emotional and physical pain and suffering of the less fortunate is not our problem and is easier to talk about than to change. It will continue to worsen.
I agree with most of your points, and could add my own anecodes to reinforce yours, but I would strongly dispute the claim that “for what will it profit anyone to gain the whole world but lose their soul?” is grammatically incorrect. The grammatical authenticity of singular “they” is well-established, and I could provide any number of references to that effect. You find it, occasionally, in Shakespeare (“as if I were their well-acquainted friend”) and you find it in every century since. That’s not to say it doesn’t ever involve stylistic trade-offs (for example it can make prose seem more abstract and less vivid), but grammatically it’s fine.
Exactly. As additional evidence, in a comment below, I refer to what Merriam Webster has to say about use of they as a singular pronoun. Of course, there is nothing special about Merriam Webster. Everyone should feel free to check their own favorite dictionary or style guide.
That comment I referred to seems to have not been posted. I just wanted to share a few notes about singular they quoted from Merriam Webster’s online entry on this usage. (The full article can be found by searching on “Merriam Webster’s” and “singular they”.)
1) They has been in consistent use as a singular pronoun since the late 1300s.
2) “he development of singular they mirrors the development of the singular you from the plural you, yet we don’t complain that singular you is ungrammatical.
3) Regardless of what detractors say, nearly everyone uses the singular they in casual conversation and often in formal writing.
This non-binary singular “they” user greatly appreciates you and XanderKastan taking the time to leave these comments 🙂
To play a bit of devil’s advocate here: However worthy we might see the stated goals, is it fair to suggest that there is a bit of irony in the scholarly choice to use inclusive language of this nature in modern translations?
That is, the presumed goal of fields such as Textual Criticism is to establish, as precisely as possible, the underlying original wording of the NT. And in particular, not to put too fine a point on it, one of the significant sources of problems in establishing the text comes from examples of “orthodox corruption of scripture” in which later scribes have made deliberate alterations to the text to better reflect contemporary doctrine (e.g. Mark 10:18, and all the business with “…none is good but one, that is God”).
In short (and again however desirable we might consider the intended goals to be) is it reasonable to view efforts to introduce what are ultimately deliberately non-literal (and indeed in some case what we might call “anti-literal”) content into a translation as being contrary to these fundamental goals?
Yup, there’s not an easy solution. The problem Bible translators have is that htey usually see the Bible as somehow normative, and they don’t want to reinforce sexual stereotypes and further oppression of women.
But isn’t this precisely the point?
I think it’s safe to assume that most of the ancient scribes who made their textual changes weren’t doing it in order to simply “corrupt” the text. Rather, that they saw what they were doing as making necessary “corrections” to the text in order to make the text more accurately reflect what the original writers “must have *really* meant”.
In other words, doing the same thing, and for the same reasons, as the modern translators.
I guess the real question is why can/should we justify one set of changes as better (or worse) than the other? Or, at least, for reasons other than because presumably most of us accept one of these set of changes as the “righteous” thing to do?
Thanks for this, Bart.
Heinrich Boell made fun of a pretentious academic, in the 1950s, in his story “Dr Murke’s Collected Silences.” The academic decides “God” is not accurate and insists on changing his radio talk to “Oh, you higher Being whom we honor.” A clip from the TV film is on YouTube in German: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXwAuE2whrI
You’ve often accused people who try to create one coherent story out of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John of writing their own gospel, because the text simply isn’t coherent in the way they want it to be. Isn’t there an analogous danger here? The authors of the Bible surely MEANT men much if not all of the time. They weren’t trying to be inclusive. (It’s not a coincidence, for example, that the commandment says, thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife, and not, thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s spouse.) And so if you render the text inclusive, against the intentions of the authors, isn’t that also just inventing a new text–making it say something that it simply didn’t say?
Sometimes they meant “men” (males). And in those cases they are left. But soemtimes they addressed both men and women, and the idea is that the translation should reflect that
Another brilliant post. I think the example from the Ten Commandments brought home to me the lack of inclusivity in the mindset of the Bible writers and the problem this poses for modern translators. As I said earlier, the Tablet has been discussing this issue and most contributors seem to think that the (Catholic)Jerusalem Bible is best among modern translations for inclusive language. This is a little ironic as the Catholic Church is hardly inclusive when is comes to recruiting priests (I speak as someone who has attended a Catholic church for 35 years).
As one who has frequently translated between four languages I remember being taught that sometimes it is better to emphasize the meaning and at other times to try to preserve the poetry. Under no circumstances, however, was I ever allowed to change the intent of the writer or to interject my own personal beliefs or opinions.
The writers of the Bible belonged to a male dominated culture that we find unacceptable today. Their writings reflect the beliefs and values of those times. To try to sanitize the bias of the period is, in my opinion, actually deceptive. I can understand why people would want the text to be different but not why they feel that they must falsify it to make it palatable.
I fear that these changes in language, and thus meaning, will only result in further divisions and rancor within the already fragmented Christian community.
As a professor of writing for several decades (and editor of a scholarly press), I struggled to show my students various ways to recast sentences, particularly into the plural, to achieve gender-neutrality, wherever appropriate, It is a challenging skill, sometimes impossible to achieve, but a necessary one that can easily be abused for pernicious and distortive purposes
Great post, as always.
I would particularly like to know what is your take on the last issue. If we take a book written in a “thoroughly patriarchal context” and make it sound nice to modern sensibilities, are we not bowdlerizing it? If the book is sacred, is that even acceptable?
Yes we are. I don’t recommend it! But that’s not what I would recommend.
Only slightly off topic but squeezing it in sideways–you mentioned “numen” in your book and of course Lewis and all the mythopoeic Inklings came rushing back. I’ve had a hard time accepting that the modern Romans regarded their divinities the way that a Hebrew might (revelatory), and couldn’t appreciate how they would have embraced such a thing as a resurrection claim (even of the Hellenized sort, unless they held it for everyone, in which case there’d be nothing special about Jesus). So I’m really struck by your use of “numen” because I didn’t expect it from you. It smacks too much of magic, so you had to have a reason. How common was the term in every ancient text? Was it just another term that transposed into something else, like “psyche?” Was Otto (Idea of the Holy) excessive, or could the gods really have been that close to people then?
Sorry Professor, I’m learning the site and don’t know whether you revisit old posts where this might have been better asked. And I finally received my $5(!) Benko, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians. I’m getting a better feel for the atmosphere back then, with help also from Withrow’s Catacombs of Rome. That’s certainly where we’ll find the numen, having meals with the departed. I was thrown b/c I know Lewis had said that, by this point in history, the Roman gods were strictly a formality, wh/ certainly comes out from Benko (and as commerce especially). Cheers
I don’t now about mythopoeic beings, but numen is a good Latin term for the will of a divine being, and by transference for a “god”, common in Latin religious texts.
Why try to make the OT/NT more inclusive? Should it not reflect the patriarchal world view of its deity and authors so we can understand the depth of misogyny inherent in the religions of the book?
Yes, I think it should. It’s a fine line, made problematic by wanting to communicate well, in the translation, whether the text or a person in the text is speaking only to males or to both males and females. The problem is with developments in the English language.
Great post Dr. Ehrman!
Another note would be the way also that language that has tried to be more “inclusive” has likewise just perpetuated the gender binary, and has then marginalized non-binary identities (the problematic dichotomy of “man and woman” for instance). Of course, this has problems depending on the language. It is easier for English speakers to translate and create more gender inclusive writing, but German, for instance, has grammatical gender so ingrained it is a huge issue to try and get around that.
I would also pushback (as someone getting my degree in English writing) since in English “their”, “they”, and “them” do not always actually take plural. Like Hebrew “elohim” with the vestigial plural marker -im, they can be grammatically singular and in fact have been used as a grammatical singular since the 1300’s. So, grammatically it is not incorrect to have “anyone” and “their” in parallelism. In the context you used them, they are both functionally singular in grammar and form. This is also a more present English development, with the “plural” verb conjugations that go with “their/they/them” also starting to not distinguish plural and singular anymore.
So, these reservations I think no longer hold in current grammatical discourse.
After reading and reflecting on this piece I found myself wondering if the efforts to make the Bible all inclusive are increasing now and will it rev up even more so over time. Especially when considering the work that is being done now in our society to create an all inclusive culture. The implications are interesting to consider.
Bart, you hit the main ideas beautifully, so I’ll put my linguistics degree from many years ago to some use and indulge in a quibble:
I’m not sure that “For what will it profit anyone to gain the whole world but lose their soul?” is actually un-grammatical, unless it’s in a really narrow, prescriptive sense. “Their,” has a long attested usage as an indeterminate singular pronoun that is used when one is referring to a singular person, but doesn’t specifically know who that person is, and hence doesn’t know if that person is male or female. This extends to “they” and “them” as well. It certainly sounds grammatical, at least to me.
This is precisely the type of construction the sentence in question uses. It extends to quite formal registers of English. Admittedly, if you look at a style guide it might say to use “he” or “he or she” instead (I haven’t looked at one in quite a while).
On a related note, the very recent phenomenon of individuals choosing to be addressed by “their” in all circumstances as a true gender neutral pronoun seems to be an extension of this indeterminate, singular use of “they, ” “their,” etc.
1. In regard to Bible translation: if a word is clearly male or female just translate what it says, sexist or not, so people know what the authors actually said and can then discuss/debate it. 2. “The supreme divine being is not male with male genitalia.” How do you know? Plenty of ancient sculptors seemed to think so. 3. Why haven’t we developed a gender-neutral personal pronoun yet, since it’s not considered polite to refer to a person as “it?” 4. When in Mark 6 it says “There were five thousand men who ate the loaves” it seems to mean 5000 people, since in chap. 8 Jesus refers back to 5000 total being fed. Matthew on the other hand says it was specifically 5000 men not including the women and children (likewise for the 4000). So, doesn’t it seem that Mark was using “men” as “people” but Matthew took it more literally to mean men, not women or children? In Greek at that time was “men” commonly used for “people” in general or was there a preferred term used for people of both sexes?
The problem is that ANTHROPOS means “person” and ANER means “male adult.” Mark 6 uses ANER: there were 5000 male adults.
This reminds me a little bit of your theology vs history comments. I’m for inclusive language development in normal parlance, as if anyone could stop the dynamic onward march in the changes of language. But, I’m against rewriting history in our present lingual context. I’m sure that I’m the last to consider this seriously. Then do we develop the “theological Bible,” and also the “historical Bible,” which might just be the ancient documents, etc? Which makes me wonder how “stressed” in stretched meaning the translations already are.
So, wouldn’t you say that in trying to be inclusive in translating an obviously NOT inclusive text, you are somehow violating the original text? The culture of the bible, both the old Jewish scripture and the newer Christian scripture, is not inclusive. Just translating those texts inclusively does not change that. And, in my experience, nobody actually questions the non-inclusivity of the culture or the text. I grew up in a strict bible tradition, but it was always understood that in most places a reference to ‘men’ was meant to include both men and women, or to indicate humanity in general. There was never any issue about it. However, those same people who didn’t have any issue with such ‘mental inclusivity’ would really have an issue if they got a copy of a translation that intentionally altered those terms. They would wonder if the translators changed that wording to suit modern sensitivities, what else might they have altered?
Yes, if you take a misogynist text and get rid of the misogyny, that would be bad. The problem is English, since now “man” is no longer generic, even though in Greek, the Greek word for man was. So how do you translate the generic term without using the English generic term?
So, I notice that recently the plural terms (they, their, etc) have come into accepted usage in English precisely to solve this generic problem. I still cringe when I hear this usage, because I am old and still remember having my hand smacked with a ruler for doing this, but that’s English for you. Has such a solution been adopted in translation? I think it inelegant and clunky, and definitely not poetic, but it is practical.
I find it hard to understand why so many women want to be priests in a religion that is culturally, linguistically and epistemologically patriarchal. Unless they want to transform it into a feminist religion, which it seems they mostly don’t. Psychologically it could be that women want the perfect father they never had. So a perfect male saviour, the son of a perfect male god, would work for them. Judith please speak up and tell me I’m wrong. (There are no other sisters here as far as I’m aware!)
Taking a step back from just the Bible, there is a bigger problem. Last year I was a small part of a university research project looking at world religions and how their sacred texts either supported, or detracted, from human rights. The main problem highlighted was the high percentage of the world’s population that are being oppressed by the language used in these texts. Obviously, this blog has a particular purpose, but it can influence Christian scholars, and since we are not going to see people leaving religion behind any time soon, I think we need to champion inclusive language whenever possible for those still subjugated by religion. The counter argument of leaving the texts in the sexist culture they were written in, may serve the purpose of highlighting how abusive religion is, but will not help those still being actively oppressed.
Concerning whether it is grammatical to use they as a singular pronoun, here’s part of what Merriam Webster has to say:
“We will note that they has been in consistent use as a singular pronoun since the late 1300s; that the development of singular they mirrors the development of the singular you from the plural you, yet we don’t complain that singular you is ungrammatical; and that regardless of what detractors say, nearly everyone uses the singular they in casual conversation and often in formal writing.”
Here is a link to the full article: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they
I once had an NRSV Interlinear Greek NT … in the Fourth Gospel, instead of “he,” the Greek translation was “the one.” I’ve never forgotten that.
Despite the masculine language, I never thought God is male and that “mankind” is restricted to XY chromosomes. I was never told that by Catholic clergy. I simply assumed that the known patriarchal and male-dominated society extant at the times scripture was written explained the “non-inclusivity”. If the world was matriarchal, God would probably be depicted as a woman. Perhaps an introduction to every bible should clarify God and angels as “non-binary” and all “masculine” references as to be a “wastebasket” for all genders.
Speaking of Catholics, the more pressing modern problem vis-a-vis sex/gender is the illogical stance that clergy should be male.
My questions are, would Jesus’s ministry in 1st century Palestine, in fact, have included many women; What did 1st century Judaism say about men and women congregating together in worship; Would women be a part of the multitudes that literally followed Jesus; And would women also be included in the congregation listening to Jesus in the temple? In short, to what extent do historical facts show the NT’s inclusivity or exclusivity?
Men and women did not normally associate openly in public. It appears that Jesus however did. It appears taht he would have been more inclusive than others in his environment.
Isn’t it odd that we are so squeamish about using the available neutral pronoun ‘it’ to refer to singular human beings, though happy to use it for lions, bears, cats and sometimes angels.
Producing a degenderized translation of the Bible is definitely a thankless task. Even referring to God in gender-neutral terms is problematic because there are places where the gender of the god in important – Astarte, Baal, the Queen of Heaven.
I was once on a committee that produced a degenderized version of the Friday evening prayerbook. A rabbi not associated with our synagogue said he got 3/4 of the way through it before he realized it was gender-neutral. That was just what we were aiming for, but the synagogue rejected it for that very reason: they wanted it to be obvious.
Sam Harris agreed to be interviewed by a journalist that had basically accused him of protracting bigotry by allowing discussion regarding a study that revealed IQ data among different races. Harris’ position is that we will ultimately face scientific data in touchy areas, whether concerning gender or race, and should be capable of mature discussion. As it concerns ancient text, I feel it’s imperative to digest material while maintaining an understanding of its historical context before we start altering it. I’m not a big advocate of sanitizing; I think it’s done more harm than good. I’m with Harris on this point. Now, in the 21st century, there is hardly a phrase uttered that is without offense.
An initial opinion. I don’t read Shakespeare because I choose not to deal with archaic language to obtain entertainment. Rewrite Romeo and Juliet and make it a play called West Side Story with Bernstein’s score and I am all in. But Shakespeare did not write to convince me a Jewish hillbilly from 2000 years ago is my god. So, “updating Shakespeare” (as long as they leave “Methought I was enamour’d of an ass.’” alone) is fine. But, I just think moderno-normalizing the NT is also normalizing that god creation for an appeal perhaps neither intended or warranted.
Have you checked out the Complete Hebrew-Greek Bible (Ancient Greek and Hebrew Edition) if so would it be a good tool for biblical textual criticism and learning those two ancient languages.
I don’t know it; is it a text that teaches Hebrew and Greek? That would be hard to do in a single book. They are very difficult for people to pick up without competent teachers.
Well, here’s more of a product description of:
Description
Product Description
Hendrickson’s The Complete Hebrew-Greek Bible combines under one cover the complete text of the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament. Ideal for pastors, students, scholars, and anyone else who has studied both Greek and Hebrew, this is an excellent volume for those who want a complete original-language Bible in an attractive package and at an affordable price.
The Hebrew text is a beautifully typeset version of the Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia, edited by Aron Dotan.
Oh, OK. I thought you were saying it’s something else. Most scholars simply have two different books, the HB and the NT. this puts them in one volume. If it contains the apparatus of both, it would be fine. But there’s no real advantage to having it packaged that way (for scholars) that I can think of.
Features:
– Qere forms are clearly set off in the margin (with corresponding unpointed Kethiv forms in the main text).
– The text is unencumbered by a critical apparatus, allowing for ease of reading.
The Greek New Testament is a recent typesetting of the edition produced by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort.
Features:
– Pericopes are labeled in English, and in the Gospels these labels are accompanied, where appropriate, by the verse references of their synoptic parallels.
– Quotations and allusions to the Old Testament are indicated in the Greek text in bold, with references at the bottom of the page.
– A straightforward, unobtrusive apparatus is found at the bottom of the page that presents the differences in wording between the Westcott-Hort edition and the 27th edition of Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece, as well as the Byzantine text edition prepared by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont.
About the Author
Aron Dotan is Professor Emeritus, Tel Aviv University, and Head of The Cymbalista Jewish Heritage Center (Tel Aviv). A member of the Academy of Hebrew Language, he has served since 1992 as president of the International Organization for Masoretic Studies, and in 1998 he was awarded the Bialik Prize for Jewish Studies.
Ah, unencumbered by an apparatus. That means it will not be of any use for scholars, since the apparatus is a major scholarly tool. But would have made the book much longer, bulkier, and more expensive. So I’m not sure sure who would be interested i nit.
Also as far as research and textual criticism what bible would you recommend I was watching an interview between Dan Wallace and Mike licona and Dan recommended for study and accuracy the NET and the NIV for readability and accuracy.
Source: https://youtu.be/ZjSBnZSa1oQ
If an apparatus is important for scholarly work then would these work?
ESV Greek-English New Testament: Nestle-Aland 28th Edition and English Standard Version, 1744pgs
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Hebrew Edition)1629 pages
ESV Hebrew-English Old Testament: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) and English Standard Version (ESV) 3200 pages
The apparatus matters *only* if you read teh original language. Otherwise they are of no use. And so scholars almost always use the Nestle-Aland 28th ed. for the NT and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia for the HB, without an English version bound in the same volume.
I may be a late comer on this post, but This discussion of inclusive language makes me think of how the word “homosexuals” shows up in English translations of Romans when the original text referred to something different. From my millennial point of view, I see the usage of “homosexuals” factually incorrect when considering the historical context of Paul’s day. This verse has really hurt people who are not the same people that Paul meant to reference. I guess I bring this up because i see it as relevant to the Discussion regarding inclusive language of newer translations. Since sexual orientation is still not clearly understood by so many Christian leaders today, I don’t expect to see a sweeping change any time soon in how Christian leaders regard LGBTQ folks.
Yes, I’ve talked about that on the blog. Do a word search on “homosexual” and you’ll see. The ancient world did not have a category like that, since “sexual orientation” itself was an unknown concept. The other side of that problem is that it is very difficult to know how to translate the Greek words!
You wrote: “Another issue is equally problematic, but for a completely different reason. The Bible itself was written in a thoroughly patriarchal context.”
I agree. I’m having difficulty with the use of inclusive language for Galatians in light Gal 5:3, “Again I testify to every ἀνθρώπῳ who gets himself circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole Law.”
So much of the book of Galatians concerns the very male rite of passage, circumcision. It seems to me that it makes best sense when trying to understand Paul in his own time to think of ἀδελφοί as male.
I’m not in favor of male dominance today, so I have a problem making my case for keeping this language in the translations of Paul’s writings.
In your view, is there a legitimate case to be made for literal translation of ἀδελφοί in Galatians?
I think the peole he was writing to were men and women, and that circumcision wasn’t the only issue. So if he addresses the entire congregation, then the English word used in doing so, in my view, should be one that includes both men and women.
When he’s referring only to the men, then it should be masculine in English.