Loading...My problems in the NSRV Bible are covered in this 5 part series. In my last post, I mentioned John 3:22 as a verse that is mistranslated in the NRSV, leading to problems; but the problems of interpretation are not that enormous there. The translators simply removed an internal inconsistency by the way they mistranslated the verse. This second problem, the subject of this post, is more severe. A mistranslation has completely altered the meaning of a passage; it is the result of a very good motive – to make the translation gender-inclusive. But motive has led to a very bad result in this case.
The Problems with the NSRV Bible: Gender
The policy of the NRSV Bible was to render gender-neutral statements in a gender-neutral way. If a passage refers to humans in general, then it does not make sense to translate it as referring only to “men” (or only to “women” for that matter). So instead of “man” the translators chose to use “person” or “human” or – if the mortality of people is the issue – “mortals” or … whatever; instead of “men” they used “people,” “humans,” etc. That’s fine and works well in most cases.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN ALREADY!!
Agreed, agreed, agreed!
A couple of questions on gender-inclusive language:
1) What do you make of the Colorado Springs Guidelines as a way forward for not making English translations excessively gendered whilst avoiding situations like the one you mention in Hebrews 2:6-7(NRSV)?
2) Do you think gender-inclusive language need be as significant a concern in languages that have separate words for man (as opposed to woman) and man (as opposed to beast) (for instance, Welsh “gŵr” vs “dyn”) as it is in English? People have certainly tried making translations that avoid both “man” words in such languages.
I”m afraid I’m of no use! I don’t know the Colorado Springs Guidelines; and I’d have to learn the language really to ge ta better sense of how the gendered language works and doesn’t work. Sorry!
I’m glad I’m not the only person to notice the Heb 2 problem. But I do have a prejudice: Dr Metzger wasn’t an idiot. Having said that, it seems to me that he is making the claim that The world is subject to the human race not the angels. However not everything is completely subject to the human race at that time, And then it uses Jesus as a case in point. I understand why NRSV does what it does, but in this instance I’m not sure that’s the direction the writer of Hebrews sees it that way. Am I close to what Metzger and co might have been thinking?
I can assure you, he was an amazing scholar, a brilliant linguist, with billions of facts in his head that most of us could only dream of knowing. What he was thinking in this case, I”m not sure. The committee was very committed ot making the translation gender-inclusive, for very, very good reasons that I agree with..