(Andrew Bromage) writes:

>G’day all.

>enterfornone <> writes:

>>The Bible would need some significant changes in order to be

>>non-sexist. I’d seriously question the accuracy of a non-sexist

>>Bible.

>You’re using the term in a different way than Rowland is.

>I don’t think the term “non-sexist” is helpful here. A better term

>is “gender accurate”. That means exactly what it sounds like it does.

>For example, if someone addressed a group using the term “brothers” but

>in reality included sisters in that term, a gender accurate translation

>would use something more accurate, like “brothers and sisters”.

>That’s because Hellenistic Greek (I don’t know about Hebrew) was a

>male-default language, like English was until a few decades ago. It’s

>no longer considered appropriate for translators producing general-

>interest translations translate such phrases literally when there is

>the option of translating them accurately instead. For the purists who

>need it, the more formal translation is invariably included as a

>footnote, nothing is lost.

Not strictly a “male-default” language, Andrew, except in the sense that in the plural the masculine forms are used when both genders are involved. The classic case of this in the NT is when the “mothers of Salem their children brought to Jesus”, as the old hymn says. But if you look at the Greek it only says “they” brought their children, and it’s a masculine plural pronoun.

The generic “anthropos” is used about 500 times in the NT, whereas the two gender-specific words “aner” and Gyne” are used about 200 times each. But, until recent times, “anthropos” was almost always translated “man” or “men”, thus giving an unwarranted bias. Nearly all modern translations use a generic word to translate “anthropos”. The NIV is an exception – it still uses “man”, unless you have managed to get hold of a copy of the “Inclusive Langiuage” edition, printed in UK.

>The way which you used the term “non-sexist” is a different issue.

>You’re arguing that a collection of works written between 1900 and 3000

>or so years ago does not reflect current social theory, which is almost

>tautological. All that really proves that gender accurate translation

>of the Bible is no substitute for reading it intelligently.

The masculine bias of the culture of the times still comes through, even in “gender-accurate” translations.

>Cheers,

>Andrew Bromage

Ken Smith

— Dr Ken Smith – Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, … `He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere.’ John Calvin, in “Commentary on Genesis”