CSB verses HCSB

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
I normally use the ESV as my main translation but also love my HCSB. I was wondering if it is worth getting a CSB. In other words are the changes in the CSB sufficient to warrent getting this translation rather than continuing with the HCSB?
 

Josh Williamson

Puritan Board Freshman
I've been using the CSB as a reading Bible recently. I'm quite enjoying it, which is a surprise as I wasn't a fan of the HCSB. I'd say give it a go.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
I normally use the ESV as my main translation but also love my HCSB. I was wondering if it is worth getting a CSB. In other words are the changes in the CSB sufficient to warrent getting this translation rather than continuing with the HCSB?
The answer would be based upon how you view inclusive language, as the revision of the HCSB would seem to do much more inclusive then the Hcsb. I saw a chart that showed that if the 1984 Niv was zero for inclusive languages renderings, the Esv was about 30 %. and the Csb and new Niv both around 70%.
 

TrustGzus

Puritan Board Freshman
The answer would be based upon how you view inclusive language, as the revision of the HCSB would seem to do much more inclusive then the Hcsb. I saw a chart that showed that if the 1984 Niv was zero for inclusive languages renderings, the Esv was about 30 %. and the Csb and new Niv both around 70%.
Did the chart give a percentage on KJV? KJV has a lot of inclusive language.
 

TrustGzus

Puritan Board Freshman
David, you can't seriously put the CSB in the same category as the new NIV!
Lane, I'd be curious to hear more of your thoughts on this. Honestly, as I started perusing the CSB I was disappointed in how much of the changes I saw looked more like the NIV than the HCSB. Now I wasn't disappointed in that I have particular problems with the NIV 2011. I'm not bothered by it in the way your posts sound like you are. Why it bothered me was we already have the NIV! Why did so much of the HCSB that was unique get changed to match the NIV? We already have the NIV. Why do we need another translation that just made itself so much more like it?

So could you comment with some more details? I'm curious what you see.

I couldn't help but think of Al Mohler's critique of the TNIV and his praise for the HCSB. Made me think either people need to start critiqueing the CSB for consistency in their part or start issuing apologies to the CBT of the TNIV.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
Joe, I see a different set of translators than the NIV2011 who are not motivated by egalitarian concerns getting accused of being egalitarian in their translation practices. This is not the expressed intention of the CSB, and it has been explicitly disavowed by our own Iain Duguid, and yet people are still attacking the CSB as if it has given the egalitarian ballgame away. My understanding is that the NIV 2011 was expressly concerned with egalitarianism in its translation practices in a way that the CSB was not. For details, I would have to rely on Iain Duguid's far greater familiarity with the details. But I will say in reading the CSB that it doesn't read like the NIV to me. It is far more cautious in cases of ambiguity.
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
My understanding is the the CSB tends to translate masculine terms into more neutral terms when it is obvious that both males and females are in view. This is not the same as being strictly gender neutral, although many would argue that it is an unnecessary concession to the modern feminist movement that struck no one as being necessary prior to the last 50 years or so.
 

TrustGzus

Puritan Board Freshman
Joe, I see a different set of translators than the NIV2011 who are not motivated by egalitarian concerns getting accused of being egalitarian in their translation practices. This is not the expressed intention of the CSB, and it has been explicitly disavowed by our own Iain Duguid, and yet people are still attacking the CSB as if it has given the egalitarian ballgame away. My understanding is that the NIV 2011 was expressly concerned with egalitarianism in its translation practices in a way that the CSB was not. For details, I would have to rely on Iain Duguid's far greater familiarity with the details. But I will say in reading the CSB that it doesn't read like the NIV to me. It is far more cautious in cases of ambiguity.
I'd definitely be curious to hear Iain's thoughts. I enjoy his comments when he jumps in on translation discussions. If memory serves me, he provided the commentary on two or three OT books on Carson's NIV Zondervan Study Bible as I looked through the contributors.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
David, you can't seriously put the CSB in the same category as the new NIV!
I was just saying that the chart showed that the Csb had roughly the same amount of inclusive renderings as the Niv 2011 does, but I am wondering if they both would reflect the approach that God has no definite differences between males and females now as regarding teaching and leading in church and home?
 

TrustGzus

Puritan Board Freshman
I was just saying that the chart showed that the Csb had roughly the same amount of inclusive renderings as the Niv 2011 does, but I am wondering if they both would reflect the approach that God has no definite differences between males and females now as regarding teaching and leading in church and home?
I'm sure many do something that I do, use a reading program to read through the Bible.

Use a plan and read through them. When people were worked up about the TNIV, I took that year and use the TNIV for my plan. Do it for the 2011 and CSB and tell us what you find! I'm working through the CSB right now.
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
I'd definitely be curious to hear Iain's thoughts. I enjoy his comments when he jumps in on translation discussions. If memory serves me, he provided the commentary on two or three OT books on Carson's NIV Zondervan Study Bible as I looked through the contributors.
I think I have some insight into the differences between the NIV and the CSB. As an author published by Zondervan, I was invited to a number of dinners hosted by them at SBL in the early 2000's where their egalitarian agenda was not merely occasionally visible but front and center. My experiences with the translation team for the CSB have been in sharp contrast with that: the goal for which everyone was striving was clear, accurate renditions of the original language into modern English. In some cases, we may have independently come to the same conclusion as the NIV 2011 about the best translation, but in other cases there are important differences. It is not something you can evaluate simply by counting numbers; context is critical.

To give just one example, in 2 Timothy 3:17, we rightly retained "man of God" since Paul's words here have in view the ministry of the Word, which we believe is for men only. The NIV rendered "man of God" with a gender-neutral "servant of God" here; I wasn't part of their committee so I'm not in a position to know their motives, but that seems the kind of thing that an egalitarian agenda would do. If you find any examples like that in the CSB, please point them out to me and, if I agree, I will take them with the committee.

On the other hand, where Paul is addressing the entire church as "brothers", and it is generally agreed that by that term he is including an entire mixed audience of "brothers and sisters", we have rendered it "brothers and sisters" since that is actually what it means in this context. This is exactly the same translational practice that the KJV follows when it consistently renders "sons of Israel" as "children of Israel" (except in a few places where men only seem to be in view). Not everyone will agree that this is a necessary step, but please do not confuse this translational choice with some kind of feminist agenda.
 

arapahoepark

Puritan Board Graduate
I think I have some insight into the differences between the NIV and the CSB. As an author published by Zondervan, I was invited to a number of dinners hosted by them at SBL in the early 2000's where their egalitarian agenda was not merely occasionally visible but front and center. My experiences with the translation team for the CSB have been in sharp contrast with that: the goal for which everyone was striving was clear, accurate renditions of the original language into modern English. In some cases, we may have independently come to the same conclusion as the NIV 2011 about the best translation, but in other cases there are important differences. It is not something you can evaluate simply by counting numbers; context is critical.

To give just one example, in 2 Timothy 3:17, we rightly retained "man of God" since Paul's words here have in view the ministry of the Word, which we believe is for men only. The NIV rendered "man of God" with a gender-neutral "servant of God" here; I wasn't part of their committee so I'm not in a position to know their motives, but that seems the kind of thing that an egalitarian agenda would do. If you find any examples like that in the CSB, please point them out to me and, if I agree, I will take them with the committee.

On the other hand, where Paul is addressing the entire church as "brothers", and it is generally agreed that by that term he is including an entire mixed audience of "brothers and sisters", we have rendered it "brothers and sisters" since that is actually what it means in this context. This is exactly the same translational practice that the KJV follows when it consistently renders "sons of Israel" as "children of Israel" (except in a few places where men only seem to be in view). Not everyone will agree that this is a necessary step, but please do not confuse this translational choice with some kind of feminist agenda.
Dr. Duguid,
I am curious as to the changes that were implemented from the Lutherans that I recall you said in a previous thread on this. Were they that significant?
 

Beezer

Puritan Board Freshman
To give just one example, in 2 Timothy 3:17, we rightly retained "man of God" since Paul's words here have in view the ministry of the Word, which we believe is for men only. The NIV rendered "man of God" with a gender-neutral "servant of God" here; I wasn't part of their committee so I'm not in a position to know their motives, but that seems the kind of thing that an egalitarian agenda would do.
I looked the verse up on BibleGateway to see how the other major translations have it and see that the NIV includes a foot note with the alternative translation "that you, a man of God." The ESV has a footnote that reads "a messenger of God" as a meaning.
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
I looked the verse up on BibleGateway to see how the other major translations have it and see that the NIV includes a foot note with the alternative translation "that you, a man of God." The ESV has a footnote that reads "a messenger of God" as a meaning.
The full ESV footnote has "That is, a messenger of God (the phrase echoes a common Old Testament expression)". I don't think there is any gender motivation to the footnote: the ESV is rightly pointing out the fact that the phrase "man of God" in the OT is regularly used to denote someone who is a prophet; "that you, a man of God" loses this overtone. It is this overtone that the phrase also has in 1 Tim 6:11, which the NET Bible flattens out into "as a person dedicated to God".

All translation is complex; someone might argue that 2 Tim 3:16 applies equally to all Christians; we are all to pursue holy perfection, and are equipped for that task by the Scriptures (note that Paul has in view here the OT!). However, for me the mention of reproof, correction and training in righteousness, together with the OT prophetic overtones of the phrase "man of God" connects it with Timothy's pastoral role and make it important to retain the gender specific term here, as we did.
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
Dr. Duguid,
I am curious as to the changes that were implemented from the Lutherans that I recall you said in a previous thread on this. Were they that significant?
We had two Lutherans on the revision committee, Andrew Steinmann and Andrew Das, and we received more than 600 suggestions from the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), one of the more conservative Lutheran groups. Most of these were minor refinements. here is one example: "Gen 12:5 reads [in the HCSB] “and the people he had acquired in Haran.” The pronoun should be “they”" Many of these we had picked up independently; many others were helpful suggestions; a few we chose not to use. Working with Lutherans did make us careful about "must", "ought" and "should" language, which is of course tricky in Hebrew, where all of these modal verbs are expressed by the imperfect. Lutherans tend to be very alert for "law", which led to some excellent discussions. I felt our final translation was significantly better for their input (not least Andy's encyclopedic knowledge of birds! I believe the CSB sets the new standard for translation of the birds of the OT, even if the romantic side of me wishes we could have endorsed the ESV's rather creative discovery of hedgehogs in the Bible - Isa 14:23; Zeph 2:13). Our OT revisions were also significantly helped by Dorian Coover-Cox from Dallas, whose English grammar and phrasing skills often resulted in a much better turn of phrase.
 

TrustGzus

Puritan Board Freshman
All translation is complex; someone might argue that 2 Tim 3:16 applies equally to all Christians; we are all to pursue holy perfection, and are equipped for that task by the Scriptures (note that Paul has in view here the OT!). However, for me the mention of reproof, correction and training in righteousness, together with the OT prophetic overtones of the phrase "man of God" connects it with Timothy's pastoral role and make it important to retain the gender specific term here, as we did.
Dr. Duguid, I appreciate your tone so much. After reading your thoughts on 2 Timothy last night. I was thinking about why the NIV CBT would render anthropos as servant giving as much benefit of the doubt as I could to these brothers and sisters that I don't doubt are doing their best and I don't assume any hidden agenda on their part.

I was thinking something similar to what you said here. Surely the Word isn't profitable for doctrine, rebuke, correction and instruction in righteousness to males only. So I was thinking perhaps they were wanting to avoid anyone making such a conclusion from their translation.

Your explanation of why the CSB reads as it does makes perfect sense. It sounds "safer" to me to translate it that way. I understand what the CSB translators did and why and it's reasonable. While not having spoke anyone of the NIV CBT I can imagine a reason that is not motivated by feminist agenda and that a complementarian might use to justify their translation.

I'm a high school graduate. However, I have read much on this subject. I've read quite a bit from D.A. Carson. A book that helped me understand the task in front of men like yourself was The Challenge of Bible Translation edited by Scorgie, Strauss & Voth.

I'm amazed at the graciousness of the scholars with each other on these issues and how dogmatic and unkind non-scholars can be despite their lack of expertise in the subject.

Again, thank you for being accessible in answering questions for us.
 

JimmyH

Puritan Board Senior
'The Inclusive Language Debate, A Plea For Realism' by D.A. Carson is beneficial to those who have ears to hear it. Until I read it I couldn't accept the 2011 NIV, but have come to terms with it since then.
 

TrustGzus

Puritan Board Freshman
'The Inclusive Language Debate, A Plea For Realism' by D.A. Carson is beneficial to those who have ears to hear it. Until I read it I couldn't accept the 2011 NIV, but have come to terms with it since then.
I thought it was a very good book. It's from 1998 so it's pre-TNIV. But he gives examples from the NIVI even showing where some examples of inclusion were overboard to the point of being silly despite Carson generally being ok with inclusive readings.
 

Robert Truelove

Puritan Board Sophomore
Below are some thoughts forwarded to me by a friend on this subject. This is from someone with quite a bit of clout when it comes to Greek but I'm not sharing his name because he shared this with me by way of private correspondence...

"Regarding gender-neutral or (in reality) gender-inclusive renderings in the CSB:

One of my biggest pet peeves is their decision to render ADELFOI as "brothers and sisters" in most locations, even when the context is clearly addressing males as primary.

Example: compare CSB at Ac 13.16, 26, where the Greek clearly uses ANHR (which is exclusive to males, unlike the at times generic ANQRWPOS); further, these words are being addressed in the synagogue and clearly to the males present, leaving no room for the politically correct concept of "brothers and sisters" let alone "fellow Israelites" as a gender-inclusive concept:

Ac 13.16 "Fellow Israelites, and you who fear God, listen!"
Greek = ANDRES ISRAHLITAI...
Literally = "Men, Israelites"

Ac 13.26 "Brothers and sisters, children of Abraham’s race, and those among you who fear God"
Greek = ANDRES ADELFOI UIOI GENOUS ABRAAM...
Literally = "Men, brothers, sons of the family of Abraham"

Ac 15.7 " “Brothers and sisters, you are aware..."
Greek = ANDRES ADELFOI UMEIS EPISTASQE
Literally = "Men, brothers, you understand"
-- This one is particularly egregious, since the those being addressed are clearly "The apostles and the elders" who had "gathered to consider this matter" in what was obviously a direct address to the males of the Jerusalem Council (15.5), with no hint of Peter playing to or appealing to any females in the audience who might (?-highly unlikely) have been witnessing the discussion. And even when the decision of the council is made (15.13), "Brothers and sisters" is still clearly wrong in view of ANDRES ADELFOI AKOUSATE MOI.

And this is hardly the end of that particular problem. The phrase ANDRES ADELFOI occurs 14x in Acts -- and in almost every case the CSB has "brothers and sisters", totally neglecting and refusing to translate ANDRES in the process of making ADELFOI appear purely generic (many other translations do the same, and CSB is merely following their lead). Something is severely wrong with that picture.

Exceptions in Acts regarding the phrase are the following:

Ac 2.37 (because of the context addressing "Peter and the rest of the apostles") -- but why not render ANDRES instead of skipping it entirely?

Ac 7.2 and 22.1 (partial exception; CSB "Brothers and fathers" when the Greek actually says ANDRES, ADELFOI, KAI PATERES, "Men, brothers, and fathers" -- but why not render ANDRES instead of skipping it entirely?

Ac 7.26 "Men, you are brothers" (only because of the context)

Ac 13.15 "Brothers" (again only because of the context) -- but why not render ANDRES instead of skipping it entirely?

Ac 23.1,6 "Brothers" (again only because of the context) -- but why not render ANDRES instead of skipping it entirely?

Ac 28.17 "Brothers" (again only because of the context) -- but why not render ANDRES instead of skipping it entirely?

Something absurd this way comes from Nashville, it seems."
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
Below are some thoughts forwarded to me by a friend on this subject. This is from someone with quite a bit of clout when it comes to Greek but I'm not sharing his name because he shared this with me by way of private correspondence...

"Regarding gender-neutral or (in reality) gender-inclusive renderings in the CSB:

One of my biggest pet peeves is their decision to render ADELFOI as "brothers and sisters" in most locations, even when the context is clearly addressing males as primary.

Example: compare CSB at Ac 13.16, 26, where the Greek clearly uses ANHR (which is exclusive to males, unlike the at times generic ANQRWPOS); further, these words are being addressed in the synagogue and clearly to the males present, leaving no room for the politically correct concept of "brothers and sisters" let alone "fellow Israelites" as a gender-inclusive concept:

Ac 13.16 "Fellow Israelites, and you who fear God, listen!"
Greek = ANDRES ISRAHLITAI...
Literally = "Men, Israelites"

Ac 13.26 "Brothers and sisters, children of Abraham’s race, and those among you who fear God"
Greek = ANDRES ADELFOI UIOI GENOUS ABRAAM...
Literally = "Men, brothers, sons of the family of Abraham"

Ac 15.7 " “Brothers and sisters, you are aware..."
Greek = ANDRES ADELFOI UMEIS EPISTASQE
Literally = "Men, brothers, you understand"
-- This one is particularly egregious, since the those being addressed are clearly "The apostles and the elders" who had "gathered to consider this matter" in what was obviously a direct address to the males of the Jerusalem Council (15.5), with no hint of Peter playing to or appealing to any females in the audience who might (?-highly unlikely) have been witnessing the discussion. And even when the decision of the council is made (15.13), "Brothers and sisters" is still clearly wrong in view of ANDRES ADELFOI AKOUSATE MOI.

And this is hardly the end of that particular problem. The phrase ANDRES ADELFOI occurs 14x in Acts -- and in almost every case the CSB has "brothers and sisters", totally neglecting and refusing to translate ANDRES in the process of making ADELFOI appear purely generic (many other translations do the same, and CSB is merely following their lead). Something is severely wrong with that picture.

Exceptions in Acts regarding the phrase are the following:

Ac 2.37 (because of the context addressing "Peter and the rest of the apostles") -- but why not render ANDRES instead of skipping it entirely?

Ac 7.2 and 22.1 (partial exception; CSB "Brothers and fathers" when the Greek actually says ANDRES, ADELFOI, KAI PATERES, "Men, brothers, and fathers" -- but why not render ANDRES instead of skipping it entirely?

Ac 7.26 "Men, you are brothers" (only because of the context)

Ac 13.15 "Brothers" (again only because of the context) -- but why not render ANDRES instead of skipping it entirely?

Ac 23.1,6 "Brothers" (again only because of the context) -- but why not render ANDRES instead of skipping it entirely?

Ac 28.17 "Brothers" (again only because of the context) -- but why not render ANDRES instead of skipping it entirely?

Something absurd this way comes from Nashville, it seems."
I'm not a Greek expert and I wasn't part of the discussions in the NT committee. However, they have reasonable grounds for their translation.

1) Standard Greek reference grammars give "brothers and sisters" as an option for translating adelphoi. For example, "the plural is sometimes used in the collective sense brothers and sisters – a. lit. Lk 21:16. – b. in extended community sense Ro 8:29; Eph 6:23." (Danker).

2) regarding the compound phrase "andres adelphoi" this seems to be simple apposition, in which the second term more narrowly defines the first, making the first often unnecessary in translation. Hebrew does something similar: an "ishah almanah" is "a woman, a widow" but whereas the KJV translates this "a widow woman" the ESV regards "a widow" as better contemporary English style (see 1 Kings 17:9). This is not "skipping it entirely": it is translating it properly.

3) According to FF Bruce, andres is a classical Greek idiom: "the word is otiose and does not necessarily exclude women". D.A. Carson observes that the term andres likely includes women in Matthew 14:35; James 1:20 and 3:2. According to David Peterson on Acts 1:21 "the context suggests that both andres and adelphoi refer to males and females together."

4) In Acts 17:34, andres explicitly includes a woman. This provides a great example of the CSB's policy. The HCSB read: "However, some men joined him and believed, including Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them." The CSB translates: "However, some people joined him and believed, including Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them."

I understand that not everyone agrees with the translation policy, but it is neither absurd nor driven by a feminist agenda.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
I think I have some insight into the differences between the NIV and the CSB. As an author published by Zondervan, I was invited to a number of dinners hosted by them at SBL in the early 2000's where their egalitarian agenda was not merely occasionally visible but front and center. My experiences with the translation team for the CSB have been in sharp contrast with that: the goal for which everyone was striving was clear, accurate renditions of the original language into modern English. In some cases, we may have independently come to the same conclusion as the NIV 2011 about the best translation, but in other cases there are important differences. It is not something you can evaluate simply by counting numbers; context is critical.

To give just one example, in 2 Timothy 3:17, we rightly retained "man of God" since Paul's words here have in view the ministry of the Word, which we believe is for men only. The NIV rendered "man of God" with a gender-neutral "servant of God" here; I wasn't part of their committee so I'm not in a position to know their motives, but that seems the kind of thing that an egalitarian agenda would do. If you find any examples like that in the CSB, please point them out to me and, if I agree, I will take them with the committee.

On the other hand, where Paul is addressing the entire church as "brothers", and it is generally agreed that by that term he is including an entire mixed audience of "brothers and sisters", we have rendered it "brothers and sisters" since that is actually what it means in this context. This is exactly the same translational practice that the KJV follows when it consistently renders "sons of Israel" as "children of Israel" (except in a few places where men only seem to be in view). Not everyone will agree that this is a necessary step, but please do not confuse this translational choice with some kind of feminist agenda.
The main difference seems to be that the Csb does want to keep the principle of male leadership in the church and home, while the new Niv seems to want to shift that more both sexes can lead equally well.
 

tangleword

Puritan Board Freshman
One thing I don't love about the change is having Lalein+glossa be tongues again to appease the charismatic views. I liked how the HCSB translated it as languages, not keeping the old tongues word that has been misused so much.
 

Robert Truelove

Puritan Board Sophomore
I found an email in my inbox this morning where my friend (he actually is a Greek expert, and I say that without exaggeration) sent me his thoughts on this point. Here it is...

"Notably his experts arppear to be those who already support a more generic rendering; further, he fails to note that the passages appealed to can be interpreted differently, e.g., Ac 17.34 which easily can be understood as "But some men (ANDRES)...believed, among who also [was] Dionysius the Areopagite; also [i.e. in addition, as a *separate* category] a woman named Damaris" etc.

More important is his own self-refutation regarding the phrase ANDRES ADELFOI: "this seems to be simple apposition, in which the second term more narrowly defines the first, making the first often unnecessary in translation" -- and yet he and the CBS and other similar translations are taking the second term as more *broadly* defining the first! What is going on? On the face of it, the *first* term defines and restricts the *second*, and not the other way around.

Further, "Standard Greek reference grammars give "brothers and sisters" as an option for translating adelphoi" -- perhaps, but that claim totally ignores the implications and force of the full phrase ANDRES ADELFOI, thereby solving nothing.

Also self-condemnatory is this: "Hebrew does something similar: an "ishah almanah" is "a woman, a widow" but whereas the KJV translates this "a widow woman" the ESV regards "a widow" as better contemporary English style (see 1 Kings 17:9). This is not "skipping it entirely": it is translating it properly." -- precisely! Even if assuming, therefore, that if ANDRES precedes ADELFOI, but is not translated, its very presence on the basis of the example given should have identified the second term as clearly representing a specific gender.

Even more to the point, this is a clear cop-out: "According to David Peterson on Acts 1:21 'the context suggests that both andres and adelphoi refer to males and females together'" -- yet in that particular context it is obvious that a *male* was intended to replace Judas Iscariot. Does Peterson (or Duguid) *seriously* think that Peter was suggesting selection of Mary Magdalene or another of the women who had accompanied Jesus and the apostles? Not only is such *not* reflected by the candidates selected, but neither Peterson nor anyone else should read into the context something that simply is not there.

One also must ask why, assuming ADELFOI and/or ANHR is supposedly so generic, one finds *clear* Lukan distinctions in Acts separately specifying men and women by use of ANHR in conjunction with GUNH (Ac 5.14; 8.3, 12; 9.2; 17.12; 22.4). Was Luke or Peter or Paul somehow missing the point when stating ANDRES ADELFOI -- or did they know *precisely* what was intended?

The most obvious refutation of the current gender-inclusive claims is that, prior to modern politically correct concepts, *all* English versions seemed to have no problem whatever in rendering ANDRES ADELFOI as (at least) "brothers", and often as the more literally correct "Men, brothers". So a definite shift in policy clearly is involved, and hardly for the better in these cases."

I'm not a Greek expert and I wasn't part of the discussions in the NT committee. However, they have reasonable grounds for their translation.

1) Standard Greek reference grammars give "brothers and sisters" as an option for translating adelphoi. For example, "the plural is sometimes used in the collective sense brothers and sisters – a. lit. Lk 21:16. – b. in extended community sense Ro 8:29; Eph 6:23." (Danker).

2) regarding the compound phrase "andres adelphoi" this seems to be simple apposition, in which the second term more narrowly defines the first, making the first often unnecessary in translation. Hebrew does something similar: an "ishah almanah" is "a woman, a widow" but whereas the KJV translates this "a widow woman" the ESV regards "a widow" as better contemporary English style (see 1 Kings 17:9). This is not "skipping it entirely": it is translating it properly.

3) According to FF Bruce, andres is a classical Greek idiom: "the word is otiose and does not necessarily exclude women". D.A. Carson observes that the term andres likely includes women in Matthew 14:35; James 1:20 and 3:2. According to David Peterson on Acts 1:21 "the context suggests that both andres and adelphoi refer to males and females together."

4) In Acts 17:34, andres explicitly includes a woman. This provides a great example of the CSB's policy. The HCSB read: "However, some men joined him and believed, including Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them." The CSB translates: "However, some people joined him and believed, including Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them."

I understand that not everyone agrees with the translation policy, but it is neither absurd nor driven by a feminist agenda.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top