Putting Gender Language on the Agenda?
It seems like a long time ago now, but in the late stages of the first decade of this century, the issue of gender language in the Bible was hotly debated. As some English translations began to reflect changes in common English usage around terms such as ‘man’ as a collective noun for humanity, or ‘brothers’ as a collective noun for Christian men and women, blogs (popular in those days) and social media (still in its infancy back then) lit up with points and counterpoints. Much ink was spilt, and much online space was used for people to make their views known. As with any debate that has cooled over time, the fire and frenzy of how people spoke to and about each other over the issue seems strange today.
While some of the heat might have gone out of the discussion, it remains important to have good light shed on whether Bible translations should reflect changes in the way society uses language. Back in the early 2000s, it still felt like a hot topic as to whether ‘man’ as a collective noun gave the impression of exclusive maleness or inclusive humanity, or if ‘brothers’ sounded like the Scriptures were speaking to male Christians only or all believers together. With the benefit of hindsight, it now seems clear that how these terms are used in modern English has changed irreversibly.
When contemporary English usage, fidelity to the original text of Scripture, and Western culture’s redrawing of how we talk about gender meet, we are in an area of profound complexity and great care must be taken. Any work of translation that takes social change and acceptability as its starting point would be doomed to distorting the original meaning and intention of God’s word. Likewise, any translation that subtly or even subconsciously began to impute modern cultural mores into how a Bible version communicates would be in danger of manipulating the reader and misrepresenting the text. Recognising the balance and wisdom needed when handling gender language will always remain high on the agenda of translation committees who wish to honour what, and how, God speaks to us.
The CSB Anglicised embodies a sensitive and sensible approach to gender language in translation, an approach summarised in the following way by the CSB translators,
The Christian Standard Bible retains a traditional approach to translating gender language into English. Masculine terms (Father, Son, King, etc.) and pronouns (he, him, his) are retained whenever they refer to God. Likewise, when Scripture presents historical accounts and parables referring to male humans, the Translation Oversight Committee retained masculine terms and pronouns. To improve accuracy, the Translation Oversight Committee chose to avoid being unnecessarily specific in passages where the original context did not exclude females. When Scripture presents principles or generic examples that are not restricted to males, the CSB does not use “man,” “he,” or other masculine terms. At the same time, the translators chose not to make third person masculine pronouns inclusive by rendering them as plurals (they, them), because they believed it was important to retain the individual and personal sense of these expressions.
This approach allows the reader to be confident that no alteration has been made to the basic building blocks of gender or gender roles in how the CSB Anglicised has been translated, while making it clear when passages are inclusive of both men and women.
One good example of this is in Acts 16:40. Paul and Silas have been released from prison after a gruelling experience in which God’s grace worked in the life of the Philippian jailer. As they prepare to leave the city of Philippi we are told that they connect with the new converts before continuing on their way. In the ESV, their departure is described in the following way:
So they went out of the prison and visited Lydia. And when they had seen the brothers, they encouraged them and departed. (Acts 16:40 ESV)
Right away we can identify some problems for the modern reader with this rendering. Paul and Silas visit Lydia’s home. She is the first convert to Christianity in her city, and it appears that believers are gathering in her house. The wording of the ESV wrongly gives the impression that while Paul and Silas go to Lydia’s household, it is really the male believers that they want to spend time with (‘and when they had seen the brothers’). This is quite obviously not what Luke’s account intends to communicate, a fact reflected in the ESV footnote that the Greek word adelphoi can mean ‘brothers and sisters’. But transparent translation should not ask the reader to rely on footnotes to understand what a verse is saying.
Contrast this with how the CSB Anglicised renders the same verse:
After leaving the jail, they came to Lydia’s house, where they saw and encouraged the brothers and sisters, and departed. (Acts 16:40 CSBA)
This rendering makes Luke’s meaning much more clear, and avoids giving the false (and somewhat bizarre) impression that while Paul and Silas visited Lydia’s house, it was only the male Christians that they wanted to see.
Examples like these can be multiplied, and they show why understanding how gender language is received and interpreted by modern readers matters. In the CSB Anglicised, where terms such as ‘brothers’ clearly refer to both brothers and sisters, the translation says so, without consigning the breadth of the collective noun to the footnotes where it can be lost or ignored. This fact also means that the CSB Anglicised is particularly helpful for public reading, where the original author’s inclusion of both male and female believers is immediately apparent rather than needing to be clarified by the reader or speaker.
Getting gender language right still matters, even if the heat of earlier debates has now subsided. The CSBA makes no changes to our traditional biblical understanding of men and women, masculinity and femininity, but it does allow the Bible to speak to believers of both sexes when that is what the original author intended to do.
