Mike Aubrey October 20, 2009 English, Greek, Translation

Holman Christian Standard Bible

It’d be such an incredibly translation if it would be willing to use “brothers and sisters” every once in a while!

So many things I like otherwise…

Translate ἀδελφοι as “brothers and sisters” when the context would necessitate it. Why? Because when you translate lexis rather than reference you remove the text from it’s historical setting. Last time I checked, Christians believe they had a historical faith, a faith grounded in history.

So why doesn’t that history matter for the HCSB?

19Comments

Add yours

1

Qohelet on October 20, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Reply

Well, the HCSB is targeted at the evangelical market, and everyone knows that the evangelical demographic is not too keen on gender inclusive language.

LikeLike
- 2
  
  Mike Aubrey on October 20, 2009 at 11:56 pm
  Reply
  
  change “evangelical” to “baptist” and you’ve got it.
  
  LikeLike
3

Peter Kirk on October 21, 2009 at 3:08 am
Reply

The problem is with “when the context would necessitate it”. No one can agree on that. Consider James 3:1: the context demands “brothers and sisters” here unless you presuppose (as Bill Mounce does – see his comments on this verse in TNIV) that women are already disqualified as teachers. Better to have no sisters at all than a team of translators spreading their prejudices about what sisters are allowed to do.

LikeLike
- 4
  
  JJ Miller on October 21, 2009 at 7:14 am
  Reply
  
  Excellent point, Peter. What is so hard about simply teaching that “brothers” can mean “those of the faith, brothers and sisters” in many contexts. And while we are at it, that man can mean mankind.
  
  I don’t see that using “brothers” is exclusive. Of course, I am one of 4 people who like NASB. 🙂
  
  LikeLike
  - 5
    
    Mike Aubrey on October 21, 2009 at 9:10 am
    Reply
    
    The thing is: Your not seeing brothers as exclusive is something that would have to be intentionally taught to you (unless, perhaps you’re in your 60s and from the South [US]).
    
    An inclusive reading of the English “brothers” is extremely far from a natural understanding of the English word.
    
    If it were the case that “brothers” could easily be understood by every English speaker as inclusive, then I’d have no problem with it.
    
    LikeLike
    - 6
      
      john on November 2, 2009 at 7:37 am
      
      I was never taught that “brothers” was inclusive, but I have always read it that way. I believe it is more common that some people think.
      
      It’s like “guys” in English. You could say to a husband and wife, “When are you guys coming over?” But you could also say, “Just the guys sing this part.”
      
      Everyone’s preferences on Bible translation are different, but personally, I prefer a translation that sticks to the Greek wording as much as possible. It should be up to me to discover what the text *means*. So, I prefer a translation that is essentially literal and transparent to the original texts. Guess that tells you my favorite. 🙂
      
      LikeLike
    - 7
      
      Mike Aubrey on November 2, 2009 at 8:47 am
      
      The words, “essentially literal” and “transparent” don’t really have too much meaning, particularly since all you truly have is a conservative-ized RSV. Translation is far, far more complicated than those two words could ever express.
      
      LikeLike
- 8
  
  Mike Aubrey on October 21, 2009 at 9:11 am
  Reply
  
  Agreed, Peter, but instances like James 3:1 are the minority, I’d say — all of the notes in the ESV that say “or brothers and sisters” make than rather clear.
  
  LikeLike
9

Robert Jimenez on October 21, 2009 at 8:03 am
Reply

Mike, that has been one of my gripes with HCSB for some time now.

LikeLike
10

Davis on October 21, 2009 at 8:51 am
Reply

Do you know how inclusive phrases work in other languages? Are there some where just “brothers” is ok or do all languages now need some kind of inclusiveness?

LikeLike
- 11
  
  Mike Aubrey on October 21, 2009 at 9:15 am
  Reply
  
  All languages would tend to differ on this one. The lexicon tends to be the most unique & language specific part of a language’s grammar.
  
  Some languages don’t have word that correspond to “brothers” or “sisters” at all and just have a single word: “siblings.”
  
  LikeLike
- 12
  
  Mike Aubrey on October 21, 2009 at 9:32 am
  Reply
  
  Davis, the challenge is that the Greek word ADELPHOS is that it has a second sense that doesn’t correspond to the English brother:
  
  Sense #2: “a pers. viewed as a brother in terms of a close affinity, brother, fellow member, member, associate”
  F. W. Danker, W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and Bauer, W. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. (3rd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 18.
  
  This sense of the word is used with reference both males & females.
  
  There are some places that have similar usage for the English “brother” in small fundamentalist, Mennonite, semi-fundamentalist, & some various other independent baptist churches that have adopted the Greek meaning to the English. But changing a language is a difficult thing to force and the sense they use it (e.g. “Brother Kent”) marked not inclusive like the NT Greek often is. So even here it isn’t an exact correspondence.
  
  LikeLike
  - 13
    
    Stephen C. Carlson on October 21, 2009 at 11:37 am
    Reply
    
    On certain days of the week, I’ve been tempted to render ADELFOI as “Christians” or “fellow Christians” but lack the boldness to carry it out.
    
    LikeLike
    - 14
      
      Doug Chaplin on October 21, 2009 at 2:54 pm
      
      I sympathise, but the problem with that is it loses any connotation of fictive kinship
      
      LikeLike
    - 15
      
      Mike Aubrey on October 21, 2009 at 7:33 pm
      
      I’ve thought about that too, but with Doug, have really not been sure of what a good equivalence for sense two would be — exactly because of the fictive kinship question.
      
      LikeLike
    - 16
      
      Stephen C. Carlson on October 21, 2009 at 9:15 pm
      
      As for the desirability of retaining the kinship language, I had argued on my blog, On Translation of “Brothers and Sisters” (Jan. 13, 2006), that it has become a dead metaphor in English and should be let go.
      
      LikeLike
    - 17
      
      Mike Aubrey on October 21, 2009 at 9:28 pm
      
      I’ll check it out.
      
      LikeLike
18

John Hobbins on October 21, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Reply

Mike,

A very helpful post. You are right to point out that it is not so easy to know what to do on these matters.

In some ways, I like the literal and somewhat misleading translation “brothers.” It reminds me, when I preach or even just when I’m thinking through the passage, to be inclusive in the exposition if the context suggests that that is appropriate.

As far as other languages go, many European languages are under the same pressure as English is to articulate gender inclusiveness. Whereas “fratelli” in Italian was once used in a variety of inclusive ways – inclusive of gender, inclusive of cousins – according to specific usage, it has become less usual to do so, at least among the better educated.

LikeLike
19

Kyle on October 25, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Reply

Give me some of the things you actually like from the HSCB? Personally, I’m a big fan of “slackers,” which it uses pretty consistently, but I had a hard time with the frequent use of “[this is] the declaration of the Lord GOD” as a badly placed interjection in the major prophets

LikeLike