There are some noteworthy changes taking place in the pending
edition of the New American Standard Bible, set to be released in 2020.
I count these changes as unfortunate and the episode serves
as yet another warning. Though the publishers of the NASB defend their use of
gender-inclusive language on non-feminist/non-egalitarian grounds, I am not convinced.
Not one bit.
Interestingly the 2020 revisions demonstrate that strict
literal translation is clearly no longer their credo. In which case, why buy
the NASB?
Yes, we want readers to understand the Scripture but is it
really necessary to change 'man' to 'human' and 'brethren' to 'brothers and
sisters'? Will readers really fail to
understand that the terms... the actual terms revealed in the text refer to
everyone both male and female?
Is it such a complicated concept? It can be quickly explained
to someone that in most European languages references to the collective are somehow
cast in gender related terms. English has far less of this than many other
languages but it still comes out in certain collective terms and concepts. It's not making some kind of patriarchal
statement.
The present madness and destructive insanity of the West's relentless
quest to redefine gender can only result in some kind of large-scale Orwellian
reconstruction of language. Why Christians would feel compelled to cater to
this in any way shape or form is beyond me unless it reveals a deeper problem,
one in which the Church seeks peace with the world rather than accepting its
state of antithesis and permanent opposition. Once again, the deceit of
Dominionism creeps in.
Let us be absolutely clear, the inclusive language of the
NASB and NIV are making statements that essentially cater to the feminist ethos
of our day. This is not about clarity or clarification. What's next, should we start restructuring
other parts of Biblical language? Should we rename doctrinal terms so that the
concepts are easier to understand? Should we revise the nomenclature so as not
to offend? And yet anyone who has spent even five minutes reflecting on the
relationship between language and ideas will understand just how problematic
that is. Ideas are communicated in language and if we start tinkering with the
words, the Divinely inspired, revealed and preserved words given to us from on
high... just where will that lead?
Of course I personally have no real interest in the NASB, ESV,
NIV or any of the offspring of the 1885 Revised Version (RV) which are all
based on the Critical Text and though championed by many theological
conservatives actually rest on theologically liberal assumptions.
Therefore, on the one hand I'm not terribly concerned with
the destructive course the publishers, translators and revisers of the NIV, ESV
and NASB have taken. And they've all strayed into dangerous paths which
ultimately will lead to an erosion of Scriptural authority. That said, there
are conservatives and confessionalists utilising these unfortunate English
translations and so like it or not I feel compelled to take note and keep tabs
on the poisonous seeds they would plant in Christ's Church.
As bad as what's been done with the NIV and NASB I think the
greatest danger (at least in principle) comes (at present) from the ESV which has adopted
the so-called Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) allowing for
algorithms to statistically and thus hypothetically 'reconstruct' portions of
the text and introduce words into Scripture which
have no basis in any manuscript. This supposedly scientific method has
blurred the lines between lower and higher textual criticism and is the fodder
of theological liberalism and will ultimately undermine not only the authority
of Scripture but ultimately the concept of canon itself.
Thus far the ESV has only adopted CBGM when it comes to Jude 5. However, the new 28th edition of the critical text (NA28) introduces many more changes and this is likely to affect future editions of not only the ESV but the NASB and NIV as well.
Between gender-neutral language, the presuppositions of the Critical Text and now CBGM, the Scripture is under attack... even in so called conservative and Confessional circles.
Thus far the ESV has only adopted CBGM when it comes to Jude 5. However, the new 28th edition of the critical text (NA28) introduces many more changes and this is likely to affect future editions of not only the ESV but the NASB and NIV as well.
The ESV's already controversial reading of 2
Peter 3.10 will be radically transformed if and when it adopts the CBGM-based
reading of the verse. NA28 adds a word which in English is likely to be
translated 'not' to the text, completely changing its meaning. For years the
apologists of the Critical Text have argued that their methods and the changes
brought about by them affect no doctrine. Those days are over.
The NASB 2020 is indeed using NA28 but it remains to be seen if they will follow its reading of 2 Peter 3.Between gender-neutral language, the presuppositions of the Critical Text and now CBGM, the Scripture is under attack... even in so called conservative and Confessional circles.
See also:
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.