Acts 9:36

Now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which in translation means Dorcas).

Here we have an example of a funny aspect of translation. Sometimes in the course of translation there are glosses from other languages. In other words, we are translating translations. So here is the question: should we transliterate the gloss as in the example above, or should we translate it into English? The convention for rendering names in translation is to transliterate, even if the name has a clear translatable meaning (in some cases a footnote is added). But this case is a bit different, because the comment by the author makes it clear that the name has some meaning, but English-speakers are not clued in to that meaning, since Dorcas is a meaningless word. So, why not:

Now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which in translation means Gazelle).

Would it work?

The NIV is getting an update, its first since 1984. This will actually be the third attempted update since then, with the first dying in its early stages in 1997, and the second, the TNIV, dying in a maelstrom of bad press and poor marketing. What ultimately killed both of these efforts was the gender-inclusive language debate, especially in the case of the TNIV. Read more »

In my disagreement about gender-inclusive language with Dr. Craig Carter, I have found one sure point of agreement between the two of us: ideology should not govern the translation of the Bible. The problem we have encountered is that we cannot agree on what constitutes ideology in translation. Read more »

Craig Carter and I are having a discussion about gender-inclusive language in Bible translations. To summarize: Craig thinks that translators who use gender-inclusive language are doing so for invalid ideological (namely feminist) purposes; I think such translators are doing their best to produce an accurate, contemporary translation into the ever-changing English language.

I have absolutely no evidence available to argue that the generic/inclusive masculine in English is falling out of style, so I am not sure how necessary gender-inclusive language is for modern English translations. My anecdotal experience tells me that gender inclusive language is becoming necessary. Craig's anecdotal experience tells him just the opposite. In other words, we have reached an impasse. Does anyone have statistical evidence on this matter?