In defense of the Common English Bible's translation of elders an non-gender specific.

^“5 The reason I left you behind in Crete was to organize whatever needs to be done and to appoint elders in each city, as I told you. ⁶ Elders should be without fault.  They should be faithful to their spouse,^a and have faithful children who can’t be accused of self-indulgence or rebelliousness.  

^a “Or they should be a one-woman man.“

 

If some are going to critique the Common English Bible, I think it is useful to compare it to another imperfect translation (of which are all of course). Since those misogynists seem to love the ESV, I choose to compare it to the ESV. If you are going to say  negative words about the CEB translation of Titus 1:5-6, then I would only hope you can accept a similar critique of the ESV, a translation which you prefer. Once upon a time, men were content to accept Junias, the man, as one notable AMONG the apostles, but when it became undeniable that “Junia”, the woman, was the most reliable reading, some translators were afraid that some might read this passage and understand that Junia was an apostle. So the translators of the ESV decided to translate ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις as “TO the apostles”. I think anyone comparing these two translations of ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις will certainly understand them differently. So when almost all translations in English translate this phrase as “among the apostles”, it is easy to understand as did the Greek Church father Chrysostom that Junia was a woman apostle. So if Junia was a woman apostle then it is obvious that an apostle is also qualified to be an elder therefore not only is it acceptable to translate πρεσβυτερους in Titus 1:5-6 as non gender specific, but also translate the following idiom in a way that allows this non-gender understanding of elder . If the phrase “one-woman-man” is not understood idiomatically than it may require that an elder must also be married. So if there be any error in the CEB’s translation of Titus 1:5-6, I see it certainly no worse than the ESV’s misogynic acrobatics in Rom. 16:7. So if you concede that the ESV translation of Rom. 16:7 is less than acceptable, I will accept that the CEB has taken the liberty to not translate Titus 1:5-6 literally.