Gender Inclusive Translations

Political Correctness has become a part of life in North America in the 21st century. I believe it is also wise for all people, including Christians, to use politically correct language in reference to males and females. Not surprisingly, this desire for gender inclusive (or gender-neutral) language has come into the area of Scripture translation and interpretation also.

As we begin our discussion, please, be clear on this point: the translations we are discussing today are using gender inclusive language in reference to human beings (men and women), not in reference to God. There are versions which use gender inclusive language to describe deity, but that is not the topic or focus of our discussion.

The first gender-inclusive translation to be published was the New Revised Standard Version in 1993. The RSV has never been a very popular translation and those most people did not really take notice of the NRSV.

The New Living Translation, published in 1996 by Tyndale, was the first English translation to use gender-neutral language that received much "acceptance." In some ways it is a revision of The Living Bible, but it really does attempt to be a translation (not a paraphrase).

Zondervan, publishers of the New International Version attempted to publish a gender inclusive translation in 1996 also (NIVI) and were thoroughly attacked for the publication of the The NIVI-UK edition by enough evangelical scholars that publication in of the NIVI in North America was axed.

There were a number of articles in both theological and popular Christian magazines debating this issue (See Christianity Today, October 27, 1997). It is important to note that there are top-notch evangelical scholars on both sides of this issue (see list of endorsers on "Colorado Springs Guidelines for Translation of Gender-Related Language in Scripture and New Living Translation, Bible Translation Committee list).

Sample Verse - John 12:32

RSV - "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."
NRSV - "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."

Arguments Against Gender Inclusive Translations

Changing of Pronouns, especially from singular to plural. Those opposed to gender-neutral translations point out that the changes of a singular pronoun to a plural often lose the personal relationship which Jesus was emphasizing. God loves the individual believer. Critics of Gender Inclusive translations also suggest there is an extreme avoidance of 3rd person masculine singular pronoun (his). Again, the concern is that the personal impact of some statements is lost.

Example - John 14:23
RSV - "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him."
NRSV - "Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them and we will come to them and make our home with them."

Example - Proverbs 16:9
RSV - A man’s mind plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.
NSRV - The human mind plans the way, but the Lord directs the steps.

	Renaming "Man" In Hebrew the word adam can mean both a male person (man) or any human person (man). Likewise, the Greek word anthropos can be translated in reference to a specifc male person or humankind in general. The view of those who oppose gender-neutral translations is that God intentionally used dual nature of the Hebrew word in order to indicate male headship. God created "man" in His image and they were "man" and "woman." (See Genesis 1:26-27)
	Eliminating actual "men" The NRSV and NLT translate a few occurrences of the specific words for males to be gender neutral. In the Hebrew, this is the word ish, in Greek this is the word aner. Both of these words can only mean "man" (as opposed to adam or anthropos which are more general terms for "man" or "humanity"). Examples: Psalm 1:1; Acts 15:22; 20:30
	Who cares? or What's the Big Deal? Everyone understands the English language just fine. Gender-inclusive translations claim that the changes of "man," "he," "him," and other masculine references are to clarify what the original text meant in English. Those who are opposed to gender inclusive translations express the view that those who speak English fully realize that "man" can refer both to a male or to humanity.

Arguments in Favor of Gender Inclusive Translations

Non-Offensive translation - Those in favor of gender inclusive translations argue that this is a translation issue, not a "gender issue" (though admittedly it first came forward out of a feminist agenda). The principle of dynamic equivalency which is used in all English translations to some extent is really what is being used in translating "man" as "people."

Principles of Good Exegesis - Those in favor of gender-inclusive translations point out that passages are "neutralized" based on good exegesis. For example, good theological research on the semantic range of ish or aner indicates that while generally these are used for specific males, they can be used in context to refer to man as a representative for the human race. Thus in passages such as Psalm 1:1, it is not pointing to a specific "righteous man" but it is the righteous man or woman (person) who is blessed.

Admittedly, there are places where a passage such as 1 Corinthians 13:11 really should not be translated gender inclusively (but it is in the NLT or NRSV). aner is not necessarily a male person, but since Paul is a male, it makes sense to keep it as "when I became a man." However, a study of the passage shows that the contrast is between the maturity of an older person ("man") as opposed to a younger person ("child"). Thus, the NIVI translates it, "When I became an adult..."

"Father" "son" "brother" designations are not theologically significant in most places. There are a few places, especially in the Gospels the use of language relating a father and son could be exegetically significant in terms of the parallel between God as our Father and Jesus the Son.

However, for the most part, the emphasis is not on the masculine relationship but on some other parallel. For example, in Matthew 7:9, the intent of this passage is the parallelism between a parent giving good gifts to their child and how thus God gives us as believers good gifts. It is not distinguishing a difference between a son or a daughter asking. However, because the parallel in verse 11 is drawn to the believer and the heavenly Father, there may be additional contextual reasons for not using inclusive language in this example.

Pronouns - Those who defend gender-inclusive translations point out that the rapidly changing grammar of English. The word "they" is continually growing in use as a singular when used in contexts relating to "people," "humanity," and words of this nature. Those who hold tightly to the exact translation of pronouns really should have a "Texan Bible" which translates "you" and "you all" for the difference between 2^nd person singular and plural pronouns.

Personally, I do not have any problems with gender-inclusive translations. I think that in most cases they are just as grammatically correct (if not moreso) and are definitely less offensive to a culture that is non-sexist. I do not think that gender inclusive translations change the meaning of Scripture in any significant way. Just as other dynamic or idiomatic translations change some older words to more accurate modern equivalents, I believe this is really all that the New Living Translation and others are attempting to do.

It is important to note that while the gender inclusive translations are accused of promoting a feminist agenda (or at least conceding to it), none of the passages often cited as "anti-women" in the Scripture (eg. 1 Timothy 2:11-15) are translated with gender inclusive language, deleted from the text, or otherwise modified.

I believe the NIV is a good and useful version even though I don’t like the way it deals with some verb tenses and sentence structures. I feel the same way about the NLT. It is a very useful version for public reading and is mostly accurate in its translation. I may not use it for serious study of the Bible for the same reason as I wouldn’t use the NIV – it is more idiomatic. This does not however, mean that it is a bad translation.