Gender-neutral language in the field of Bible translation refers to grammatically masculine words in the original languages of Scripture being rendered with non-gender-specific glosses in English translations. In some cases, this is a result of differences between modern English and the biblical languages, and certain gender-neutral glosses provide a legitimate translation of Hebrew and Greek nouns and pronouns when they represent both males and females. As a result, some amount of gender neutrality is employed by every English translation of Scripture. In other cases, however, translators have used gender-neutral language in such a way that it erodes the integrity of the resulting translation.
The question of gender-neutral language became controversial in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries as translators and publishers sought to adapt their translation of nouns and pronouns to contemporary changes in the English language. This resulted in the gender-neutral controversy, a debate among evangelical and Reformed theologians over Bible translation theory and philosophy. In the 1990s, certain translators produced intentionally gender-neutral translations, purposefully introducing egalitarian agendas into their translation of masculine nouns and pronouns. One of the more controversial Bible translations was the 1996 New International Version Inclusive Language Edition (NIVI). The gender-neutral controversy manifested itself in evangelical circles on account of debates over gender wars between egalitarians and complementarians. This debate also exposed disagreements among complementarians over historical understandings of the Trinity.
Bible translation theory—like Old and New Testament textual studies—is one of the most challenging theological topics. This is due to several factors, not least of which is the changing nature of linguistic and cultural norms. All translators of English Bibles should be committed to avoiding grammatical fallacies. The two major considerations in Bible translation involve form and function, which exist at two ends of a spectrum in Bible translation philosophy. A translation that prioritizes staying faithful to the form of the words written by the human author seeks as literal a translation as possible for each word in the text. English Bibles attempting to maintain the form are classified as formal equivalent translations. However, other English translations prioritize maintaining the meaning (function) of a text in order to render a suitable translation that accurately captures the thought or sense of the text. These are known as functional equivalent translations.
This distinction has been a key factor in the gender-neutral controversy, since many of the translators were seeking to do justice to both the form and the function of the original Hebrew and Greek words of Scripture. Notwithstanding, a variety of cultural shifts influenced the push for gender-neutral translations of Scripture. The most pressing was the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s. The feminist movement in Western society fueled an egalitarian agenda in Western society and in the church. While many “gender-neutral” translations were not seeking to translate the Bible exclusively to advance a consistent feminist agenda, feminist concerns often drove the debate.
Among the more popular gender-neutral English translations of the Bible from the late twentieth century are the New Century Version (NCV, 1991), the Good News Bible (GNB, 1992), the Contemporary English Version (CEV, 1995), the New International Version Inclusive Language Edition (NIVI, 1996), and the New Living Translation (NLT, 1996). In many of these translations, the generic pronoun he was given a gender-neutral gloss, often requiring a substantial change in the number of the pronoun from the singular to the plural. The egalitarian agenda behind such a change often led the translators to downplay or disregard the authorial intention of other pronouns in the original languages. In the preface to the controversial NIVI, the publisher explains that one goal of this translation is to seek to “mute the patriarchalism of the culture of the biblical writers through gender-inclusive language.”
On May 27, 1997, a group of evangelical scholars and theologians convened in Colorado Springs, Colo., for the Conference on Gender-Related Translations of Scripture. The group aimed to establish guidelines for Bible translation, resulting in the Colorado Springs Guidelines. These guidelines, among others, endorse specific gender-related renderings, such as using “he, him, his, himself” for generic masculine singular pronouns in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. They also support retaining person and number in translations and using “man” to denote humanity in general. Additionally, they recommend translating certain terms such as the Greek anthropoi as “people” and maintaining masculine references to God while generally avoiding changes like “brother” to “brother(s) and sister(s)” or “son” to “child.”
In 1998, D.A. Carson critiqued these guidelines in his book The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism, expressing concerns about the hastiness of the conference and what he viewed as an overreaction by some complementarians. In response, Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem published their book The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God’s Words, providing a detailed analysis of the debates and relevant exegetical arguments. The controversy reemerged with the 2011 publication of an amended New International Version that incorporated many gender-inclusive renderings. The Southern Baptist Convention responded negatively, refusing to endorse the 2011 NIV for its community. Today, the debate sometimes resurfaces when the question of Bible translation is raised.
The combination of legitimate linguistic concerns and the injection of cultural agendas into translation philosophy means that careful thought is required to discern when gender-neutral language distorts Scripture versus when it faithfully represents the original language. For example, using gender-neutral language in reference to the Godhead distorts the manner in which God has chosen to reveal Himself. Translations that use inclusive plural pronouns to translate masculine singular pronouns can mislead the reader and misconstrue the text. When a grammatically masculine term in the original language is clearly used in a non-gender-specific way, however, a gender-inclusive gloss can accurately represent the original text. Translations that do not identify as gender-inclusive regularly translate select passages this way (see the ESV’s translation of Ps. 116:11 and 1 Tim. 2:4).
An additional negative consequence of gender-neutral language, especially in functional equivalent translations, is the removal of the Christological implications in certain passages. For example, the ESV translates Hebrews 2:6–8 as follows:
It has been testified somewhere,
“What is man, that you are mindful of him,
or the son of man, that you care for him?
You made him for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned him with glory and honor,
putting everything in subjection under his feet.”Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him.
In the course of his argument, the author of Hebrews recognizes Christological undertones in the psalm he quotes, which are preserved in the ESV. The 2011 NIV renders the nouns and pronouns of this text in a gender-neutral manner, removing the possibility of a Christological interpretation:
But there is a place where someone has testified:
“What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
a son of man that you care for him?
You made them a little lower than the angels;
you crowned them with glory and honor
and put everything under their feet.”In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them.
Broadly considered, gender-neutral translations have the potential to undermine the teaching of Scripture. While some gender-neutral glosses may be legitimate attempts to represent the original language and contemporary English, the intentional effort to make translations more inclusive tends to distort the original biblical texts, thereby weakening the theological foundation of gender roles as intended by God. By shifting to gender-neutral language as a translation principle, there is often an erosion of the Scriptural teachings on masculinity and femininity in preference for secular and progressive views.
