Gender-neutral Versions

[Martin Marprelate]

What do people think about gender-neutral versions of the Bible?
I am not thinking here of the use of 'Brothers and sisters' instead of 'brothers' so much as the persistent use of the plural ('they,' 'them') in place of the singular ('he,' 'him').
My church has been using the NIV (1984 version) as its pew Bible, and whilst I am not wild about it, I have gone along with it and, to be honest, I've not found a whole lot of problems with it. But the pew Bibles are starting to get tatty, and we need to replace them. I really don't want the 2011 version because of its gender-neutrality, and would much prefer the NKJV, but I don't think my colleagues will wear it. The default position therefore is the ESV.
What do the wise brothers here think?

N.B. Please, please, don't turn this into another KJV shouting match. There are no circumstances in which my church will use the KJV.

 

[Ascetic X]

What do people think about gender-neutral versions of the Bible?
I am not thinking here of the use of 'Brothers and sisters' instead of 'brothers' so much as the persistent use of the plural ('they,' 'them') in place of the singular ('he,' 'him').
My church has been using the NIV (1984 version) as its pew Bible, and whilst I am not wild about it, I have gone along with it and, to be honest, I've not found a whole lot of problems with it. But the pew Bibles are starting to get tatty, and we need to replace them. I really don't want the 2011 version because of its gender-neutrality, and would much prefer the NKJV, but I don't think my colleagues will wear it. The default position therefore is the ESV.
What do the wise brothers here think?

N.B. Please, please, don't turn this into another KJV shouting match. There are no circumstances in which my church will use the KJV.

I have attended an independent Bible church recently. They use the ESV as the pew Bible. But they made the mistake of buying ESVs with small print, so the older people have trouble reading them. Be sure to get, not giant print, but print large enough that everyone can read them comfortably.

 

[Van]

What do people think about gender-neutral versions of the Bible?
I am not thinking here of the use of 'Brothers and sisters' instead of 'brothers' so much as the persistent use of the plural ('they,' 'them') in place of the singular ('he,' 'him').
My church has been using the NIV (1984 version) as its pew Bible, and whilst I am not wild about it, I have gone along with it and, to be honest, I've not found a whole lot of problems with it. But the pew Bibles are starting to get tatty, and we need to replace them. I really don't want the 2011 version because of its gender-neutrality, and would much prefer the NKJV, but I don't think my colleagues will wear it. The default position therefore is the ESV.
What do the wise brothers here think?

N.B. Please, please, don't turn this into another KJV shouting match. There are no circumstances in which my church will use the KJV.

Great topic Martin, thanks.

Yes, I agree, translations should preserve the grammatical structure of the original language. I do not like "brothers and sisters," but "siblings" solves the male bias of the old school translation choices. "Friends" or "your own" both fail the validly test.

Usually the singular male, when referring possibly to either sex, can be translated either as "the one" or "he or she."

If the ESV had been based on the NRSV, it would be a good choice, but it was NOT.

If the NKJV is not in the cards, how about the NET?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I want to come to the question of using the plural, ‘they’ and ‘them’ to avoid the use of ‘he’ and ‘him’ when the reference may be to both males and females. Firstly, do we have the right to muck about with the word of God in this way, changing singular into plural? I don’t believe we do. Masculine pronouns are used in almost every language to refer to male and female together. Why are we suddenly changing the linguistic usage of hundreds of years to please a bunch of feminists who mostly don’t believe in God anyway? For make no mistake, that’s what this is all about, and the feminists will not be happy until we are saying, “Our Parent who art in heaven” and speaking of Christ the only begotten Child, and probably not even then!

John 11:25. “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die.” (my italics)

Am I the only one who finds that rendering unbearably grating? I don’t believe I could bring myself to read it out loud! The very basics of English grammar have been brutally sacrificed upon the altar of political correctness. If one absolutely has to use the plural then I suppose one could try, “Those who believe in me will live even though they die.” This at least has the benefit of being grammatical. But that is not what the Holy Spirit wrote! For His own high purposes He used the singular, and it is not for us mere mortals to play fast and loose with the text to satisfy the equality fascists. We don’t do it to secular texts like Chaucer or Shakespeare; why is it acceptable to do it to the Bible? The new NIV has, quite rightly, sought to limit its gratuitous use of the Plural, but in doing so it has made a dog’s breakfast of the English language.

There are loads of other texts where the singular and plural are mangled together in this ghastly way. I offer just one more: ‘Then that person can pray to God and find favor with him, they will see God’s face and shout for joy; he will restore them to full well-being’ (Job 33:26). Yuk! The great strength of the old NIV was that it read smoothly. To use ‘that person’ instead of ‘he’ makes the reading stilted and awkward.

The next example is even more worrying.

Hebrews 2:6-9, NIV, 1984. ‘But there is a place where someone has testified:
“What is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
You made him a little lower than the angels;
you crowned him with glory and honour
and put everything under his feet.”
In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.’

Hebrews 2:6-9, NIV, 2011. ‘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 honour
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. But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.’

The point here is that the writer to the Hebrews, under the leading of the Holy Spirit, has taken a section of Psalm 8 and made it refer to the Lord Jesus. This is in line with John 5:39: ‘These are [the Scriptures] that testify of Me.’ We should always look to find Christ in the Old Testament. But the New NIV cannot make up its mind whether the ‘son of man’ is Christ or not. In one line it speaks of ‘him’ and in the next, of ‘them.’ The original Greek is singular throughout, and the new NIV, by mixing singulars and plurals, obscures the reference to our Lord.

Psalm 24:3-5 presents similar problems:-

Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord?
Who may stand in his holy place?
The one who has clean hands and a pure heart,
who does not trust in an idol
or swear by a false god.
They will receive blessing from the Lord
and vindication from God their Saviour.’

I believe that these verses are about the Lord Jesus Christ. Who among us can say, “Yes, my hands are clean and my heart pure. I can stand before God with absolute confidence”? No, no. It is only Christ who could say that; it is He who stands in the presence of God as our great High Priest, ever interceding for us. But by switching from singular to plural in verse 5, not only does the reading jar horribly, but the reference to our Lord is obscured.

Other translations, like the NLT and NRSV are even worse. What do others think?

 

[Ascetic X]

I want to come to the question of using the plural, ‘they’ and ‘them’ to avoid the use of ‘he’ and ‘him’ when the reference may be to both males and females.
Firstly, do we have the right to muck about with the word of God in this way, changing singular into plural? I don’t believe we do. Masculine pronouns are used in almost every language to refer to male and female together. Why are we suddenly changing the linguistic usage of hundreds of years to please a bunch of feminists who mostly don’t believe in God anyway? For make no mistake, that’s what this is all about, and the feminists will not be happy until we are saying, “Our Parent who art in heaven” and speaking of Christ the only begotten Child, and probably not even then!

John 11:25. “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die.” (my italics)

Am I the only one who finds that rendering unbearably grating? I don’t believe I could bring myself to read it out loud! The very basics of English grammar have been brutally sacrificed upon the altar of political correctness.

There are loads of other texts where the singular and plural are mangled together in this ghastly way. I offer just one more: ‘Then that person can pray to God and find favor with him, they will see God’s face and shout for joy; he will restore them to full well-being’ (Job 33:26). Yuk! The great strength of the old NIV was that it read smoothly. To use ‘that person’ instead of ‘he’ makes the reading stilted and awkward.

………………….


Other translations, like the NLT and NRSV are even worse. What do others think?

I take the exact opposite position.

I am annoyed at seeing the word “man” and “men” when the obvious sense is “man or woman” or “humanity”. Using “man” restricts the literal sense to males only, which was not the original intention.

Singular “they" is a gender-neutral pronoun used to refer to a single person of unknown gender, unspecified gender, or when gender does not matter.

While sometimes criticized, it has been used in English for over 600 years and is now widely accepted by major style guides (like APA, MLA, and Merriam-Webster) as standard, inclusive English.

Using the singular “they”, “them”, and “their” is less awkward than saying “he or she” and “his or hers”.

It is not a brutal sacrifice of English grammar, as it is grammatically acceptable. The usage of the singular “they” is not new, nor is it some gross distortion of grammar — there are examples of it appearing in works by Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Jane Austen.

 

[Salty]

I am annoyed at seeing the word “man” and “men” when the obvious sense is “man or woman” or “humanity”. Using “man” restricts the literal sense to males only, which was not the original intention.

What annoys me is the choppy "he or she". Proper English (at least in the past) was that if the gender was unknow, you used the male gender. We have changed so many terms - we no longer have firemen - we have firefighters. No more flagmen - they are flag-persons and the list goes on and on. BTW, what is the correct term for "manhole"?

In case anyone has ever wondered - I counter with the term "State or Commonwealth" as we officially have 44 States and 6 Commonwealths! - unless I am only referring to one individual "State"

 

[37818]

Problem. The so called gender neutral is automatically going away from the original meaning of the autograph's text.

 

[Ascetic X]

Problem. The so called gender neutral is automatically going away from the original meaning of the autograph's text.

Problem. So God wants only males, not females, to be saved?

1 Timothy 2:3,4

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[37818]

.

Problem. So God wants only males, not females to be saved?

You know better. All men meaning all persons.

 

[Ascetic X]

.
You know better. All men meaning all persons.

Thus you affirm a gender-neutral version and a better rendering of this verse would be…

1 Timothy 2:3,4

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who desires all persons to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[Deacon]

The ESV is quite acceptable, though a bit overly formal at times. We use it in our services.

Our sermon was from Galatians 6 this morning.

Regarding gender and being overly formal, i added a translation note to myself on Galatians 6:1

Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness (Galatians 6:1, ESV)

ESV note: “brothers and sisters”

My note: Hey you guys, … (masculine gender but inclusive)

Rob

 

[Deacon]

Regarding gender inclusive versions, I encourage you read the preface to the recently published JPS TANAKH - Gender Sensitive version. It’s freely available online.

I realize that the Hebrew and Greek languages approach gender quite differently. The same methods used in the JPS edition would not work in the NT. But I’m quite impressed with the translation of the Old Testament.

Anyway, I guess the JPS TANAKH would not work as your church pew Bible.

Rob

 

[Ben1445]

I want to come to the question of using the plural, ‘they’ and ‘them’ to avoid the use of ‘he’ and ‘him’ when the reference may be to both males and females. Firstly, do we have the right to muck about with the word of God in this way, changing singular into plural? I don’t believe we do. Masculine pronouns are used in almost every language to refer to male and female together. Why are we suddenly changing the linguistic usage of hundreds of years to please a bunch of feminists who mostly don’t believe in God anyway? For make no mistake, that’s what this is all about, and the feminists will not be happy until we are saying, “Our Parent who art in heaven” and speaking of Christ the only begotten Child, and probably not even then!

John 11:25. “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die.” (my italics)

Am I the only one who finds that rendering unbearably grating? I don’t believe I could bring myself to read it out loud! The very basics of English grammar have been brutally sacrificed upon the altar of political correctness. If one absolutely has to use the plural then I suppose one could try, “Those who believe in me will live even though they die.” This at least has the benefit of being grammatical. But that is not what the Holy Spirit wrote! For His own high purposes He used the singular, and it is not for us mere mortals to play fast and loose with the text to satisfy the equality fascists. We don’t do it to secular texts like Chaucer or Shakespeare; why is it acceptable to do it to the Bible? The new NIV has, quite rightly, sought to limit its gratuitous use of the Plural, but in doing so it has made a dog’s breakfast of the English language.

There are loads of other texts where the singular and plural are mangled together in this ghastly way. I offer just one more: ‘Then that person can pray to God and find favor with him, they will see God’s face and shout for joy; he will restore them to full well-being’ (Job 33:26). Yuk! The great strength of the old NIV was that it read smoothly. To use ‘that person’ instead of ‘he’ makes the reading stilted and awkward.

The next example is even more worrying.

Hebrews 2:6-9, NIV, 1984. ‘But there is a place where someone has testified:
“What is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
You made him a little lower than the angels;
you crowned him with glory and honour
and put everything under his feet.”
In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.’

Hebrews 2:6-9, NIV, 2011. ‘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 honour
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. But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.’

The point here is that the writer to the Hebrews, under the leading of the Holy Spirit, has taken a section of Psalm 8 and made it refer to the Lord Jesus. This is in line with John 5:39: ‘These are [the Scriptures] that testify of Me.’ We should always look to find Christ in the Old Testament. But the New NIV cannot make up its mind whether the ‘son of man’ is Christ or not. In one line it speaks of ‘him’ and in the next, of ‘them.’ The original Greek is singular throughout, and the new NIV, by mixing singulars and plurals, obscures the reference to our Lord.

Psalm 24:3-5 presents similar problems:-

Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord?
Who may stand in his holy place?
The one who has clean hands and a pure heart,
who does not trust in an idol
or swear by a false god.
They will receive blessing from the Lord
and vindication from God their Saviour.’

I believe that these verses are about the Lord Jesus Christ. Who among us can say, “Yes, my hands are clean and my heart pure. I can stand before God with absolute confidence”? No, no. It is only Christ who could say that; it is He who stands in the presence of God as our great High Priest, ever interceding for us. But by switching from singular to plural in verse 5, not only does the reading jar horribly, but the reference to our Lord is obscured.

Other translations, like the NLT and NRSV are even worse. What do others think?

It is just plain proper grammar to use the masculine noun where either may apply.
Personally I think the they/them is ridiculous.
But that is the state of the present day theykind, or should it be themkind? You can’t say womankind because that excludes men.
Well whatever peoplekind come up with to appease, it’s bound to be ridiculous and is not likely to follow form.
I’m with you on the gender references.
If it were up to my preference, I’d stick with the normal gender references and let the present foolishness pass by into forgotten past. (I hope I’m not too hopeful about this.)


Edit: And now that I’ve read through the rest, I see that I’ve not added much. Sorry for the repetition but now you have my thoughts.
Not sure how I would convey that thought any differently than you already have.

 

[Ascetic X]

It is just plain proper grammar to use the masculine noun where either may apply.
Personally I think the they/them is ridiculous.
But that is the state of the present day theykind, or should it be themkind? You can’t say womankind because that excludes men.
Well whatever peoplekind come up with to appease, it’s bound to be ridiculous and is not likely to follow form.
I’m with you on the gender references.
If it were up to my preference, I’d stick with the normal gender references and let the present foolishness pass by into forgotten past. (I hope I’m not too hopeful about this.)


Edit: And now that I’ve read through the rest, I see that I’ve not added much. Sorry for the repetition but now you have my thoughts.
Not sure how I would convey that thought any differently than you already have.

I do not like the masculine singular “men” when the sense is “all humanity”.

1 Timothy 2:3,4

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

A better rendering of this would be “…who desires everyone to be saved…”

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I do not like the masculine singular “men” when the sense is “all humanity”.

1 Timothy 2:3,4

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

A better rendering of this would be “…who desires everyone to be saved…”

I have no problem with this passage because it is not changing singulars into plurals. If I were desperate to please feminists, I would translate it as ".... who desires all people to be saved....." This allows the 'all' to mean either 'every person on the planet' or 'all kinds of people' such as 'kings and all who are in authority' (v.2).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Here is another example of using 'They' to translate the singular:
Hebrews 10:29(NIV 2011). 'How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing, the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?'

Hebrews 10:29 (NIV 1984). 'How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing, the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?'

The Greek word for 'man' does not appear in the original Greek, so I have no problem with chamging it to 'someone.' The question is, whom did the blood of the covenant sanctify? Was this man, who has trampled the Lord Jesus underfoot and insulted the Holy Spirit, really sanctified by God? Many paedobaptists say 'yes' because they believe that the children of believers are in the covenant, and can fall away. But Baptists, of course, deny this, and in Hebrews 10:16, the Holy Spirit says, 'This is the covenant I will make with them after that time,' says the Lord. 'I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.' The new covenant is made only with believers.
Now look again at the text of Heb. 10:29. What is the nearest antecedent? It is the 'Son of God.' It is the Lord Jesus who was sanctified (set apart) by the blood of the covenant. The Lord Jesus says in John 17:19, 'For them [believers] I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.'

When 'him' is exchanged to 'them' the Lord Jesus disappears, and the Paedobaptist interpretation wins by default.

 

[John of Japan]

Interesting topic. Here is my objection to gender neutral renderings. It is taking a modern movement (feminism) and inserts it into a document 2000 years or more old. News flash: there were no feminists or "gender equality" in the 1st century!!! This practice is called anachronism, and is unacceptable in any kind of translation, much less Bible translation.

 

[Ascetic X]

Interesting topic. Here is my objection to gender neutral renderings. It is taking a modern movement (feminism) and inserts it into a document 2000 years or more old. News flash: there were no feminists or "gender equality" in the 1st century!!! This practice is called anachronism, and is unacceptable in any kind of translation, much less Bible translation.

My issues do not have anything to do with feminism. My problem is with saying “men” when the sense is “humanity”. God does not want all males to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. God wants all people, male and female.

1 Timothy 2:3,4

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who desires all men and women to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[John of Japan]

I don’t see this as having anything to with feminism. My problem is with saying “men” when the sense is “humanity”. God does not want all males to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. God wants all people, male and female.

1 Timothy 2:3,4

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who desires all men and women to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

There are two different issues here. One is actually feminism. I remember when adjustments were made back in the day to translations in the name of gender equality, which is a feminist issue. That's where the "brothers and sisters" rendering came from, nothing more or less than gender equality, which did not exist in Bible times. To translate with "brothers and sisters" when the original is only "brothers" is to interject modern mores into an ancient document, which is called an anachronism.

"The substitution will introduce at least some degree of anachronism, with a consequent lowering of historical fidelity" (John Beekman and John Callo, Translating the Word of God, p. 206)

Then we have the issue of how to translate anthropos (ἄνθρωπος), which is the word in your example. It is perfectly allowable to translate it as "persons," since it had that usage in 1st century Greece. However, the word for "man" or "husband" is aner (ἀνήρ), which almost always means man or husband.

 

[Ascetic X]

There are two different issues here. One is actually feminism. I remember when adjustments were made back in the day to translations in the name of gender equality, which is a feminist issue. That's where the "brothers and sisters" rendering came from, nothing more or less than gender equality, which did not exist in Bible times. To translate with "brothers and sisters" when the original is only "brothers" is to interject modern mores into an ancient document, which is called an anachronism.

"The substitution will introduce at least some degree of anachronism, with a consequent lowering of historical fidelity" (John Beekman and John Callo, Translating the Word of God, p. 206)

Then we have the issue of how to translate anthropos (ἄνθρωπος), which is the word in your example. It is perfectly allowable to translate it as "persons," since it had that usage in 1st century Greece. However, the word for "man" or "husband" is aner (ἀνήρ), which almost always means man or husband.

We can translate to accommodate the understanding of 2,000 years ago, when men dominated women. Or we can translate to accommodate current understanding, when men and women are equals.

I do not know why only brothers would be addressed in scripture, when there were brothers and sisters in the church. But today, I think we should acknowledge both. We are no longer in the milieu in which women are marginalized, not educated, treated like possessions, and are generally either married or engaging in prostitution to survive.