The question of whether Bible translations should use gender-inclusive language is an important one for modern readers. On one side, some argue that gender-inclusive language distorts the meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. On the other side, some contend that using inclusive language helps convey the truths of Scripture in a way that resonates better with contemporary audiences. There are good-faith arguments on both sides of this issue. Ultimately, whether or not to use inclusive language requires carefully weighing faithfulness to the biblical texts against comprehension and reception by modern readers.
The case for gender-inclusive language
Advocates of using inclusive language in Bible translations make several arguments:
- English has changed. English usages that were common when older translations like the King James Version were made sound awkward or even unintelligible to modern ears. Updating language helps the Bible connect better with 21st century readers.
- Meaning versus words. Translators have always had to balance formal equivalence (matching the original wording) with dynamic or functional equivalence (conveying the same meaning). Formal equivalence shouldn’t trump conveying the true meaning.
- Changes aim at clarity. Some changes, like substituting “brothers and sisters” for “brethren,” aim to clarify meaning, not alter it. They help convey the broad community encompassed by terms that originally had generic meanings.
- The goal is to communicate. The overriding goal is to communicate God’s Word. Using inclusive language is sometimes needed to accomplish this goal, just like updating obscure metaphors.
- Language shapes thinking. Exclusive language can reinforce prejudices and cultural blind spots. More inclusive translations promote the biblical vision of equality in Christ.
- Translation is interpretation. Every translation approaches issues like gender language from a certain interpretive stance. There’s no purely “neutral” translation. Being transparent about assumptions allows readers to engage those choices.
Advocates argue inclusive language better translates the Bible’s truths without distorting its teachings. Where older translations use male generic language, modern versions employ inclusive alternatives like “brothers and sisters” or substitutions like “mortals” and “humankind.” This aims to reflect broad community and human solidarity themes in Scripture. Critics argue it reflects cultural trends more than biblical meanings. But advocates contend translators have always adapted language to connect with readers and that inclusive renderings accomplish this without altering the essence of biblical doctrines.
The case against gender-inclusive language
Critics make the following arguments against inclusive language translations:
- Staying faithful to meaning. Generic uses of male terms like “man” or “brothers” accurately reflect the original text. Substituting other terms imports modern sensibilities foreign to the biblical writers.
- Preserving theological concepts. Key theological concepts like the Son of Man require retaining masculine language. Altering the gender obscures how this imagery connects to biblical themes.
- Avoiding anachronism. Rendering language in line with modern egalitarianism risks distorting the patriarchal biblical world. The text reflects historical contexts that should not get airbrushed.
- No language is purely neutral. Calls to replace exclusive language in the name of “neutrality” import postmodern assumptions. The traditional renderings are linguistically accurate without illegitimate bias.
- User discretion required. Readers should discern when language reflects specific versus generic usages. Tampering with masculine generics underestimates users’ interpretive abilities.
- The Bible challenges culture. Scripture should correct cultural blind spots, not pander to them. Accommodating feminism or egalitarianism erodes the Bible’s prophetic voice.
Critics contend altering masculine generics obscures how Scripture uses male imagery symbolically. It imposes modern assumptions, warping the text to avoid offending current sensibilities. Generic “he” may sound awkward today, but it accurately conveys meanings such as solidarity with mankind in Christ. Telling God’s story faithfully requires retaining masculine language when it reflects the sense of the original. Readers should learn to distinguish particular versus general usages rather than requiring linguistic accommodations in line with extra-biblical agendas.
Key biblical evidence related to gender and language
This debate involves complex hermeneutical issues reaching deep into the nature of language and translation. There are good-faith Christian arguments on both sides. Examining key biblical evidence gives a nuanced perspective:
Masculine language often had generic or symbolic senses
Biblical Hebrew and Greek often used masculine nouns and pronouns in generic or collective senses. In English translations, this generic usage gets reflected through terms like:
- “Man” or “mankind” referring collectively to humans (Genesis 1:27).
- “Brothers” or “brethren” denoting entire communities of men and women (Acts 1:16).
- “Son of Man” signifying the Messiah as representative of all humanity (Daniel 7:13).
- Masculine pronouns like “he” or “him” in generic references to people doing something (James 2:18).
Modern readers may miss these broad senses. But the original audiences likely recognized generic usages based on context.
The Bible affirms the equal status of women and men
Though reflecting patriarchal cultures, Scripture teaches the fundamental equality of women and men before God. Passages affirming essential dignity across genders include:
- Genesis 1:27 – Made in God’s image as male and female
- Galatians 3:28 – One in Christ Jesus
- Acts 2:17 – Sons and daughters will prophesy
- 1 Peter 3:7 – Joint heirs of grace
Even in patriarchal settings, women like Deborah (Judges 4-5) exercised leadership over God’s people. Paul recognized the labors of women like Junia as “outstanding among the apostles” (Romans 16:7). The Bible’s teachings transcend the patriarchal assumptions of its era.
Translators wrestled with language issues even in ancient times
Translation issues span centuries and cultures. For example, ancient Greek translations of Hebrew Scripture adjusted language based on sensibilities of Hellenistic audiences. Where the Hebrew referred anthropomorphically to God’s “hand” or “arm,” Greek texts substituted terms meaning “strength” or “power” to avoid offending Greek notions of proper divine deportment (Isaiah 40:10). This shows the perennial challenges of conveying truths meaningfully across linguistic and cultural barriers.
Women responded prominently to Jesus’s message
The Gospels record that women followed and supported Jesus “out of their means” (Luke 8:2-3). Jesus appeared first to women after his resurrection, charging them to share the good news with his “brothers” (i.e. the male disciples) (Matthew 28:10; John 20:17-18). The prominence of women in Jesus’ ministry provides biblical warrant for using language that includes rather than excludes women.
The Holy Spirit comes on all flesh, sons and daughters
Peter’s first sermon opens with the declaration that God’s Spirit would come upon “all flesh,” such that “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy” (Acts 2:17). This citation from Joel envisions God’s outpouring on all people, irrespective of gender. Restrictive language can obscure the inclusive vision conveyed in many such passages.
Issues involved in the gender language debate
This complex debate engages a tangle of issues that translators must carefully weigh.
Faithfulness to meaning versus modern comprehension
Translations aim to balance conveying the original sense with making it understandable to modern readers. But scholars debate where to strike the balance regarding inclusive language. Some favor formal equivalence, arguing alterations compromise meaning. Others advocate dynamic equivalence, saying meaning gets irreparably obscured if language does not connect with today’s readers.
Generic versus specific uses of masculine language
Critics argue against altering masculine forms used generically, as opposed to passages specifically speaking about men. Defenders of inclusive texts counter that modern readers struggle to discern generic uses and so benefit from updated language. But opponents worry this obscures the difference between general and specific usages.
Avoiding anachronism versus reflecting biblical equality
One concern is importing modern assumptions of gender equality onto an ancient patriarchal text. But others contend Scripture’s teachings transcend its patriarchal backdrop, so inclusive language can better reflect the biblical text’s vision. This requires complex literary and theological discernment.
The symbolic import of masculine language
Much biblical imagery uses masculine language symbolically, as with Christ’s Son of Man title. Critics argue substituting gender neutral alternatives obscures this layer of meaning. Defenders counter that the symbolic sense shines through as long as the essence gets communicated. But retaining the original gendered phrasing may safeguard symbolic resonances.
Clarity versus acceptance of interpretive complexity
Some argue that modern readers, especially youth, find unaltered masculine language confusing and off-putting. Updating language improves comprehension. But critics contend readers should wrestle with the text rather than receiving an excessively clarified version. Navigating this issue requires wisdom and grace.
Translation as communication versus confrontation
Some see translation primarily as a means of communicating so that readers understand. This requires using language that connects with modern readers. Others argue Scripture should confront and transform culture. From this view, preserving masculine language pushes back against extra-biblical agendas, retaining the Bible’s disruptive power. Translation involves navigating between communication and confrontation.
Possibility of distortion by over-accommodating cultural agendas
Some worry modern theories about gender and language get over-read onto an ancient text, distorting the original meanings. Defenders argue their approach flows from the text itself and aim only to help readers connect and comprehend. But discernment is required to avoid accommodating cultural trends in ways that skew the biblical author’s intent.
Importance of transparency about translator assumptions
Underlying this debate are complex theories about meaning, language and knowledge that shape how translators approach issues like gender. Readers benefit when translators disclose the reasoning behind their lexical choices. This allows users to evaluate and learn from translator assumptions and decisions.
Conclusion: Navigating the gender language debate faithfully
There are good reasons to care deeply about this debate. Scripture brims with beautiful truths that believers wish to convey faithfully while making them comprehensible across cultures and eras. This requires reflecting deeply on language, meaning, context, culture and theology.
Certain extremes seem unwise. An utterly wooden literalism might transliterate foreign terms rather than translate meaning. But capitulating wholly to present cultural trends distorts the otherworldly truths Scripture conveys.
Faithful translators prayerfully strive to grasp what the text says and then to render it sensitively for readers today. There are no simple answers. Perplexing choices require humility, seeking wisdom from Scripture itself and the Spirit who inspired it.
Christians committed to God’s Word can have charitable discussions about translation choices. Sometimes faithfulness requires precision. Other times conveying the essence matters most. Translators generally aim for the best balance they can achieve between formal and dynamic equivalence.
This debate centers finally on how best to hear and relay Scripture’s life-giving truths. What language, phrasings and images allow its messages to resonate most deeply in readers’ hearts? May the Spirit guide all who undertake this sacred task.