Gender Issues in Bible Translation

General Editor’s Gender Notes
by Edwin Blum

The overriding mandate for the Holman Christian Standard Bible has been to produce a highly readable English translation built on utmost faithfulness to the original words.  In the face of our culture’s compulsion for politically correct verbiage, we’ve inevitably run counter to many trends—not the least of which regards the use of gender-related words.

From the outset, we determined not to systematically eliminate the generic “he,” as “gender-neutral” translations do. There are times when the Bible uses specifically masculine or feminine terms, and a precise translation demands that we reflect those original words.

We also avoid altering clear-cut Greek or Hebrew grammatical constructions such as changing a masculine singular to generic plural. Besides being inaccurate, a plural substitute can miss the nuance of a passage. “Happy is the man” (who does not follow the advice of the wicked) feels much more personal than “Happy are they.” Switching to the plural form in Psalm 1 loses the warmth of God’s word speaking to us individually.

And then there’s the simple issue of truthfulness. What did the Bible really say?  Consider Numbers 31:28, for instance. The Hebrew literally speaks of “the fighting men who went out war.” But one current translation reads “the warriors who went out.” Avoiding the word “men” may make gender-sensitive readers feel better, but to render the verse that way requires the substitution of a completely different English word than the one that actually reflects the Hebrew.

Where we do find a legitimate opportunity to “neutralize” gender references is, quite logically, where there is no gender specified in Scripture. Whenever the biblical text is clearly neutral, we are not only willing, but actually consider it a more accurate choice, to translate with words like “anyone” or “one.”

A lot more could be said about this issue (don’t get me started!). And it’s been said very well in a Broadman & Holman book, The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy by Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem. So, I won’t write a book about it here. I’ll just hope to engender some interest in the subject.

Does the Bible Really Say What We Say It Says?

Gender Language Reveals a Lot about Translation Philosophy

We believe the world should conform to the Word of God, not the other way around.
That sums up the predisposition of everyone who’s worked on the Holman Christian Standard Bible. That belief stems from a confidence that the Bible in its original form is God’s uniquely inspired, inerrant message to mankind. We also believe that translating the Bible is a mission through which to reach people with the Good News of Jesus Christ. It’s a mission which requires that we present God’s Word in the most faithful possible rendering so that people will know clearly what—and Who!—they are responding to when the gospel touches their hearts. The clarity of the Word, though, as presented by some has been muddied during the past several decades.

In the 1980’s, some publishers became serious about rethinking gender references in the Bible. Since then, the idea of a gender-neutral Bible—as it is called when references to male and female words are modified—has been, intermittently, a hot topic among evangelical Bible scholars and lay Christians interested in serious Scripture study.

Two Terms, One Idea

The phrase “gender accurate” has come into vogue as a euphemism for the older term “gender-neutral.” Both reflect a translation philosophy oriented more toward marketing the Bible to a wider audience than representing the original words of Scripture as precisely as possible. “Gender neutral” refers to changing words in the Bible so as to obscure gender-related ideas that some people find uncomfortable. “Gender accurate” tries to make “gender neutral” sound respectable.

In their excellent book, The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy, Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem characterize the issue this way:

Some people favoring such translations have called them “gender accurate.” But . . . the phrase “gender accurate” is misleading. And this phrase takes a position beforehand on the very issue that needs to be debated—are these versions in fact “accurate” in their translation of Scripture?1

Whichever term is used, translators’ attempt to make the Bible more appealing may at first sound like a praiseworthy goal. However, we must take stock of what is lost in the process.

Going Back on Our Word

The most obvious problem with claiming to have a gender-accurate Bible is the necessary implication that previous translations were not accurate in the way they translated gender-related words. For instance, do translations that use the words “brother,” “son,” “mankind,” and the like misrepresent the original writings? Obviously not.

Perhaps it could be argued that a gender-altered translation reflects original language more understandably—and therefore more “accurately”—in how it conveys the truth resident in Scripture. But an example shows why this isn’t true. Hebrews 2:17 is rendered in one recent translation in such a way that Jesus is said to be “like his brothers and sisters in every way, . . .” How does it help to understand Christ by imagining Him made in every way like His “brothers and sisters”? Even while He is fully God, He is also fully a man, made in every way like His brothers (tois adelphois, the Greek masculine plural dative of “brother”). Far from facilitating understanding, we are left wondering how this man was like His sisters in every way. What’s more, the “and sisters” translation simply adds words to the text that don’t exist in the original writings.

Altering the Foundation

Besides confusing the understanding of specific scriptures, gender-inclusive translations like that noted above undermine Christology—the understanding of who Christ is and why He is that way. As do a handful of other translations, the Holman Christian Standard Bible preserves the actual reference in Hebrews 2:17: “Therefore He had to be like His brothers in every way, so that He could become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”

Ever since it became official Christian doctrine in the fourth century, we have understood Christ as both man and God. “Brothers” in Hebrews 2:17 underscores the reality of His humanness. He wasn’t a specially devised human-like creature that God developed just for the 33 years Jesus walked the earth. He was a male person, just like the high priest mentioned later in the verse. (Whether modernists like it or not, high priests were men, and only men.) The reference clearly places Jesus as a man, one of the human race. This is crucial because, as noted in the rest of the verse, it was necessary that He be one of us so as to save us from our sins.

Next we come to the issue of men and women. Someone could choose to believe that the Scripture underpinning our theology says something besides what it says, but that only leads to living an illusion. We can consider whether or not men and women have different roles only if we know there’s a reason from Scripture to think they might. Readers should be able to see what Scripture says and then decide whether to accept, reject, or re-think the meaning.

Finally, to change words to fit contemporary comfort zones is to show that we do not truly consider Scripture to be the ultimate authority. Grudem and Poythress again make the point clear:

the claim to be God’s word is often seen in the introductory phrase, “Thus says the Lord,” which appears hundreds of times. In the world of the Old Testament, this phrase would have been recognized as identical in form to the phrase, “Thus says king . . .” which was used to preface the edict of a king to his subjects, an edict which could not be challenged or questioned, but which simply had to be obeyed.2

By not rendering the original biblical languages as precisely as possible, we take authority over Scripture rather than Scripture taking authority over us. That’s like telling the king we don’t think his edict should have been worded the way it was, and we’re changing it to make it more palatable for the audience. Although we may craft his language in a new way, it won’t change the veracity of the original words, nor the intent of the king. And we may lose our heads in the process.

Pleasing Man (and Woman), Not God

When Scripture is modified for the sake of social convenience, we demonstrate a desire to please our fellow human beings rather than God. Modernist theologians cry out for “balance.” Feminists demand equality. Elitist academics call for “enlightened thinking.” And de-genderizing the Bible is a good way to give them what they want. No effort to share Christ, though, can succeed by changing the words of Scripture to please the world. The Bible explains it this way: “Christ is God’s power and God’s wisdom, because God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength” (1 Corinthians 1:24-25). To do other than accurately reflect the wisdom of God is . . . foolishness.

_________________________
1 Vern S. Poythress and Wayne A. Grudem, The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), p. 5.
2Ibid., p. 37.