Bible Translations: 3 The Superiority of Gender-inclusive Translations

Table of Contents

1 Introduction to Bible Translations
2 The Superiority of “Dynamic” Bible Translations
3 The Superiority of Gender-inclusive Translations
4 An Evaluation of Some Bible Translations
5 Recommended Resources for Scripture Study
Appendix A Detailed Contents
Appendix B Some Perspectives on Bible Translations

Chapter 15.3

The Superiority of Gender-Inclusive Translations

 

Table of Topics

A) Introduction to Gender-accurate Bible Translations

B) The Slanderous Sensationalism Infused into the Debate

C) Has the English Language Changed?

D) The Gender-inclusive Apostle Paul

E) The Difficulty of Masculine Pronouns

F) A Few of the Many Examples Where Gender-inclusive Language Improves Accuracy

G) The Few Examples Where Gender-inclusive Translation Seems to be a Mistake

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points
  • Now we’re getting to the real hot potato in modern Bible translation.
  • Even though the actual original Hebrew and Greek words do not mean just “men,” many Evangelicals insisting they must still be translated as such.
  • Traditional translations make many Bible verses seem only to apply to men. The debate is not about gender “neutrality,” but gender “accuracy.”
  • Not only does gender-inclusive language more accurately reflect the original intentions of biblical writers, but it also better reflects English.
  • For most Americans the words “he,” “man,” and “brothers” often exclude females, which in many cases was not the intention of the biblical writers. Are feminist influences really the cause of this?
  • Critics of gender-inclusive translations seem rather hypocritical when their flagship translation, the ESV has changed over 700 occurrences of the word “man” or “men” to be more gender-inclusive. This is rather remarkable when the impetus for creating the ESV was concern for the same thing in the updated NIV.
  • While critics of the updated NIV have slandered the motives, character, and scholarship of its translators, D. A. Carson has written: “Some of them are among the godliest, most competent, experienced, mature Christian thinkers and scholars I know—and not a few of them are complimentarians.”
  • It has been scientifically proven that “he” or “man” are not normally used in modern English to refer to both males and females.
  • Even the Apostle Paul changed “a son” in 2 Samuel 7:14 to “sons and daughters” when he quoted it in the NT.
  • There are 3 instances where the NIV and NLT translators have made significant errors.
  • Still, there are hundreds of examples where their gender-inclusive approach has made the Scriptures more accurate.

A) Introduction to Gender-accurate Bible Translations

Now we’re getting to the real hot potato in modern Bible translation. In general, what we are talking about is the tendency of modern translations to replace the word “men” or “brothers” with “people” or “brothers and sisters,” when the original Hebrew or Greek word does not refer to just men. Read that again, because this is the essential issue. Even though the actual original Hebrew and Greek words do not mean just “men” or “man” many Evangelicals today are insisting they must still be translated in a masculine way. [1] What the gender-inclusive debate is about among Evangelicals is not changing biblical references to God to “she” as has been widely feared.

For example, notice how the NASB translates the Greek anthrōpos [“humans” “humankind,” rarely “man”] in 1 Timothy 2:1-5. Could someone not legitimately conclude that prayers and salvation are just for men?

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men [anthrōpos: “humans”],  2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.  3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,  4who desires all men anthrōpos] to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.  5For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men [anthrōpos], the man [anthrōpos] Christ Jesus. (cf. KJV, NKJV, RSV; 1984 NIV)

It is because of such translations that NT scholar John Kohlenberger had the following experience with his daughter:

“Daddy, why does God only like boys?” Caught off guard by this startling question, I didn’t know how to answer my eight-year-old daughter. “Where did you get that idea?” I asked. “From the Bible,” she replied. “When we memorize verses in Sunday School or for AWANA or at school, they always say ‘Blessed is the man’ and ‘How can a young man keep his way pure’ and “I will make you fishers of men.’ Why isn’t there anything about girls being blessed or girls getting saved?” [2]

Again, remembering that in koinē Greek, the vast majority of the time anthrōpos meant “a person of either sex, with focus on participation in the human race, a human being,” [3] we can see why the updated NIV is a better translation, not only because it is better modern English, but because it more accurately reflects the meaning of the Greek:

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.  3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior,4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.  5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus (cf. NLT, ESV)

Quite frankly, I like the NET, NCV, CEV, and the much maligned TNIV translations even better, because the reference to Jesus as an anthrōpos (v. 5) is translated “human being,” rather than “man.” [4] Of course He was a man, but it was not because of His masculinity that He is the mediator between God and all humans, but because He was a human! And all translations should reflect that, especially because that is what anthrōpos means.

Simply put, there are many cases like 1 Timothy 2:1-5 where a gender-inclusive approach actually communicates the original intention of the Apostles better than those who neglect this approach. Accordingly, Drs. Fee and Strauss comment:

[W]e are not advocating the blanket replacement of masculine terms with inclusive language. This is not about gender “neutrality” (as some have claimed), but about gender “accuracy.” The goal is not to eliminate gender distinctions in Scripture, but to clarify them. . . . [5]

Not only does gender-inclusive language more accurately reflect the original intentions of biblical writers, but it also better reflects modern English. Drs. Fee and Strauss write:

One of the most significant changes in English over the last quarter century has been related to gender language. While it was once commonplace to refer to people as “men” and all fellow Christians as “brothers,” such usage has declined significantly in recent years. More inclusive terms like “people” and “brothers and sisters” are used more often today.

Bible translators, seeking to stay current with contemporary English, have adapted to these changes. Over the past thirty years, almost every English Bible version either produced or revised has adopted this kind of “gender accurate” language (TNIV, NET, NLT, GW, CEV, NAB, NJB, NRSV, REB, NCV, GNT, NIrV). This is in line with the goal of translating words according to their meaning in context. Even versions like the ESV and HCSB, which have intentionally reacted against the trend toward gender inclusive language, utilize it far more than their predecessors. . . .

While some critics claim that the movement toward gender accurate language is a form of political correctness, the truth is that such language has made our Bible translations more precise and so more accurate. [6]

Imagine giving a sermon to your congregation, filled equally with men and women. And as you deliver your message, you refer to them only as men when you address them. There are at least as many women listening as men, but instead of addressing the audience as “fellow believers,” “Christians,” “brothers and sisters,” etc., you consistently say things like, “men, we need to apply this message,” “men, God loves you,” “thank God men that He saved you.” Wouldn’t that be inappropriate? Maybe even disrespectful and offensive.

In summary, we would say this. If we look closely at each of the hundreds of verses involved, we will find in the vast majority of cases that the gender-inclusive translations are a significant improvement over older translations, like the example above regarding 1 Timothy 2:1-5. They communicate in modern English better because they recognize that for most Americans the words “he,” “man,” and “brothers,” often exclude females, which in many cases was not the intention of the biblical writers. Accordingly, these translations also more accurately translate the Hebrew and Greek because the original words allow for more gender-inclusive meanings and the context usually demands it.

Unfortunately, critics of the gender-inclusive approach begin in error, when, in a rather official statement, [7] they state:

  • “’man’ should ordinarily be used to designate the human race.” [8] That does not reflect modern English.
  • Adelphos (“brother”) should never be translated as “brothers and sisters.” [9]
  • Anthrōpos (“humans”) should normally be translated as “men”.
  • The use of masculine pronouns such as “he” and “him” must be retained even though in the original text they are referring to people in general. [10]

And critics of gender-inclusive translations seem rather hypocritical when their flagship translation, the ESV, which is based on the text of the older RSV, has changed over 700 occurrences of the word “man” or “men” to be more gender-inclusive. [11] This is rather remarkable when the impetus for creating the ESV was concern for the same thing in the updated NIV. [12]

B) The Slanderous Sensationalism Infused into the Debate

The issue over gender inclusive translations has some complexity. But first, let’s confront the exaggerated and slanderous nature of the accusations that are being made by many regarding the motives of the translators of the NIV, NLT, or other modern translations. NT scholar D. A. Carson has done just that in his book The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism. In it Dr. Carson relates:

What ignited the flame of indignation and condemnation, inaugurating the brouhaha, was an article by Susan Olasky in World. This conservative magazine advertises itself as a weekly news magazine like Time or Newsweek, but something you can trust. The front cover for March 29, 1997, features a Bible with a red sign for the female on the spine, and the shadow of a stealth aircraft draped across the leather binding. The words read: “The Stealth Bible: The Popular New International Version Bible Is Quietly Going ‘Gender-Neutral.” The article itself is entitled: “The Feminist Seduction of the Evangelical Church.” [13]

Dr. Carson adds:

I have recently read again all the World articles on this subject, and the scholars who make up the CBT [NIV translation committee], as these articles present them, are pretty horrible people. I do not personally know all the members of the CBT, but I know quite a few of them. Some of them are among the godliest, most competent, experienced, mature Christian thinkers and scholars I know—and not a few of them are complimentarians [upholding the traditional biblical understanding of gender roles in the family and Church]. [14]

Similar sensationalism has come from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), with a member, Peter Jones writing in 2002 regarding the appearance of gender-inclusive Bible translations:

I do not believe I am exaggerating when I say that we are witnessing a social revolution that is determined to erase from the cultural memory of the ‘Christian’ West both the normativity of heterosexual gender and role distinctions and the patriarchal God of the Bible. Essential to the revolution is the control and manipulation of language. [15]

In fact, Dr. Jones was “exaggerating” and there is no evidence or reason to suggest that Evangelical, gender-inclusive translations of Scripture have contributed to feminists’ agendas. It is because of both inaccuracies and unnecessary fervor over the gender-inclusive version of the NIV that Dr. Carson removed himself from the Council of Reference for the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. [16]

Even more recently, the CBMW has claimed regarding the translation committee of the 2011 NIV update that, “gender translation decisions were motivated by a desire to avoid causing offense” and a “’guilt-by-association’ labeling of some of [the] translations . . . [because] some renderings in the updated NIV are adopted also by “feminist” interpreters.” [17]

Likewise, the Southern Baptist Convention has accused the NIV translators of “ “altering the meaning of hundreds of verses, most significantly by erasing gender-specific details which appear in the original languages” and that they have “gone beyond acceptable translation standards.” [18] As will be demonstrated below, this is simply not true.

Unfortunately, Dr. Carson’s “Plea for Realism” has been necessary because good men like Wayne Grudem, John Piper, [19] John MacArthur, and J. I. Packer [20] have greatly exaggerated the supposed errors and dangers of the updated NIV, NLT, or other gender-inclusive translations, and slandered the motives of those on these translation teams. For example, John MacArthur writes:

We live in a day when culture is telling the church what the Bible will be allowed to say. A great illustration of this is the publication of the TNIV. Zondervan Publishing Company produces a Bible called the TNIV, the TNIV is distinguished by its deference to the Feminist Movement. It has altered the Word of God, changed the Word of God to make it compatible to the contemporary Feminist Egalitarian Movement and that is not the only one that has done that, there are others that have done it as well.

The Word of God is not ever to be used in such a way as to accommodate a cultural perception. You do not take the Word of God, twist the Word of God, alter the Word of God, change the Word of God, embellish the Word of God, diminish the Word of God, in order to achieve something that accommodates cultural expectations. But that is being done and it’s being done at the very core when it’s being done with Bible translation.

When you translate a Bible, you have one responsibility. You take the Word in the original Hebrew or Aramaic in the few places in the Old Testament where Aramaic occurs. You take the Word in the Greek in the New Testament and you translate it. You find the closest possible translation in the language into which you’re translating the Bible and that’s what you do. You do not change the word because you think the culture would like it to be said another way. That’s not a true and pure translation, especially do you not adapt the Bible to sinful cultural attitudes, expectations, demands. That’s the worst of all. [21]

Several responses are in order. First, there is no Bible teacher I respect more than John MacArthur. However, this is the most inaccurate, irresponsible, and embarrassing thing I have ever encountered from him. Elsewhere we quoted a similar statement from him regarding “dynamic” translation in general. [22]

Secondly, the TNIV that Dr. MacArthur refers to was a significantly more conservative update of the original NIVi. Read Dr. Carson’s review of the latter and decide for yourself if Dr. MacArthur seems either accurate or sane here.

Finally, when we note that the translation teams for these versions are made up of the most respected, knowledgeable, conservative, and Evangelical scholars in the world, [23] these accusations seem even more outlandish and misplaced. As Dr. Carson has said, “Whatever my errors and blind spots, I cannot fairly be accused of adopting the stances I do in translation because I am driven by some feminist agenda.” [24] And if you have read the Bible commentaries of the men on these translation committees you would know the same is true of them. [25]

As we point out elsewhere, very significant changes have been made in the 2011 NIV since the NIVi in 1996. Accordingly, a great deal of the reasons given by the above people and organizations for denouncing the NIV have been eliminated. Nonetheless, inaccurate, unfair, and exaggerated press still occur.

C) Has the English Language Changed?

Virtually all would agree that in generations past the word “man” was readily recognized to refer to humanity or people in general, including males and females. Those days are long since past. Nevertheless, critics of gender-inclusive translations insist that: 1) Masculine words such as “man,” “he,” or “brothers” are still normally used to include both males and females, and 2) if there are changes in usage, they have resulted from feminist influences in our culture and should be resisted.

On the first point, it has been scientifically proven that the pronoun “he” or the noun “man” are not normally used in modern English to refer to humanity in general, or to include both males and females. [26] Accordingly, even in 1998, Dr. Carson wrote regarding gender meanings in modern English: “[T]he changes are farther advanced in the English language than the critics think, even if not as far advanced as some feminists think.” [27]

On the second point, do we really need to blame feminism for the fact that for most Americans the word “men” or “brothers” does not mean “men and women”? Isn’t this simply a natural progression in English and even an improvement? And does the fact that the word “men” is no longer usually recognized as meaning humanity in general or “males and females” really threaten the Evangelical desire to uphold biblical gender roles in the Church as Scripture says? We doubt it.

In fact, we should have some concern to not unnecessarily seem bigoted by modern America. While there are limits to such concessions, we agree with Dr. Carson who remarks: “I do not want the old NIV when I am expounding the earlier chapters of, say, Romans in an evangelical setting in a university. Nothing is gained by it, and too much is lost.” [28] This is precisely because of how words like “he” and “man” and “brother” function in modern English in America.

Accordingly, the conservative and Evangelical NT scholar Grant Osborne writes:

In the ancient world it was common to say “man” or “he” when speaking of all people. The influence of the KJV has made it common until recent years to do the same. Within the last two decades, however, this is practiced less and less, and those who have not grown up in the church can misunderstand such male-oriented language. Even if the inclusive he is retained in some stylebooks, it is impossible to deny that its occurrence is becoming rarer or that ultimately it is on its way out in modern language. A basic principle of all translation theory is to express the ancient text in the thoughts and idioms of the receptor language. . . . It is likely that Paul today would not use such unnecessarily offensive language as man or he when it refers to men and women. [29]

D) The Gender-inclusive Apostle Paul

Rather remarkably, we have an instance where the Apostle Paul intentionally changed an OT text to be gender-inclusive. 2 Samuel 7:14 in the ESV reads: “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” Yet when the Apostle quotes this verse in the NT he writes: “I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty” (2 Cor 6:18 ESV). Accordingly, Dr. Carson writes:

Note carefully what the apostle Paul has done. He has taken the third-person singular (“he will be a son to me”) and rewritten it as a second-person plural . . . [and] in terms that expand the masculine “son” into both genders: “you shall be sons and daughters to me.”

Nor is it the case in this passage that Paul is simply citing the common Greek version—some form of the Septuagint (LXX)—without worrying too much about the details, for here the LXX follows the Hebrew rather closely. Nor can one easily imagine that Paul was ignorant of the Hebrew and LXX texts. Even the more biblically literate in the Corinthian congregation would have been familiar with at least the Greek [LXX] text, so they would have detected the changes Paul has introduced. . . .

[T]he least we can say is that the apostle himself does not think that Hebrew singulars must always be rendered by Greek singulars, or that the Hebrew “son” should never be rendered by the Greek “sons and daughters.” No one, I think, would quickly charge Paul with succumbing to a feminist agenda. [30]

E) The Difficulty of Masculine Pronouns

This section will be relegated primarily to the endnotes. However, it is such a central issue in the gender-inclusive debate that we will mention it in the main text. Critics of dynamic translations accuse translators of distorting the word of God when they render a masculine singular pronoun like “he” in the Hebrew or Greek, into something like the singular “they” in English. For example, Dr. Grudem writes:

I strongly disagree with this procedure. The evangelical doctrine of Scripture is that every word of the original is exactly what God wanted it to be, because ‘all Scripture is God-breathed’ (2 Tim 3:16). If God caused Psalm 1 to be written with singular nouns and pronouns, then we should reflect the sense of those words in English translation. We must not ‘substitute’ other words with different senses.” [31]

What Dr. Grudem chooses to ignore is that such a “substitute” is necessary, because as Drs. Fee, Strauss, and Carson point out in the endnote: “English does not have a [gender] inclusive singular pronoun (“it” only works for things, not for people).” In fact, these scholars note that the Apostle Paul on at least three occasions, while quoting an OT verse using a masculine pronoun such as “him,” “his,” or “he,” replaced these terms with “those,” “their,” and “they.” Accordingly, we would promote the increasing use of “they” as a singular pronoun in modern English to refer to a person in general, rather than the use of “he” as critics insist. [32]

Regarding Dr. Grudem’s argument above, Dr. Carson has answered:

That is exactly the same argument used to defend the preservation of singular “thou” a few decades ago. The common problem is the failure to recognize the preserving God’s word in Psalm 1 means preserving Hebrew words, which are tied to semantic ranges, syntactical structures, gender and number systems, morphology, and other phenomena that are radically different in English—and further that English is changing.

This emotive way of putting things implies that those who disagree with Dr. Grudem’s views on translation are disparaging or ignoring “the evangelical doctrine of Scripture.” Most emphatically is that not the case, and it would be exceedingly helpful if the charge, doubtless made in good faith, were withdrawn. [33]

F) A Few of the Many Examples Where Gender-inclusive Language Improves Accuracy

We believe there are hundreds of these, and others have listed them in more detail. [34] However, for our purposes, a relatively few examples will have to suffice:

Genesis 6:7

ESV: So the LORD said, “I will blot out man [adam: man, human] whom I have created from the face of the land, man [adam] and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

NIV: So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

NLT: And the LORD said, “I will wipe this human race I have created from the face of the earth. Yes, and I will destroy every living thing—all the people, the large animals, the small animals that scurry along the ground, and even the birds of the sky. I am sorry I ever made them.”

“Human race” and “people” are legitimate translations of the Hebrew word adam, and better communicate Moses’ original meaning than the rather exclusive term “man.”

Matthew 4:19

ESV: And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men [anthrōpōn].”

NIV: “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.”

NLT: Jesus called out to them, “Come, follow me, and I will show you how to fish for people!”

The primary meaning of the Greek word anthrōpōn is humanity, not men, so the ESV translation is not as accurate to the Greek text, let alone the English language.

Matthew 12:12

ESV: How much more valuable then is a man [anthrōpos] than a sheep! 

NIV & NLT: How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! 

Not only does the NLT miss the meaning of anthrōpos again, but Jesus’ intentional use of this word instead of aner, which more likely means specifically men, is important to maintain, especially because we have cultures and religions that value women no more than animals.

Matthew 16:24-26

ESV: Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone [tis] would come after me, let him [not in Greek text] deny himself [eauton: “himself” or “oneself”] and take up his [auton: lit. “self”] cross and follow me.  25For whoever would save his [auton] life will lose it, but whoever loses his [auton] life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man [anthrōpos “person” not “man”] if he [not in Greek text] gains the whole world and forfeits his [auton] soul? Or what shall a man [anthrōpos “person” not “man”] give in return for his [auton] soul?

NIV: Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.  25 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? (cf. NLT)

Despite Dr. Piper’s objections to the NIV here, it is both more accurate to the Greek and English, as Dr. Carson has demonstrated. [35]

Luke 17:3

ESV: If your brother [adelphos: “brother” or “brother and sister” acc. to BADG] sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.

NIV: If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them.

NLT: If another believer sins, rebuke that person; then if there is repentance, forgive.

John 1:4

ESV: In him was life, and the life was the light of men [anthrōpoi].

NIV: In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

NLT: The Word gave life to everything that was created, and his life brought light to everyone.

The ESV translation is especially curious here, as a few verses later it translates: “The true light, which enlightens everyone [pas anthrōpos]” (v. 9).

John 10:33

ESV: The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man [anthrōpos], make yourself God.”

NIV: “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” (cf. NLT)

 

CEV: They answered, “We are not killing you because of any good work you did, but because you speak against God. You are only a human, but you say you are the same as God!”

Here, virtually all translations fail to take the opportunity to make a more accurate translation. Dr. Carson’s comments here pertain to the initial gender-inclusive edition of the NIV (NIVi, 1996) that is not even in print, and one wonders if the changes made in the latest NIV were due more to pressure than anything else. Nonetheless, Dr. Carson rightly remarks:

In John 10:33 NIV [1984] some Jews accuse Jesus of blasphemy “because you, a mere man (anthrōpos), claim to be God.” The NIVi translates the critical expression, “a mere human being.” Dr. Andreas Köstenberger says that this downplays Jesus’ maleness during his earthly incarnate state [CBMW News 2.3 (June 1997)].

Dr. Köstenberger is a capable scholar and a former student whom I esteem highly. But here he has made a linguistic gaffe . . . The meaning of anthrōpos is human being, not male human being. The Jews are accusing Jesus of elevating not his maleness to the level of deity, but his humanness. No one is doubting Jesus’ maleness; the NIVi only uses male pronouns for him. [36]

John 11:25

ESV: Jesus said to her [a woman!], “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.

NIV: Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die.

NLT: Jesus told her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Anyone who believes in me will live, even after dying.

Romans 5:18

ESV: Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men [anthrōpous], so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men [anthrōpous].

NIV: Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

NLT: Yes, Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christ’s one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone

Romans 12:1

ESV: I appeal to you therefore, brothers [adelphoi, plural, “brothers and sisters” [37]], by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.

NIV: Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.

NLT: And so, dear brothers and sisters, I plead with you to give your bodies to God because of all he has done for you. Let them be a living and holy sacrifice—the kind he will find acceptable. This is truly the way to worship him.

The Greek plural noun adelphoi can refer to (1) brothers (male siblings); (2) siblings (i.e., brothers and sisters), or (3) people in some other close bond or association. Did Paul intend to only address men here? If not, then the ESV is a bad, misleading translation, of not only the author’s original intent but of modern English useage. Ditto on the next passage.

Phil 4:1

ESV: Therefore, my brothers [adelphoi], whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm thus in the Lord, my beloved.

 

NIV: Therefore, my brothers and sisters, you whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm in the Lord in this way, dear friends!

NLT: Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stay true to the Lord. I love you and long to see you, dear friends, for you are my joy and the crown I receive for my work.

Accordingly, in the very next verse Paul encourages two women, Euodia and Syntyche, to live in harmony. Drs. Fee and Strauss remark:

This translation is not a “paraphrase” or a concession to a political correctness. It is exactly what the Greek term meant in its first-century context. The ESV, while consistently translating the term as “brothers,” includes a footnote at its first occurrence in each book acknowledging that it actually means “brothers and sisters”. . . .

This footnote reminds us that translation is not about “literally” reproducing words or the form of the text (in this case, a masculine form), but about accurately reproducing the meaning. The fact that adelphoi is one word in Greek while “brothers and sisters” is three words in English is irrelevant, so long as the meaning is retained. And the meaning in these passages is “brothers and sisters” or “fellow believers.” [38]

James 1:12

ESV: Blessed is the man [were only men meant here?] who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.

NIV: Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him.

NLT: God blesses those who patiently endure testing and temptation. Afterward they will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.

Admittedly, in this instance, the Greek word is anēr which most usually refers to a male. However, as Dr. Carson has demonstrated, “both in the lexica and in texts some extension [variance] is found.” [39]

Rev 3:20

ESV: Behold, I stand at the door and knock.  If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

NIV: Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

NLT: “Look! I stand at the door and knock. If you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in, and we will share a meal together as friends.

Drs. Fee and Strauss make an additional point regarding the translation of “sons” in Scripture:

Most common Hebrew and Greek terms for offspring (Heb.: banim; Gk.: huioi) can mean different things: “sons,” “children,” “grandchildren,” “descendants.” . . . Long before the contemporary debate over inclusive language, the KJV often rendered these terms inclusively as “children” rather than “sons.” The phrase “children of Israel” occurs 644 times in the KJV. . . . Matthew 5:44-45 in the KJV reads, “Love your enemies . . . that ye may be the children [huioi] of your Father which is in heaven.” In these and many other contexts, the term clearly refers generically to males and females — “children” rather than “sons.”

Curiously, while the formal equivalent versions follow the KJV in translating banim as “children” in the Old Testament, in the New Testament they often revert back to “sons” (see Matt. 5:45 NKJV, NASB, RSV, ESV). These examples represent the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of passages could be cited from both the Old and New Testaments to show that gender accurate language more precisely represents the meaning of the original text. [40]

G) The Few Examples Where Gender-inclusive Translation Seems to be a Mistake

To be fair, we do not agree with all of the decisions made by gender-inclusive translators.

James 3:1

ESV: Not many of you should become teachers [didaskaloi], my brothers [adelphoi], for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

NIV: Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

NLT: Dear brothers and sisters, not many of you should become teachers in the church, for we who teach will be judged more strictly.

Obviously, this text is referring to the formal teaching ministry of the church. Dr. MacArthur writes: “Didaskaloi (teachers) was often used of rabbis and any who functioned in an official teaching or preaching role (cf. John 3:10), suggesting that James was speaking of the teaching office in the church (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11).” [41] Dr. Moo concurs, stating the “teacher” being referred to here “in the early church was entrusted with the crucial task of transmitting Christian doctrine (see 2 Tim. 2:2).” [42]

According to 1 Timothy 2:11-12, women are not to be teachers in the general church context. [43] We commend the NLT translators for adding the footnote here: “Greek brothers; also in 3:10.” Accordingly, Drs. Fee and Strauss (the former believing that men and women should have the same roles in the church) are wrong, and Wayne Grudem is finally correct when we read:

Grudem objects to the TNIV’s use of the phrase “brothers and sisters” rather than simply “brothers” here largely because of his view that women should not have leadership roles in the church. However, all other occurrences of the term adelphoi in the book of James appear to be generic. That is, they include women as well as men based upon the context [exactly– context is key, and in 3:1 the context is a church office only held by men in the early Church].

So, due to a theological conviction, Grudem has objected here contrary to what the context might tell him [on the contrary- based on the clear meaning of 1 Tim 2:12]. By the way, even if the translation should properly be “brothers and sisters,” church leadership for women is not necessarily in view. Women can be teachers under the complementarian view, just not pastors or doctrinal teachers of men. [which is precisely what is being referred to here!] Grudem, in his zeal for his theological position, may have overstepped in his criticism on this point [not at all]. [44]

2 Timothy 2:2

ESV: and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men [anthrōpois] who will be able to teach others also.

NIV: And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.

NLT: You have heard me teach things that have been confirmed by many reliable witnesses. Now teach these truths to other trustworthy people who will be able to pass them on to others.

Again, the Apostle is speaking of the transmission of doctrinal teaching in the general populace of the church, which in his previous letter to Timothy he had clearly stated was only the province of men (cf. 2 Tim 2:12). Accordingly, that should have been taken into consideration here. [45]

1 Timothy 2:12

ESV: I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority [authentein] over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

NIV: I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

NLT: I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly.

The question here is whether or not the Greek authentein, used only here in the NT, means to simply exercise authority, or to specifically exercise authority in an illegitimate way. The NIV decision to intentionally translate it in a way that could be interpreted as the latter, without even a footnote to suggest otherwise, is problematic. The NLT provides a footnote indicating it could be translated as the NIV has it.

The prohibition to “exercise authority” is clear enough, but to “assume authority” can imply that the Apostle was fine with women exercising authority over men in the church or home, just as long she was given permission by a higher authority. This is, in fact, how egalitarian commentators take it. [46] And apparently, this was precisely how the NIV translation team intended it to be taken. Craig Blomberg who prepared the “Translator’s Notes” for the team comments on 1 Timothy 2:12:

The exercise of authority that Paul was forbidding was one that women inappropriately assumed, but whether that referred to all forms of authority over men in church or only certain forms in certain contexts is up to the individual interpreter to decide.” [47]

Douglas Moo, chairman of the NIV translation committee, has said the following concerning 1 Timothy 2:12:

As one of the NIV translators, let me just make four comments. First, there is so much uncertainty about this key word that the accusation of “mistranslation” is simply not fair.

Second, the rendering “assume authority” was actually taken from Bill Mounce’s commentary on the Pastorals; and Bill, as you will know, is a complementarian.

Third, the footnotes were dropped in the updated NIV simply because the translators believed that “assume authority” could be taken in either direction. We often use this phrase in a neutral way (e.g., “When will the new President assume authority”?).

Four, it is our intent to provide a translation that is faithful to the text, bowing to no particular theological agenda (in this case, neither “egalitarian” or “complementarian”). Our rendering of 1 Tim. 2:12 was sincerely intended as our best effort at rendering this very obscure word in a way that would not be driven by either theological agenda. [48]

Several responses are in order. First, it does not appear at all, that in the Greek literature authentein can mean something like “assume” (NIV) or “usurp” (KJV) authority. George Knight, after a detailed discussion in his commentary, no doubt based on his lengthy article in the New Testament Studies journal entitled “Auqenteo in Reference to Women in 1 Timothy 2:12,” [49] concludes: “Contrary to the suggestion of KJV’s “to usurp authority” and BAGD’s alternative, “domineer” (so also NEB), the use of the word shows no inherent negative sense of grasping or usurping authority or of exercising it in a harsh or authoritative way, but simply means “to have or exercise authority.” [50]

And that is a problem for the NIV translators. They intentionally left something ambiguous, that, in spite of what Dr. Moo claims, is not ambiguous. The meaning of authentein, while used only here in the NT is well attested in ancient Greek literature, and its meaning is well documented by Dr. Knight. Not only that, but we consider the 288 page Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (Baker, 2005), edited and contributed to by Andreas Köstenberger and Thomas Schreiner, to be both exhaustive and irrefutable on the meaning of authentein and 1 Timothy 2:12. [51]

Secondly, we are confused by Dr. Moo’s claim that the NIV translation decision came from William Mounce’s Word Biblical Commentary on the Pastorals. On the contrary, Dr. Mounce concludes there: “Paul does not want women to be in positions of authority in the church; teaching is one way in which authority is exercised in the church.” [52]

Thirdly, it was a serious mistake to drop the footnote informing the reader that there were options even in the minds of the NIV translators on the meaning of authentein.

Fourthly, against the accusations of many, I believe Dr. Moo when he says the translation was not driven by an egalitarian “theological agenda.” Indeed, Dr. Moo himself, the chairman of the NIV translation committee, is a rather staunch complimentarian. Ironically, in fact, he wrote a convincing essay arguing for a compliementarian/traditional view of this very verse, 1 Timothy 2:12 in the monumental book, Rediscovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which the “Council on Biblical Manhood and Woman “sponsored and endorsed . . . as its first book project.” [53] Accordingly, as noted above, no sane person should be accusing Dr. Moo of cowing to feminists’ agenda’s.

But his translation committee still made a significant and unfortunate mistake here. And it is just these kinds of mistakes that give critics of gender-inclusive translations reasons to believe there is a feminist, egalitarian motive behind them. These are critical texts regarding the roles of men and women in the church, and therefore, the NIV and NLT make serious errors here.

In summary, then, here is our tally of the gender-inclusive errors on the NIV and NLT. Of the three critical verses regarding gender roles discussed above, the NLT errs in one, is correct in another but adds an inaccurate footnote, and translates incorrectly but adds a clarifying footnote in the third. The NIV simply fails to accurately translate the author’s original intention in all three texts and not even offering footnotes to inform of optional readings. This is what is maddening about deciding, “which is the best translation?” because not a single one of them is perfect!

Accordingly, it must be said, that, while we can find at most two or three instances where the NLT and NIV translators have mistranslated the original intentions of the biblical authors regarding gender, (and we don’t believe others can find any more- we’ve read their stuff and disagree), there are thousands of examples where their gender-inclusive approach has made the Scriptures more accurate.

Extras & Endnotes

Gauging Your Grasp

  1. What is the majority issue in the debate regarding gender-inclusive language in Bible translations?
  2. What are the problems with Bible translations that do not include gender-inclusive language?
  3. We claim that not only does gender-inclusive language more accurately reflect the original intentions of biblical writers, but it also better reflects English. Do you agree or disagree and why?
  4. What are aspects of contemporary English in America that demonstrate the better accuracy of gender-inclusive Bible translations?
  5. What fact do we believe makes the critiques of gender-inclusive translations seem rather hypocritical? Do you agree or disagree and why?
  6. Why do we believe the critiques of gender-inclusive translations have been exaggerated and even slanderous? Do you agree or disagree and why?
  7. What is an example of even the Apostle Paul using gender-inclusive translation?
  8. What three instances in the NIV and NLT do we believe translators have made significant errors. Do you agree or disagree and why?

Recommended Reading

In addition to those listed in chapter 15.1

  • The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism, D. A. Carson (Baker, 1998). Although a little dated because it specifically addresses the NIVi (1996) that is out of print, it is still the best book on the issue and is quite contemporary because relatively the debate has continued even with the updated 2011 NIV.
  • The website of the Committee on Bible Translation which is responsible for the NIV at http://www.niv-cbt.org

Publications & Particulars

  1. Drs. Fee and Strauss note:

    None of the versions discussed in this chapter introduce feminine language for God or eliminate masculine pronouns or metaphors used for Him. There are indeed a few feminist versions that do so, such as The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version (1995) and The Inclusive Bible (2007) produced by Priests for Equality.

    But these versions have a very different agenda, seeking to eliminate patriarchal references from the Bible. This is a completely different goal from gender accuracy, which is to reflect as accurately as possible the original meaning of the text. Gender accurate versions seek to introduce inclusive language only with reference to human beings and only when the original meaning included both sexes. (How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions (Zondervan, 2007). ↑

  2. ref. unavailable. ↑

  3. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature (BDAG), F. W. Danker, ed., 3rd ed. (University Of Chicago Press, 2001) ↑

  4. Dr. Carson also supports the gender-inclusive translation of 1 Timothy 2:5. See The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism, D. A. Carson (Baker, 1998), 127. ↑

  5. Fee & Strauss. ↑

  6. Ibid., Kindle Locations 1563-1565. ↑

  7. The “official statement” of the critics of gender-inclusive language is referred to as the Colorado Springs Guidelines (CSG), developed literally overnight in a hotel room by an assorted group of Pastors and Christian leaders and relatively few ancient language scholars. Accordingly, Dr. Carson comments: “By and large, the CSG are open to far more and far more serious linguistic objections than the [NIV] principles.” 111. See chapter 2 for the text of these guidelines, and chapter 5 for Dr. Carson’s evaluation of them. ↑

  8. Carson, 120. ↑

  9. On the critics insistence that adelphos cannot be translated “brother and sister” Dr. Carson comments:

    Why [they] insist on excluding inclusive language for the singular form quite escapes me. . . . In Matthew 5:22 NIV Jesus says, “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother [adelphos] will be subject to judgment.” Is Jesus restricting the sanction to anger toward a brother, but not a sister? The NIVi’s “brother or sister” is surely preferable. Why concede the point for the plural [adelphoi: “brothers”] and deny it for the singular? (131). ↑

  10. Carson, 44. Carson responds to the claim that masculine pronouns in the Hebrew and Greek must be translated as masculine in English:

    There are countless passages of . . . gender complexity in the Hebrew Old Testament, which cannot be faithfully rendered into English by formal [“literal”] equivalents. So when we are told, in a careful selection of instances, that we must have the masculine pronoun where the Hebrew has the masculine pronoun, or else we are sacrificing or twisting the Word of God, the kindest thing that can be said is that honest concern for the integrity of the Word of God has blinded the critic to two facts:

    (1) the original words of God were (in these cases) in Hebrew, not English; and (2) Hebrew and English do not have the same gender systems. Formal [“literal”] equivalents are often impossible. If in some places formal equivalents are possible, even that does not necessarily mean they are right or best . . .

    In exactly the same way that one cannot responsibly translate a Greek genitive absolute into English as an English genitive absolute because the syntactical structures of the two languages are different, so one cannot responsibly translate all Greek-specified genders into English as corresponding English genders, because the gender system of the two languages is different. . . .

    [T]he argument that attaches a particular formal equivalent in gender assignment to faithfulness to the Word of God is profoundly mistaken in principle. It understands neither translation nor gender systems. (97-98). Dr. Carson is responding to Wayne Grudem’s paper, “What’s Wrong with Gender-Neutral Bible Translations?” (CBMW, 1997). ↑

  11. Source online at http://www.niv-cbt.org/wp-content/uploads/cbt-response-to-cbmw-review.pdf. For examples in Matthew and Romans, see “The Gender-Neutral Language of the English Standard Version (ESV), Compiled by Mark L. Strauss, PhD; online at http://bible-translation.110mb.com/esvlinks.htm ↑

  12. Mark Strauss writes The ESV arose in part as a response against the gender-inclusive language of other versions like the TNIV and the NLT. At the same time, the ESV revisers obviously recognized the major changes in gender-language taking place in English, since they removed the words “man” or “men” 671 times from the RSV! (“Why the English Standard Version (ESV) Should Not Become the Standard English Version,” Available online at: http://zondervan.typepad.com/files/ improvingesv2 .pdf) ↑

  13. Carson, 29. ↑

  14. Carson, 195. ↑

  15. Peter Jones, “The TNIV: Gender Accurate or Ideologically Egalitarian,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 7 (Fall 2002), 18. ↑

  16. Carson, 200. ↑

  17. “A Brief Response from the Committee on Bible Translation to the Review of the updated NIV by the Committee on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood”; online at http://www.niv-cbt.org/wp-content/uploads/cbt-response-to-cbmw-review.pdf. ↑

  18. A brief response from the Committee on Bible Translation to the resolution introduced on the floor of the Southern Baptist Convention regarding the updated New International Version; online at http://www.niv-cbt.org/wp-content/uploads/cbt-response-to-sbc.pdf. ↑

  19. John Piper, “What Does John Piper Think of the TNIV?”; online at http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/what-does-john-piper-think-about-the-tniv. Which is really a critique of “thought for thought” translations, rather than gender-inclusive ones. ↑

  20. J. I. Packer wrote of the NIVi: “Adjustments made by what I call the feminist edition [of the NIV] are not made in the interests of legitimate translation procedure. These changes have been made to pander to a cultural prejudice that I hope will be short-lived.” Quoted by Carson, 31. ↑

  21. John MacArthur, “Assorted Attacks on the Bible”; online at http://www.gty.org/resources/PDF/Sermons/90-320. ↑

  22. For Dr. MacArthur’s rather outlandish accusations regarding “dynamic” translation see section 15.2.D.3. ↑

  23. For a list of the members of the translation teams of the NIV and NLT see sections 15.4.B.1 and 15.4.C. ↑

  24. Carson, 1 ↑

  25. For responses by the translation committee of the updated NIV to their critics in the Southern Baptist Convention and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood see online at: http://www.niv-cbt.org/wp-content/uploads/cbt-response. ↑

  26. As noted above, the translation committee for the NIV update in 2011 used a very extensive study of modern English. The findings included:

    Between 1990 and 2009, instances of masculine generic pronouns [e.g. “he” used to refer to both males and females] . . . expressed as a percentage of total generic pronoun usage in general written English, fell from 22% to 8%. . . . [W]hen . . . referring either to all humans or to smaller subsets of humanity . . . people is by far the most frequent synonym, followed by humans. . . . [M]an and mankind have become steadily less frequent (with some fluctuations) over the 20-year course of the study.

    For the full report see online at http://www.niv-cbt.org/information/ collins-corpus-report/. ↑

  27. Carson, 190. ↑

  28. Ibid., 191. ↑

  29. Grant Osborne, “Do Inclusive-Language Bibles Distort Scripture?” Christianity Today, October 27, 1997. ↑

  30. Carson, 20. Illustrating the rather desperate measures that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood will go to in order to denounce any argument for gender-inclusive translation, James W. Scott argues against Carson’s understanding of the relationship between 2 Samuel 7:14 and 2 Corinthians 6:18. (see online at http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-5-No-1/The-Gender-Inclusive-Apostle).

    The reason for doing so is clear, as Scott himself admits that if Carson’s view were true, “one could hardly argue that gender-inclusive translation undermines the biblical view of gender or is otherwise improper.” The first thing that can be said about Scott’s article is that it is obscure, and rather difficult to make sense of. Secondly, he claims that Paul gets “and daughters” not from adding to 2 Samuel 7:14, but interrupts his obvious quote of 2 Samuel 7:14, and inserts a phrase from Isaiah 43:6. Of course, Scott could find many places in the OT where the phrase “sons and daughters” is used, why choose this one? Again, this simply strikes us as desperation ↑

  31. Wayne Grudem, “What’s Wrong with Gender-Neutral Bible Translations?” (CBMW, 1997), 11. ↑

  32. Dr. Strauss explains:

    One of the most difficult and complex issues related to gender language involves resumptive masculine pronouns. These are pronouns that follow an indefinite noun or pronoun and refer back to it. Consider the following sentence: “If anyone keeps my word, he will never see death” (John 8:51 NIV).

    Although the word “anyone” is generic, referring to either men or women, the resumptive pronoun “he” is masculine. Ideally, it should be neutral to agree with its antecedent “anyone.” But English does not have an inclusive third person singular pronoun (“it” only works for things, not for people). Using “he or she” can be awkward and cumbersome.

    There are several ways to translate the sentence:

    1. Use a masculine pronoun (as above): “If anyone keeps my word, he will not see death.”

    2. Pluralize the construction: “Those who keep my word will not see death.”

    3. Use a singular “they”: “If anyone keeps my word, they will not see death.”

    4. Use a second person: “If you keep my word you will not see death.”

    5. Use a noun instead of a pronoun: “If anyone keeps my word, that person will not see death.”

    6. Modify the construction to eliminate the pronoun: “Whoever keeps my word will not see death.”

    All of these represent accurate translations, since they all express the generic meaning that a person who follows Jesus’ message will not experience spiritual death. Yet all also have some inconsistency. . . . There is no perfect solution and translators must make difficult choices.

    Some opponents of inclusive language claim that only the first option is accurate, since it is the most “literal.” But this is not actually true. In the Greek sentence of John 8:51, there is no masculine pronoun “he.” The verb “will see” is in the third person singular (he, she, it), but verbs in Greek do not specify gender. Even if a masculine pronoun were present, it would not mean “he,” since pronouns get their meaning from the noun or pronoun they replace, in this case “anyone.”

    The important thing to remember is that the meaning, not the form, must be retained in translation. Using a second person (“you” — option 4) works in the example above because in English we often use “you” in generic sentences. . . . Some English stylists consider singular “they” (option 3) to be ungrammatical and warn against its use. Increasingly, however, stylists and English handbooks accept it as legitimate and point to its long and venerable history in the English language . . .

    Most English speakers today would find it awkward to say, “Everybody likes ice cream, doesn’t he?” even though that is grammatically “correct” (according to some grammarians). Instead most people would say: “Everybody likes ice cream, don’t they?” This is a singular “they.” In light of its long history in the English language and growing acceptance as standard English, contemporary English Bible versions have begun to use it more often. . . .

    [Our claim that] pluralizing does not necessarily distort the meaning of the text comes from the Bible itself, since biblical writers sometimes translate masculine singular generics with plural constructions. Consider these examples, where the apostle Paul quotes from the Old Testament: cf. Isa 52:7 with Rom 10:15b; Ps 36:1b with Rom 3:10, 18; Ps 32:1 with Rom 4:6-7).

    In all three cases Paul translated Hebrew singulars with Greek plurals. He clearly recognized that generic plurals in Greek accurately represent the meaning of generic singulars in Hebrew. He changed the form but retained the meaning. Fee, Gordon D.; Strauss, Mark L. (2009-05-19). How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions (Kindle Locations 1683-1702). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

    More specifically, Dr. Carson has commented on this issue:

    [T]he critics [of dynamic translations] seem to assume it is always inappropriate to render a singular [in the original] with a plural [in English]. . . . I do not see how that position can be maintained. . . . One is dealing with systems of language structures; one does not have the right to assume that singular and plural forms function in Hebrew and Greek exactly as they function in English. But even in English we sometimes use the singular generically. . . .

    [E]ven if (and it is a big “if”) the purpose of a singular form is to say something about the individual, if the only corresponding individual expression in English is one that is gender-specific [“he”] and will be read in those parts of the English speaking world where such gender specificity carries overtones of bigotry [which it does in 21st century America], not carried by the donor text, then the responsible translator is faced with an awkward choice: Preserve the singular form and project bigotry [because the use of “he” does not reflect the author’s intention of including more than a male], or go with a plural form [“they”] and [possibly, though not necessarily based on common usage] lose the individual reference. (105-106) ↑

  33. Carson, 206. ↑

  34. Mark Strauss, “Why the English Standard Version (ESV) Should Not Become the Standard English Version,” Available online at:

    http://zondervan.typepad.com/files/improvingesv2.pdf. ↑

  35. Carson, 148-9. For additional corrections that Dr. Carson makes to Drs. Piper’s and Grudem’s criticisms of the NIVi see esp. chapter 7. ↑

  36. Carson, 126-7. ↑

  37. BAGD. ↑

  38. Fee & Strauss, Translation, Kindle Locations 1596-1611. ↑

  39. Carson, 161. ↑

  40. Fee & Strauss, Translation, Kindle Locations 1631-1641. ↑

  41. John MacArthur, MacArthur’s New Testament Commentaries, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM (Parsons Technology, 1997), James 3:1. ↑

  42. Douglas Moo, The Letter of James (TNTC) (Eerdmans, 1985), 119. ↑

  43. Regarding the Bible’s prohibition of women being teaching elders in the Church see section 7.14.G.1. ↑

  44. Fee & Strauss, Translation. ↑

  45. George Knight comments on 2 Timothy 2:2:

    These “faithful” ones were men. Their task was “to teach” an audience that included the entire church, a task forbidden to women because of the men in the audience (1 Tim 2:12; cf. 1 Cor. 14:3ff.). These presbyters/overseers were required to be men in view of their duty to rule over their own households (1 Tim. 3:4-5; cf. Eph. 5:22ff.; 6:4; Col. 3:21). Therefore, anthrōpos is used here, as on occasion elsewhere in the NT (Mt. 19:5; 1 Cor. 7:1; Eph 5:31) and in the LXX (1 Esdras 9:40; Tobit 6:7) and other literature, of “’man, adult male’ . . . in contrast to a woman” (BAGD s.v. 2ba; cf. 2 Tim. 3:8) rather than in its more general sense [“people”]. (The Pastoral Epistles (NIGNT) [Eerdmans, 1992], 391).

    While the egalitarian Gordon Fee uses the NIV text without questioning it, he refers to them as “people” with no argument to support it.

    The best treatment of this text I can find is that of Denny Burk, associate Professor of NT and dean of Boyce College. In his blog entry: “How Should We Identify the Teachers in 2 Tim. 2:2?” he writes:

    Dr. Blomberg’s argument favor of rendering anthrōpois as “people” is illuminating. 2 Timothy 2:2 has not been much of a flashpoint in the gender debate, and there is not much published material on the “men” vs. “people” question. Last week, I made my way through fourteen different commentaries on this verse. Out of the six of them that favored the translation “people,” not a single one of them put forth a sustained argument in favor of that translation. The most they have to offer is the observation that the plural of anthropos is regularly used generically. Thus Blomberg’s earlier post on this site is the most substantial argument in favor of “people” that I have read.

    That being said, I do want to contest Dr. Blomberg’s conclusion that says “people” is “the only legitimate translation” of anthrōpois. It is true that the plural of anthropos is often used generically (e.g., 1 Tim 2:1, 4; 4:10; 6:5; 2 Tim 3:2; Titus 2:11; 3:2), but that fact is no argument for a generic referent in a given context. As Ray Van Neste pointed out in his post, if we want to understand the word’s appearance in 2 Timothy 2:2, we must look to context. So let me make some observations about the context that in my view tip the scales decisively in favor of the translation “men.”

    First, there is precedent in the pastorals for Paul’s use of plural anthropos in a gender-specific way. In 2 Timothy 3:8, for instance, Paul writes, “Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth—men [anthrōpoi] of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.” The anthrōpoi here must be men since they are “worming their way into women’s homes” (Mounce, Pastoral Eptistles, p. 550).

    If this is correct, then the anthrōpoiof both 3:2 and 3:13 should be understood as males as well. Consider also the anthrōpoi of 1 Timothy 5:24: “The sins of some men are quite evident, going before them to judgment; for others, their sins follow after.”In context, Paul is telling Timothy to be careful about whom he appoints as elders (v. 5:22: “Do not lay hands on a man too quickly”). Since Paul held to an all male eldership (1 Timothy 2:12; 3:2), the anthrōpoi of 5:24 must also be males. Given Paul’s use of anthrōpoi in a gender-specific way both in the pastorals and elsewhere (e.g., 1 Corinthians 7:7), we have to allow for the possibility that context can determine anthrōpoi with a masculine referent.

    Second, in the context of 2 Timothy 2, Paul is telling Timothy to entrust the gospel to faithful anthrōpoi who will be able to teach others (2:2). Notice the one qualification that Paul has for the anthrōpoi. They must be qualified to teach “others.” This is significant because “others” is a masculine plural pronoun [ἑτέρους]. That means that “others” would consist of both men and women or of men only. Since Paul has already prohibited women from teaching Christian doctrine to men (1 Timothy 2:12), women would not be qualified to teach “others.”

    Thus, when Paul employs anthrōpoi here, he certainly has in mind males only. Contextually speaking, anthrōpoi must be gender-specific in this text. It seems that Paul wishes to emphasize the special responsibility that qualified men have to pass the faith on to the next generation.

    With this interpretation in mind, we are in a position to answer the Blomberg’s arguments in favor of “people.”

    1. Blomberg argues that “people” is a grammatical “slam dunk” because the plural of anthropos is “regularly” used in a gender-inclusive way. Nevertheless, the regular use of anthropos in a gender-inclusive way is not an argument for its meaning in a given context. Gender-specific uses of anthropos are also within the term’s range of possible meanings, so the argument for “people” has to be developed within the context of 2 Timothy (and the other pastorals). I do not think Blomberg has provided such an argument yet.

    2. Blomberg argues that translating anthropois as “people” would not “infringe on those restrictions” Paul set up to prohibit women from teaching men. The problem with this argument is twofold. First, the term “others” is masculine plural, so the teaching of both men and women is in view. Thus, Blomberg cannot placate complementarian concerns with the suggestion that only the teaching of women and children is in view. Second, most English readers will read “people” in a gender-inclusive way. If Paul did not intend to be gender-inclusive in this text, why obscure the point for English readers?

    3. Blomberg says that the translation “faithful men” will be heard by most readers as gender-specific, not as gender-inclusive. In this context, he is certainly right about this. But those who favor the translation “faithful men” do not do so because they believe “men” to be gender-inclusive. On the contrary, they favor “men” because they believe males are in view.

    4. Blomberg also mentions his experience in parachurch organizations for whom this text is a staple. In those organizations, this text is a touchstone for understanding the organic disciple-making process that is incumbent upon all Christians, both men and women. I would argue that such organizations can still access this text in support of such disciple-making ministries. But when they do so, they should find that support in a legitimate implication of the text, not as Paul’s original meaning. In context, Paul is addressing the special responsibilities of church leadership who are supposed to be examples to the rest of the flock (1 Timothy 4:12; Titus 2:7).

    Finally, let me offer a word about how this text has been rendered in the NIV and its revisions since 1984.

    Only one word has been changed in this verse from the 1984 NIV to the 2010 revision. “Men” has changed to “people.” The initial change occurred in TNIV 2002, and a marginal note was added to give the alternate interpretation from the NIV 1984. In the TNIV 2005 and in the NIV 2010, there is no indication in the notes at all about another possible interpretation of this text.

    If my interpretation is correct, then anthrōpois should be rendered as “men” in the text of NIV 2011. Short of that, the marginal note that appeared in TNIV 2002 should be restored to show that there is another possible translation of the text. (online at http://www.biblegateway.com/perspectives-in-translation/2010/12/how-should-we-identify-the-teachers-in-2-tim-22-denny-burk/). ↑

  46. Regarding interpreters that take advantage of the ambiguity in the NIV translation of 1 Timothy 2:12 in order to support egalitarianism and Paul’s approval of women exercising authority over men in the church, see “Assuming Too Much about “Assume” in 1 Timothy 2:12” by Kevin DeYoung at:

    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2010/12/07/assuming-too-much-about-assume-in-1-timothy-212/. ↑

  47. Craig Blomberg, “NIV Translator’s Notes”; online at http://www.niv-cbt.org/wp-content/uploads/Translation-Notes-Final1.pdf ↑

  48. Douglas Moo, online at: http://www.biblegateway.com/perspectives-in-translation/2010/11/whats-the-best-way-to-describe-the-authority-problem-in-1-tim-212-douglas-j-moo/. ↑

  49. George Knight, New Testament Studies, 30 (1984), 143-157. ↑

  50. Knight, Pastorals, 141. I. H. Marshall has argued that “recent research . . . has produced over 300 uses of the word-group” even “to commit murder.” (The Pastoral Epistles [T & T Clark, 1999], 456). In our opinion, it is because such a study expands its scope to include seemingly related words, that it can bend the meaning to their will. Dr. Moo answers:

    The verb translated in the NIV “have authority” (authentein) has generated a great deal of discussion. We will confine ourselves to three points that we think are most important.

    First, the frequent appeal to etymology-the roots that make up the word-in explaining this word is understandable, given the limited number of relevant occurrences [of the actual word], but must always remain a precarious basis for conclusions. Not only is the etymology of the word debated, but also the usage of words often departs, in unpredictable ways, from their etymological meaning (e.g., the word butterfly).

    Second, the occurrences of this word-the verb-that are closest in time and nature to 1 Timothy mean “have authority over” or “dominate” (in the neutral sense of “have dominion over,” not in the negative sense “lord it over”].”

    Third, the objection that, had Paul wanted to say “exercise authority,” he would have used the word exousiazo’? does not bear up under scrutiny. Paul’s three other uses of that verb hardly put it in the category of his standard vocabulary, and the vocabulary of the pastoral epistles is well known to be distinct from Paul’s vocabulary elsewhere. For these reasons, we think the translation “have authority over” is the best English rendering of this word.

    Again, we must ask the question of application. What kind of modern church practice would Paul be prohibiting to women in saying they are not to have authority over a man? . . . Clearly, then, Paul’s prohibition of women’s having authority over a man would exclude a woman from becoming an elder in the way this office is described in the pastoral epistles.

    By extension, then, women would be debarred from occupying whatever position in a given local church would be equivalent to the pastoral epistles’ governing elder (many churches, for instance, call these people deacons). This would be the case even if a woman’s husband were to give her permission to occupy such a position, for Paul’s concern is not with a woman’s acting independently of her husband or usurping his authority but with the woman’s exercising authority in the church over any man. (“What Does it Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?,” in Rediscovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, John Piper and Wayne Grudem, ed. (Crossway, 1991), 186-7. ↑

  51. Also see Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11-15” (Ch 12) by Linda L. Belleville; online at http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-10-No-1/Teaching-and-Usurping-Authority-1-Timothy-2-11-15-Ch-12-by-Linda-L-Belleville ↑

  52. William Mounce, The Pastoral Epistles (WBC) (Thomas Nelson, 2000), 130. See also 120-30, esp. 124-26 and 128-30. ↑

  53. Rediscovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, John Piper and Wayne Grudem, ed. (Crossway, 1991), xv. See Douglas Moo, “What Does it Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?,” 179-193. ↑