The goal of a Bible translation is simple to say and hard to do: carry the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek into English as faithfully as possible.
So when people argue about “gender-inclusive” Bibles, the real question isn’t whether inclusion is a nice idea. The real question is: who did the original text include?
Three terms, defined
- Gender-accurate: the English includes women where the Hebrew or Greek includes women, and keeps male language where the original is specifically male. The goal is accuracy, in both directions.
- Gender-inclusive: often used to mean the same thing. It’s also the label applied to translations like the NRSV and the 2011 NIV.
- “Gender-neutral”: the label critics use to suggest translators are erasing gender from the Bible.
So accuracy and inclusion aren’t opposites. When the original includes women, an accurate translation will too.
Accuracy cuts both ways
Here’s the part of this debate that rarely gets said. A gender-accurate translation doesn’t put women everywhere. It follows the Greek.
- When the Greek includes women, the English should too. In Philippians 4:1, Paul addresses his adelphoi. In the very next verse, he names two women in that church, Euodia and Syntyche. Adelphoi means brothers and sisters.
- When the Greek means men, the English should say men. In Acts 1:16, when Peter speaks only to the men, the Greek adds the word andres, “men,” to adelphoi. When the biblical writers meant men only, they had a way to say so.
- Greek has two different words. Anthrōpos means a human being, a person. Anēr means a male. In 1 Timothy 2:8, Paul uses anēr for men praying. In 2 Timothy 2:2, he uses anthrōpos for the faithful people who will teach others. Many English Bibles translate both as “men,” and the difference disappears.
That’s what accuracy looks like: not adding women, and not removing them, but translating what’s there.
Examples
1. Adelphoi: “brothers” or “brothers and sisters”
| Translation | Philippians 4:1 |
|---|---|
| KJV (1611) | “my brethren” |
| ESV (2001) | “my brothers” (footnote: or brothers and sisters) |
| NIV (2011) | “my brothers and sisters” |
| NRSVue | “my brothers and sisters” |
Even the ESV, which keeps “brothers” in its text, admits in its footnote that the plural can mean brothers and sisters.
2. “Man” and “mankind” for all people
In Genesis 1:27, the Hebrew word is ‘adam, humanity: “God created ‘adam in his own image… male and female he created them.” Translating it “man” was natural English in 1611. Today, many readers hear “man” as male. “Humankind” or “human beings” says what the Hebrew says.
3. “He” or “they” for anyone
This is the most debated change. In Revelation 3:20, Jesus says that if anyone opens the door, he will come in and eat with that person. The ESV keeps the traditional “him” and “he.” The NIV says “they.” The Greek uses a masculine singular, but the verse is about anyone, and English speakers have used singular “they” for anyone for centuries. The goal is the same: make sure the reader knows the invitation is for them.
A short history
- 1611, King James Version: “brethren” and “man” were ordinary English for a whole congregation or for humanity.
- 20th century: English changed. “Brethren,” “brothers,” and “men” came to sound male-only to most readers.
- 1989, NRSV: one of the first major English Bibles to translate adelphoi “brothers and sisters” where the context includes women.
- 1997, Colorado Springs Guidelines: a statement signed at Focus on the Family’s headquarters said “brothers” should generally not become “brothers and sisters,” and “man” should be kept for the human race.
- 2001, ESV: kept “brothers” in the text and moved “brothers and sisters” to a footnote.
- 2011, NIV: “brothers and sisters” in the text.
The early translators weren’t setting out to remove women. English shifted, and a word meant to include women became one that excluded them. Some later translations chose to keep it that way.
Paul widened the promise
Paul cared about who was included, and you can see it in how he quoted Scripture.
In 2 Samuel 7:14, God makes a promise about David’s son: “I will be his father, and he will be my son.” When Paul draws on that promise in 2 Corinthians 6:18, he writes: “I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters.” He likely had Isaiah 43:6 in mind too, where God gathers “my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth.”
Paul took a promise spoken to one son and opened it to every son and daughter. He also wrote that in Christ there is “neither male nor female, for you are all one” (Galatians 3:28).
Why it matters
When a translation says “brothers” where Paul meant brothers and sisters, women read themselves out of letters that were written to them. When it says “faithful men” where Paul said faithful people, a verse about who can teach becomes a verse about who can’t.
And for many younger readers, especially women, a Bible that sounds like it was written only to men becomes a reason to stop reading it.
The Bible includes women because the Hebrew and Greek include women. A translation that’s accurate will too.
Don’t take my word for it. Pick a verse that says “brothers” or “men,” and look up the Greek.
See it for yourself on the wiki: adelphoi and anthrōpos. Then bring your questions to the free Ezer Bible Study Community.y.
