Few questions in modern Bible translation have caused as much argument as this one: when the Hebrew or Greek uses a masculine word for people in general, what should English say?

The question is narrower than it sounds. It is not about language for God, which all the translations discussed here leave masculine. It is about words for human beings, such as the Greek adelphoi (“brothers”), anthropos (“man,” “human being”) and the habit, shared by Greek, Hebrew and older English, of using “he” for “anyone.” It is also a question on which careful, believing scholars have reached opposite conclusions.

Three kinds of words

Brothers. Paul often addresses his readers as adelphoi. The word is the plural of “brother,” but Greek used the masculine plural for mixed groups, and standard lexicons recognise that it can mean “brothers and sisters.” Paul’s letters were read to whole congregations, and some of the people he greets were women. The American Standard Version reads:

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service. (Romans 12:1, ASV)

Man. Greek distinguishes aner, a male or husband, from anthropos, a human being, though anthropos is grammatically masculine and can refer to a man. Hebrew adam likewise means both “human being” and “humankind.” In older English, “man” did the same work, as in “Man shall not live by bread alone” (Matthew 4:4, World English Bible).

He. Greek often says “if anyone...” and then continues with masculine pronouns. Traditional English did the same:

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. (Revelation 3:20, King James Version)

The question is whether modern English readers still hear “brethren,” “man” and “he” as including women, and if not, what to do about it.

An older practice than it seems

Translators did not start adjusting gender language in the twentieth century. The Greek of Matthew 5:9 says the peacemakers will be called huioi, “sons,” of God. The American Standard Version says “sons of God”; the King James Version, three centuries earlier, already said “the children of God,” and so does the World English Bible. Translators have always had to decide when a masculine word in one language is best rendered by a neutral one in another. What changed in the late twentieth century was English itself, and the scale of the question.

The NRSV and the inclusive approach

The first major committee translation to address the question systematically was the New Revised Standard Version of 1989, sponsored by the National Council of Churches. The committee, chaired by Bruce Metzger, was instructed to remove masculine-oriented language for people where the original meant both sexes, so far as this could be done without distorting passages that reflect the historical situation of the ancient world.

In practice the NRSV renders adelphoi as “brothers and sisters” where the whole church is meant, often uses “one” or “person” for anthropos, and avoids generic “he,” frequently by turning singulars into plurals. Its Psalm 1 begins with a plural, “Happy are those,” where the King James Version has “Blessed is the man.” Its John 14:23 begins “Those who love me” where the World English Bible has “If a man loves me, he will keep my word.” Most mainline Protestant churches, many Catholic scholars and much of the academic world welcomed the change (see The NRSV and the NRSVue).

Critics noticed what the plurals cost. Psalm 1 describes one person standing apart from the crowd; a plural blurs the picture of the individual. Psalm 8:4 asks what “man” and “the son of man” are, and Hebrews 2:6–9 quotes the psalm and applies it to Jesus. The NRSV renders the psalm as a question about “human beings” and “mortals,” and critics argued that this loosened the link the letter to the Hebrews draws. Defenders replied that the psalm’s own subject is humanity, and that Hebrews’ argument depends on that.

The NIVI and the Colorado Springs Guidelines

The New International Version, the best-selling evangelical Bible, followed with a cautious step. In Britain, Hodder & Stoughton published an NIV Inclusive Language Edition in 1996, prepared by the NIV’s Committee on Bible Translation. When the American magazine World reported in 1997 that a similar revision was planned for the United States, a storm followed among American evangelicals.

On 27 May 1997, a group met at the headquarters of Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, including representatives of the International Bible Society, which held the NIV’s copyright, and of its publisher, Zondervan. The same day the International Bible Society announced that it had abandoned plans for gender-related changes to future editions of the NIV. The group issued what became known as the Colorado Springs Guidelines, a set of rules for gender language in translation. They held, among other things, that generic “he” should generally be kept, that “man” should normally be used for the human race in passages such as Genesis 1:26–27, and that singulars should not be turned into plurals to avoid masculine pronouns. They allowed “anyone” for the Greek tis and “person” or “people” where the original word is neutral.

The guidelines had wide support among conservative evangelicals, especially those associated with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Others questioned their authority. The Committee on Bible Translation did not consider itself bound by them, and evangelical scholars such as D. A. Carson and Mark Strauss wrote books criticising the guidelines and defending gender-inclusive renderings in principle, while not endorsing every example.

The TNIV controversy

In 2002 the International Bible Society and Zondervan published the New Testament of Today’s New International Version, followed by the complete Bible in 2005. It adopted many gender-inclusive renderings, alongside other updates. The Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution against it in 2002, and LifeWay, the denomination’s bookseller, declined to stock it. About a hundred evangelical leaders signed a statement, issued through the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, saying they could not commend it to the church. Others, including many evangelical biblical scholars, defended it as accurate and clear. Sales were modest, and in 2009 Zondervan and Biblica announced that both the TNIV and the 1984 NIV would be replaced by a single revised NIV.

The NIV 2011

The NIV 2011 was the Committee on Bible Translation’s attempt at a settlement. Rather than rely on its members’ impressions of English, the committee worked with Collins Dictionaries to study gender language in a database of more than four billion words of contemporary English. It reported that generic “man” and “he” had declined sharply, and that singular “they” (“if anyone... they”) had become ordinary in both spoken and written English.

On that basis the NIV 2011 kept many of the TNIV’s changes, reverted some to the 1984 wording, and handled others differently. It renders adelphoi as “brothers and sisters” where the whole church is addressed, with a footnote at the first occurrence in a book explaining that the Greek word refers to believers, men and women alike. At Revelation 3:20 it uses singular “they”: Jesus will eat with “that person, and they with me.”

Reaction was again divided. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood judged that about three-quarters of the gender renderings it had objected to in the TNIV remained, and the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution against the NIV 2011 as well. Other evangelicals welcomed it as careful and readable, and it remains one of the best-selling English Bibles.

The ESV and the CSB

The English Standard Version (2001) was partly a response to this debate. Its preface says that in gender language it aims to render literally what is in the original. It keeps “man” and generic “he” where the original has corresponding forms, and uses “brothers” for adelphoi, with a footnote explaining that the word may include sisters. Where the Greek or Hebrew word itself is neutral, such as tis, it uses “anyone.” Supporters see this as transparent: the reader meets the text’s own form and can interpret it. Critics argue that it leaves readers unsure whether women are included, which the original audience would not have been.

The Christian Standard Bible (2017), revising the Holman Christian Standard Bible, took a middle path. It uses “brothers and sisters” for adelphoi where context shows that both are meant, but keeps more singular forms and generic “he” than the NIV 2011. It too has been criticised from both sides: by some for adopting “brothers and sisters,” by others for not going further.

Romans 16:7: Junia

One verse shows how gender language can involve a question of text and meaning, not only style. In Romans 16:7 Paul greets Andronicus and Iounian, who are “of note” in connection with the apostles. Two questions arise.

The first is the name. Early Greek manuscripts were written without accents, and the accusative form could come either from the woman’s name Junia, which is common in Latin inscriptions, or from a man’s name Junias, which has not been found anywhere. Early Christian writers, including John Chrysostom, read it as a woman. From the thirteenth Nestle edition of 1927 until the late 1990s, however, the standard Greek editions accented it as masculine, and many translations followed. The ASV reads “Junias,” as do Young’s Literal Translation, the RSV and the NASB 1995. The King James Version, the World English Bible and the Berean Standard Bible read “Junia”:

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow countrymen and fellow prisoners. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. (Romans 16:7, Berean Standard Bible)

The standard Greek editions changed to the feminine in printings from 1998. Eldon Jay Epp’s Junia: The First Woman Apostle (2005) traced the history and argued that the masculine form owed more to assumptions about who could be an apostle than to evidence. Most modern translations, including the NRSV, NIV 2011, ESV and CSB, now read “Junia.”

The second question is the phrase. Does it mean that Andronicus and Junia were prominent among the apostles, so that they were themselves apostles in the wider sense of travelling missionaries, or that they were well known to the apostles? In 2001 Michael Burer and Daniel Wallace argued from Greek usage for the second reading, and the ESV adopted “well known to the apostles”; the CSB’s “noteworthy in the eyes of the apostles” is similar. The NRSV (“prominent among the apostles”) and the NIV 2011 (“outstanding among the apostles”) take the first view, as do the World English Bible and Berean Standard Bible. Epp, Linda Belleville and others have argued that the evidence supports “among.” The disagreement is about grammar and meaning, and it is still open.

The arguments, fairly stated

Those who favour inclusive renderings argue that:

  • Translation is about meaning, and where the original includes women, an English rendering that sounds male-only is less accurate, not more.
  • English has changed. Many readers, especially younger ones, no longer hear “man” or “he” as including everyone.
  • The original audiences would have understood adelphoi to include the women in the congregation, so “brothers and sisters” reproduces what they heard.

Those who favour traditional renderings argue that:

  • Changing singulars to plurals, or “he” to “you” or “they,” can blur the individual focus of a text and the way Scripture moves between the one and the many.
  • Some masculine forms may carry meaning, as in the “son of man” language of Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2, and translators should not remove features the reader can interpret.
  • Generic “he” and “man” are still understood by many readers, and changing them risks translating with an eye on cultural trends.

Both sides agree that language for God should not change, that named men and women should not be altered, and that where the original clearly means males, English should say so. The disagreement is about the large middle ground.

How Open Word Bible handles it

Open Word Bible separates the meaning question from the wording question. Where its meaning decisions conclude that a word refers to men and women alike, the English offers a reader setting: inclusive by default (“brothers and sisters”), with the traditional form (“brothers”) as an option (see Settings change wording, never meaning). Language for God, Christ and named men is never part of the setting. Questions of meaning, such as Junia’s name and whether she and Andronicus were “among” the apostles, are not settings; its draft of Romans 16:7, translated from the SBL Greek New Testament, records its choice and the alternatives with their reasons, and a footnote. Like all its drafts, this one is AI-assisted and awaits review by named human reviewers.

Sources

  • Carson, D. A. The Inclusive-Language Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.
  • Poythress, Vern S., and Wayne A. Grudem. The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God’s Words. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000.
  • Strauss, Mark L. Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation and Gender Accuracy. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998.
  • Epp, Eldon Jay. Junia: The First Woman Apostle. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.
  • Burer, Michael H., and Daniel B. Wallace. “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7.” New Testament Studies 47 (2001): 76–91.
  • Committee on Bible Translation. “Updating the New International Version of the Bible: Notes from the Committee on Bible Translation.” 2010.
  • Metzger, Bruce M. “To the Reader.” Preface to the New Revised Standard Version. National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, 1989.
  • Fee, Gordon D., and Mark L. Strauss. How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.
  • Bible quotations are from the World English Bible (public domain), except where the article quotes the King James Version, American Standard Version or Berean Standard Bible.