Wayne Grudem and Grant Osborne are friends. And they strongly disagree about the desirability of having gender-inclusive versions of the Bible.
Both possess degrees in New Testament from respected institutions (Cambridge and Aberdeen, respectively). Both hold professorships at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, one of our leading seminaries. Both have written significant textbooks in their fields (Grudem on systematic theology, Osborne on hermeneutics), published by leading evangelical presses. And yet one says “he” when the other says “they.”
Grudem is the president of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, a group that lobbies for male headship in gender relationships for church and home. He was active in the successful effort to oppose the plans for producing an inclusive edition of the New International Version. (See CT News, June 16, 1997, p. 52.)
Osborne is on the translation team for the New Living Translation, which revised the Living Bible by making it more accurate and consistently gender inclusive. Osborne, as well as the majority of the biblical scholars at Trinity, feels gender inclusivity, as a translation strategy, actually makes our English Bibles clearer and more accurate.
In the following pages they present their best arguments for their positions and, in the responses that follow, point out the weaknesses in the other’s position. Throughout they model how to be passionate about what you believe while recognizing that those with whom you disagree are also sincere Christians. You, the reader, may be persuaded by one or the other author, but no one should be tempted to label the other side “the enemy.” While Grudem and Osborne disagree, they are still friends.
Wayne Grudem: YES The publicity brochure of the New Revised Standard Version sounds so sensible. At last, we are told, misleading masculine-oriented language has been removed from the Bible. Jesus no longer says, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself” (RSV), but instead, “And I … will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32, NRSV).
This is an improvement: the word men is not specified by the Greek text, and all people is a faithful rendering of the Greek pronoun pas. Changes like this use gender-neutral language without sacrificing accuracy in translation. In addition, the NRSV has not gone as far as some people wanted, because it still calls God “Father” (not “Parent”), for example, and calls Jesus the “Son of God” (not “child of God”)—probably in large measure due to the conservative influence of the chairman of the NRSV translation committee, evangelical New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger.
But there are many other changes that should cause evangelicals much concern. The translators consistently disregarded precise, grammatically correct English equivalents and resorted to gender-neutral paraphrases. The preface explains that the copyright holder (the Division of Education and Ministry of the National Council of Churches of Christ) required that “masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture.” The NRSV in 1989 was the first major gender-neutral translation, but many have followed: the New Living Translation (NLT), the New Century Version (NCV), the Contemporary English Version (CEV), and (in England only) the New International Version-Inclusive Language Edition (NIVI). I have based this analysis on the NRSV as the foundational gender-neutral Bible, and compared it to the NLT, NCV, CEV, and NIVI at key points.
SINGULARS TO PLURALS The translators of the NRSV found the little word he especially troubling. We can appreciate the difficulty they encountered in a verse such as John 14:23: “Jesus answered him, ‘If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him’ ” (RSV).
There would be no problem in beginning the sentence, “If anyone loves me … ” because the Greek pronoun tis does not specify a man. But then how can we finish the sentence? One might use “he or she” in some cases, but it would soon become exceptionally awkward. The NRSV changed the singulars to plurals. “Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them and we will come to them and make our home with them.”
The problem is that Jesus did not speak with plural pronouns here; he used singulars. Jesus wanted to specify that he and the Father would come and dwell with an individual believer. But the NRSV has lost that emphasis, because the plurals “those” and “them” indicate a group of people—perhaps a church. The words of Jesus have been unnecessarily changed in translation, and the meaning is different. This is what the NRSV preface says are the “paraphrastic renderings” required in dealing with gender-related language, and the preface rightly sets these in contrast to the rest of the NRSV, which is called “essentially a literal translation.” The rejection of generic “he, him, his” obscures the personal application of Scripture in many other verses, such as “I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me” (Rev. 3:20, where three Greek pronouns are masculine singular). The NRSV changes this to, “I will come in to you and eat with you, and you with me,” but “you” in context refers to the whole church, and individual application of a familiar verse is lost. It is also lost in the NLT, NCV, CEV, and NIVI, which replace he with they.
There is a messianic prediction in Psalm 34:20: “He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken” (RSV). John’s gospel refers to this (and probably Exod. 12:46) with respect to Jesus’ death: “For these things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled, ‘Not a bone of him shall be broken’ ” (19:36, RSV). But the NRSV, NLT, NCV, CEV, and NIVI will not allow such a prediction about an individual man in Psalm 34, so the prediction is plural: “He keeps all their bones; not one of them will be broken” (NRSV). The individuality of the messianic prediction, so wonderfully fulfilled in Jesus’ death, is lost to readers, even though the prediction is singular (his bones ) in Hebrew.
How often are singulars changed to plurals? The words they, them, their, those occur 1,732 more times in the NRSV than in the RSV. Why? There have been no new archaeological discoveries, no changes in our knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, no ancient texts discovered that make us put plural pronouns instead of singular ones in these places. The changes have been made because the NRSV translators were told to remove masculine-oriented language from the Bible. This systematic change from singulars to plurals is a substantial alteration in the flavor and tone of the entire Bible, with a significant loss in the Bible’s emphasis on God relating directly to a specific, individual person.
Most readers of gender-neutral Bibles will think the plurals were in the original, and they will interpret and teach these passages accordingly. But these plurals were not what God’s Word itself said. Since “all Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16), and “every word of God proves true” (Prov. 30:5), we must conclude that God caused singular pronouns to be used in each of these places for his own purposes, and, if there is any way to translate them as singulars in legitimate English today, we are not at liberty to change them to plurals in translation.
RENAMING MAN The creation narratives tell us that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27, RSV). This name man is even more explicit in Genesis 5:2: “Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created” (RSV).
The name man is placed on both male and female, as together they constitute the human race. The translation man is accurate, because the Hebrew word ‘adam is also used to refer to Adam in particular, and it is sometimes used to refer to man in distinction from woman (see Gen 2:25, “The man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed”). The English word man most accurately translates ‘adam because it is the only word we have that has those same two meanings (the human race or a male human being). We can conclude from this usage of ‘adam that it is not wrong, insensitive, or discourteous to use the same word to refer to male human beings in particular and to name the human race. God himself does this in his Word.
But in the NRSV the name man has disappeared: “So God created humankind in his image” (Gen. 1:27). And God is suddenly found to give a different name to the race: “Male and female he created them, and he … named them ‘Humankind’ when they were created” (Gen. 5:2, NRSV). (The NCV, CEV, and NIVI have human beings here, and the NLT has human. )
The problem is that humankind, human beings, and human are not names that can refer to man in distinction from woman, and thus they are less accurate translations of ‘adam than the word man. The male overtones of the Hebrew word are lost.
The name given to a person or a thing has great significance in the Bible. The names of God tell us much about his nature (“I Am Who I Am,” “God Most High,” “the Lord of Hosts”). The names of God’s people are often changed (Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel) to signify a different status or character. Similarly, the name that God gives to the human race is significant. The word man for the whole human race suggests some male headship in the race. God did not name the race with a Hebrew term that corresponds to our word woman, nor did he choose (or devise) some “gender neutral” term without male overtones. He named the race with a Hebrew term that most closely corresponds to our English word man.
Then why not translate it man? Apparently such a precise English equivalent was thought “patriarchal.” The preface to the NIVI explains that “it was often appropriate to mute the patriarchalism of the culture of the biblical writers through gender-inclusive language when this could be done without compromising the message of the Spirit” (p. vii). The sentence implies that there is some “patriarchalism” in the text that is not part of the “message of the Spirit.” These “patriarchal” elements can be muted, and the message of the Spirit, apparently, is not harmed. But what if these very same “patriarchal” elements in Scripture are part of what the Holy Spirit intended to be there? If we hold to the absolute divine authority of every word of Scripture, then we should not seek to mute any content that the Holy Spirit caused to be there.
FATHERS, SONS, AND BROTHERS A computer analysis can show us the extent of other word changes, at least for the NRSV. The word father (including plural and possessive forms) occurs 601 fewer times in the NRSV than in the RSV. The word son occurs 181 fewer times (including the loss of son of man 106 times in the Old Testament). The word brother occurs 71 fewer times. Coupled with the loss of he, him, his (3,408 times where it is dropped or changed to you or we or they ) and the loss of man (over 300 times where it is changed to human or mortal, mortals ), this drive for gender-neutral language has resulted in unnecessary introductions of inaccuracy in over 4,500 places in the Bible.
Why do I say inaccuracy? Because we have gained no new knowledge of Hebrew or Greek that would so fundamentally change our understanding of the common Hebrew and Greek terms that have always been translated father, son, brother, man, he, him, his, and so on. It is rather that these terms have now been thought unacceptable or “patriarchal.”
NEUTERING SPECIFIC MEN The Greek word aner is used when an author wants to specify a man or men in distinction from a woman or women. Surprisingly, the NRSV several times avoids translating even this word as man or men. For example, though the Greek text explicitly says that Judas Barsabbas and Silas were “leading men” sent from the Jerusalem council, the NRSV changes this to “leaders” (Acts 15:22). Similarly, we know that only men were elders at Ephesus, so it made sense that Paul warned, “From among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things,” but the NRSV neuters these men, calling them simply “some” (Acts 20:30). (The NLT, NCV, CEV, and NIVI translate all three of those verses in gender-neutral ways.)
Such changes indicate an antipathy toward the word man, even when the original text had the male-specific term aner.
Another Greek term, anthropos, can mean either man or person, depending on the context. But the NRSV often refused to translate it man or men even when that sense was clear. For example, the RSV rightly says that the Old Testament high priest was chosen “from among men” (Heb. 5:1), but the NRSV changes it to “from among mortals”—for what purpose? No woman could be a high priest in the Old Testament.
Even Jesus is not exempt from the NRSV’s aversion to calling a man a man. Where the RSV had “As by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor. 15:21), the NRSV says, “Since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being” (1 Cor. 15:21). This is theologically important: the representative headship of Adam and Christ as men is omitted. Similarly, the one mediator between God and man is changed from “the man Christ Jesus” in the RSV to “Christ Jesus, himself human” (1 Tim. 2:5) in the NRSV. (The NLT has man in both of these verses; the NCV has man in one verse; but the NIVI and CEV omit man from both verses.)
Part one of four parts; click here to read part two.
Copyright © 1997 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
