Gender language in English Bibles: what changed and who says what
What the gender-language question is and is not, how it reached English Bibles from 1989 to today, what each major translation does, and the positions on each side, attributed.
Preparado por Equipe editorial do Christian Rated
Revisão externa pendente · Este guia ainda não tem uma revisão externa concluída.
Since the late 1980s English Bible translations have differed over one question: when the original text uses a masculine word for a group or a person that includes women, should the English do the same? This guide says what the question is, what changed and when, what each major translation does, and who says what. It takes no side, and no number on this site is about it.
What the question is, and is not
It is about language for people. Greek adelphoi, literally “brothers”, is used of mixed groups. Greek anthropos and Hebrew adam mean a human being. Older English used “man”, “he” and “brethren” for all of these, as the Greek and Hebrew do. Current English often does not. A translation must decide, verse by verse, whether to keep the masculine form or to render the reference.
It is not about language for God. Every major English translation keeps “Father”, “Son” and “he” for God, and the committees on all sides say so.
Three examples show the range. Matthew 4:19 is “fishers of men” in the KJV and ESV and “fish for people” in the NIV 2011. Psalm 1:1 is “Blessed is the man” in the ESV and “Blessed is the one” in the NIV 2011. Romans 12:1 is “brothers” in the ESV, with a footnote offering “brothers and sisters”, and “brothers and sisters” in the NIV, CSB and NLT.
What changed, and when
The New Revised Standard Version (1989) was the first widely used translation to adopt inclusive language for people as a policy, stated in its preface. In 1996 Hodder & Stoughton published an inclusive-language NIV in Britain. The response in the United States led to the Colorado Springs Guidelines of 1997, drafted at a meeting convened by Focus on the Family with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and to a pledge by the NIV’s sponsor not to publish an inclusive edition in the United States.
That pledge was withdrawn in 2002, when Today’s New International Version appeared, with the full Bible in 2005. In 2011 the Committee on Bible Translation published a revised NIV that replaced both the 1984 text and the TNIV. The committee commissioned a study of English usage from Collins Dictionaries, drawing on a large corpus of current English, to decide which forms readers now use for people in general. The 2011 text uses “brothers and sisters”, “people” and in some places a singular “they”.
Other translations took their own routes. The ESV (2001) keeps “brothers” and “man” in most places and footnotes the inclusive sense. The CSB (2017) uses “brothers and sisters” where the committee judges the context includes women, and says it does not use gender-neutral language for God. The NASB 2020 added “brothers and sisters” in such contexts, with “and sisters” in italics to mark the addition. The NLT uses inclusive language for people. The KJV and NKJV keep the older forms. The NRSV Updated Edition (2021) continues the NRSV’s policy.
Who says what
The Committee on Bible Translation says the 2011 NIV reflects how English is now used for people in general, that the changes were made on the evidence of the usage study, and that language about God is unchanged.
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood says the 2011 text changes meaning in some passages, especially where a singular is rendered as a plural or as “they”, and objects to specific renderings, among them 1 Timothy 2:12. Its 2011 evaluation concluded that it could not commend the translation.
The Southern Baptist Convention adopted a resolution in June 2011 saying it could not commend the 2011 NIV and asking its publishing arm not to sell it. The resolution is listed under institutional positions on the NIV’s page, with a source and a fetched date.
Crossway says the ESV keeps “brothers” because the Greek word is masculine and the inclusive sense is clear from context, and provides the footnote so the reader sees both.
Holman says the CSB’s rendering of adelphoi as “brothers and sisters” follows the referent in context and is not a gender-neutral approach.
The Lockman Foundation says the NASB 2020 marks “and sisters” in italics so that the reader can see what the Greek has and what was supplied.
On a translation’s page these positions appear in the Disputes and context panel, attributed, and we take no side there either.
What this site records
The spec sheet on every translation has a “Gender language” row quoting the publisher’s own description with a source and a fetched date. The Disputes panel describes the dispute with each position attributed. None of it is scored. The literal-to-idiomatic meter records how a translation felt to readers, not whether its gender renderings are right.
Sources
The NIV 2011 preface and the Committee on Bible Translation’s statement on gender language. Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, An Evaluation of Gender Language in the 2011 Edition of the NIV Bible (2011). Southern Baptist Convention, resolution “On the Gender-Neutral 2011 New International Version” (June 2011). The Colorado Springs Guidelines (1997). The NRSV preface “To the Reader”. The ESV preface. Holman Bible Publishers, on the CSB’s translation philosophy. The Lockman Foundation, on the NASB 2020.