Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 84:1 (Spring 2022)
Article: Gender-Neutral Bible Translations, Some Twenty Years Later
Author: Vern Sheridan Poythress

WTJ 84:1 (Spring 2022) p. 51

Gender-Neutral Bible Translations, Some Twenty Years Later

Vern S. Poythress

Vern Poythress is Distinguished Professor of New Testament, Biblical Interpretation, and Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary.

Twenty some years after the gender-neutral Bible controversy, the principial issues about gender-neutral Bible translation remain the same. In translating the Bible, do we put in place a policy of employing gender-neutral language? More specifically, when we are translating statements that express general truths, applicable to both sexes, should we suppress male meaning nuances in the original languages when we render the meaning in a modern language? The answer is no. Rather, we should try to capture as much meaning from the original as we can, within the constraints of the target language.

The issues were first debated with respect to translations into English. But, with appropriate adjustments taking into account the variations in gender systems in various modern languages, the principles are permanently relevant.

We briefly review the earlier debate. Then we reaffirm that changes in languages and cultures should certainly be inspected, but that the principles remain the same. It is appropriate to say so, because pressures to avoid “politically incorrect” expressions remain in place in modern cultures.

It is now twenty-five years since the gender-neutral Bible controversy exploded onto the scene. It was sparked by World magazine’s article “The Stealth Bible,” March 29, 1997.1 It is twenty years since the book by Wayne Grudem and me appeared (2000), objecting to the losses in meaning that gender-neutral policy entailed. It is over thirty years since the NRSV appeared

WTJ 84:1 (Spring 2022) p. 52

(1990), perhaps the first major English Bible translation that tried to carry out a gender-neutral policy.2

The controversy of 1997 has died down. Time has passed. It is a good time to assess what permanent lessons can be learned from the controversy.

We do not intend in this article to revisit in detail all the arguments, pro and con, that arose in the decade 1996 to 2005. Books published in 1998, 2000, and 2004 set forth nearly every angle, and we refer readers to them for the details.3 Here, we content ourselves with a brief review of only a few of the issues, with a view to a long-term assessment.

I. The Principial Issues Remain The Same

The first and most important point to observe is that ...