• The gender-neutral pronoun ‟they” (‟them” / ‟their”) is by far the most common way that English-language speakers and writers today refer back to singular antecedents such as ‟whoever,” ‟anyone,” ‟somebody,” ‟a person,” ‟no one,” and the like. Even in Evangelical sermons and books, where the generic ‟he,” ‟him” and ‟his” are preserved more frequently than in other forms of communication, instances of what grammarians are increasingly calling the ‟singular they” (‟them” or ‟their”) appear three times more frequently than generic masculine forms. In other words, most English speakers today express themselves in sentences like these: ‟No one who rooted for the Chicago Cubs to be in a World Series in the last sixty years got their wish. They were disappointed time and time again,” or ‟The person who eats too many hot dogs in too short a period of time is likely to become sick to their stomach.” It is interesting to observe that this development is a throwback to a usage of English that existed prior to the solidification of the generic ‟he” as the only ‟proper” usage during the nineteenth century in Victorian England. Even the KJV occasionally used expressions like ‟ . . . let each esteem other better than themselves” (Philippians 2:3). For that matter, so did the Greek New Testament! In James 2:15-16, the Greek for ‟a brother or sister” (adelphos ē adelphē) is followed by plural verbs and predicate adjectives and referred back to with autois (‟them”).

• English speakers around the world are using a variety of terms to refer to men and women together and for the human race collectively. Plural words such as ‟people,” ‟human beings,” and ‟humans” are very widely used. When it comes to terms that focus on humans in a collective sense, ‟man,” ‟mankind,” ‟humanity,” and ‟the human race” are all being used.

• ‟Forefather” has all but disappeared from the English language as a generic term, being replaced by ‟ancestor.” Even in Evangelical sermons and writings, ‟ancestor” is more than twice as common as ‟forefather.”

Isn't it interesting, that the CBT felt compelled to consult with a completely secular organization that has a default bias against what God says and the way He says it. It apparently was more important for the CBT to be guided by a politically correct secular institution in the area of maleness and femaleness  than it was to represent accurately what God has said about maleness and femaleness in the way He said it. 

In fairness to the CBT and the NIV 2011, it has been the consistent policy of the CBT to represent God in masculine terms, not in masculine/feminine terms. At least the committee has held the line on that point.

In light of research obtained through the Bank of English, whom the CBT deemed not to be subjective, here are the guidelines the CBT employed to keep from offending the modern ear as it relates to gender language:

• Using plurals instead of singulars to deal with generic forms was avoided. Except for some instances where all alternatives proved awkward or potentially misleading, singular nouns or substantive participles in the biblical languages were translated with singular nouns or noun equivalents in English (‟The one who. . . ,” ‟the person who. . . ,” ‟whoever. . . ,” and the like).

• Using second person forms instead of third person forms to deal with generics was avoided. In other words, the translation does not read, ‟You who have this-or-that should do such-and-such,” to avoid saying ‟He who has this-or-that should do such-and-such.” The exception to this rule was when a second person form was already present in the immediate context and it would be poor English style not to preserve it throughout. For example, addressing a mixed-gender audience, we would say, ‟If any of you has your car on campus, may I get a ride home?” rather than ‟If any of you has his (or their) car on campus, may I get a ride home?”

• Singular ‟they,” ‟them” and ‟their” forms were widely used to communicate the generic significance of pronouns and their equivalents when a singular form had already been used for the antecedent. For example, ‟Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them” (Mark 4:25); ‟How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them . . . ?” (Hebrews 10:29); or ‟Anyone who is never at fault in what they say is perfect, able to keep their whole body in check” (James 3:2b). At the same time, recognizing the diversity in modern English, a generic ‟he” was occasionally retained: ‟If I have rejoiced at my enemy’s misfortune or gloated over the trouble that came to him . . .” (Job 31:29).

• ‟People” and ‟humans” (and ‟human beings”) were widely used for Greek and Hebrew masculine forms referring to both men and women.  A variety of words — ‟humanity,” ‟human race,” ‟man,” ‟mankind”—were used to refer to human beings collectively. As we noted above, modern English uses a variety of terms to refer to human beings collectively; and the committee decided to imitate that diversity in the translation, determining which expression fit best in each specific context. In making the decision whether to use ‟man” or ‟mankind,” the committee often preferred the latter for the sake of clarity. ‟Man” can mean either ‟the human race” or ‟an individual (male) human being,” and when a follow-up pronoun is required, the pronoun must be ‟he,” creating the potential for misunderstanding. ‟Mankind,” on the other hand, can only mean humanity as a whole, and the follow-up pronoun can be an inclusive ‟they.” Nevertheless, the updated NIV often uses ‟man,” particularly in memorable and/or proverbial phrases: for example, ‟The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). Examples of texts that now have ‟mankind” where they didn’t before include: ‟Let us make mankind in our image” (Genesis 1:26a); ‟Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12); and ‟For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).

• ‟Ancestors” was regularly preferred to ‟forefathers” unless a specific, limited reference to the patriarchs or to another all-male group is intended.

• ‟Brothers and sisters” was frequently used to translate adelphoi in the New Testament, especially in the vocative, when it was clear that both genders were in view. This decision reflects the consensus view among scholars (and with basis in the dictionaries) that plural adelphoi refers to both men and women equally. Footnotes now often appear, explaining that ‟the Greek word for ‘brothers and sisters’ (adelphoi) refers to believers, both men and women, as part of God’s family.”

• While the Greek word anēr (‟man” or ‟person”) was frequently translated with masculine forms in English, it is clear in several contexts that the word refers to men and women equally (an option endorsed by major dictionaries of the Greek NT). The parallelism between James 1:7 and 8 suggests that anthrōpos and anēr are synonyms; hence, ‟That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do.” In Acts, expressions addressing mixed-gender audiences such as ‟Fellow Israelites” (for andres Israēlitai) accurately capture the sense of the Greek. In Acts 17:22 andres Athēnaioi cannot be rendered, ‟Fellow Athenians,” because Paul was not from Athens. But ‟people of Athens” works well, especially since verse 34 shows that at least one woman, Damaris, was among those explicitly addressed.

Return to Bible Versions Page