Exclusive LanguageCIs It Accurate?
Aída Besançon Spencer*
On June 17, 1997 six Southern Baptist seminaries signed a covenant before the churches
of the convention called "One Faith, One Task, One Sacred Trust." The covenant begins with a
quotation from 2 Timothy 2:1-2. The Apostle Paul writes: "And the things that you have heard
from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others
also" (2 Tim 2:2).1 This reference is a quotation from the New King James Version. When the
original King James Version was translated (1611), "man" and "men" were generally accepted as
generic. However, within two hundred years the English language had altered to the degree that
the British Parliament had to pass a law declaring: "the Masculine Gender shall be deemed and
taken to include Females."2 Nearly two hundred additional years later, when the Southern
Baptist Covenant (1997) was signed, did everyone still consider "women" to be "men"? Did they
believe that their goal was to prepare women, as well as men, to teach all that Paul commands?
For example, Luke Timothy Johnson does not think the apostle Paul wanted Timothy to commit
his teachings to women:
The reader will undoubtedly have noticed by this point (where it first becomes
really obvious) that I am not attempting a gender-inclusive translation. Thus,
although pistois anthrpois in 2:2 certainly can be translated as "faithful people,"
I have rendered it "faithful men." The reason is simply that the androcentrism of
the Pastorals is so profound and pervasive that a gender-inclusive translation is
almost impossible. To the degree it succeeds, furthermore, it actually
camouflages the true voice of the writing, which is unmistakably that of a male
writing to another male within the Mediterranean culture of antiquity.3
In contrast, Ng Peh Cheng assumes that Timothy is in fact required "to teach what Paul has
taught him to trustworthy men and women who will in turn teach others."4
Everyone who can read Greek knows that the Apostle Paul used the term anthrpos, not
anr, in 2 Timothy 2:2. In years past scholars had seemed to agree that anthrpos referred to
the generic species "human(s)," whereas anr referred to the male sex ("man"). For instance,
Henry Liddell and Robert Scott in A Greek-English Lexicon write: anthrpos refers to "man,
*
Aída Besançon Spencer is Professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological
Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts. Having earned the Ph.D. in New Testament from
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, she has written numerous books and articles including
The Goddess Revival (Baker), which critiques goddess spirituality but also critiques
understanding God as masculine, and Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry
(Hendrickson), a defense for women's leadership in the church. Her first response to the recent
debate about language for the Bible was printed in The Christian Century 114 (July 2-9, 1997).
1
2
both as a generic term and of individuals, Hom. etc., opp. gods" or "opp. beast." In the plural it
denotes "man generically" or "mankind." In the singular it can refer to "the man" or "the fellow"
or "the woman." Whereas, anr is "man, opp. woman," "a man in the prime of life, esp. warrior"
and "husband" if a possessive pronoun modifies it. However, anr can also refer to "man, opp.
god," "monsters" or "youth."5 Thus, historically no one should have had any reason to question
whether Paul's use of anthrpos (in the plural) in 2 Tim 2:12 includes women as well as men.
Paul wanted both women and men "to hold fast" his "sound words," and to be taught to teach
others these sound words (2 Tim 1:13; 2:2).
But now, the situation is no longer so clear. When in the 1970s people began to use
"human" instead of "man" to refer to the generic because it was clearer and women could feel
more included, we women began to discover that the generic term "man" may not have been so
generic after all, but somehow it was more Man than woman.6 In recent months, a movement
has been gaining momentum to redefine the generic and to resist the use of generic language in
Bible translations. What are the issues? How are they related to translation?
What Are the Issues?
Lately, translation issues are sometimes presented as fallout from the worldly secular
influences of pagan feminism. As Wayne Grudem explains: "We have all been told a lie--for it
is a lie that [usage of masculine terms for the generic] is 'exclusive.' We have been told this not
by Bible translators but ultimately by secular feminism."7 On the other hand, another perspective
views translation battles as desperate, ruthless scheming by the androcentric to retain masculine
prerogatives to the extent of tampering with God's Word while accusing others of doing so.
However, adopting either of these perspectives without thought will not result in the reasonable
and godly search for truth (James 3:17).
Rather than being new issues, the issues at stake are perennial ones for all translators of
any ancient text, and especially of the Bible which we rely on as "God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16).
Whenever we translate it, we must take into account two concerns: first, the perspective of the
original text; and, second, the perspective of the contemporary listener(s). First, what is the
intended meaning of the author? To what referent did the author refer? What did the original
(source) language allow? What is accurate? Second, what is the dynamic equivalent today?
What word(s) in the translated (receptor) language best communicates the author's intention?
How should one render metaphoric language? How should one render stylistic devices? What
word will best result in the author's goal? What is considered grammatically correct in the
receptor language?
According to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, "generic" comes from the Latin genus
("race, kind") and it refers to "a kind, class, or group, inclusive or general: opposed to specific,
special."9 Thus, "generic" is quite a broad term. It can refer to "generic" races or "generic" food
or "generic" medicinal compounds. However, in the church, the discussion over the term centers
on its use in denoting the "generic" human, woman and man. When we look at the Bible, in light
of the two major questions in translation, we can categorize biblical terms as generic versus
nongeneric (specific) in meaning or intention (sense) and inclusive versus exclusive (specific) in
3
form or language:
4
Original Greek/Hebrew
Translation
I. Generic in meaning and inclusive in form
V. A. Generic in meaning and inclusive in
form.
B. Generic in meaning but exclusive in
form.
II. Generic in meaning but exclusive in form
VI. A. Exclusive form can be:
1. generic in meaning or
2. nongeneric in meaning
B. Inclusive form can be:
1. generic in meaning or
2. nongeneric in meaning
III. Nongeneric in meaning but inclusive in
form.
(V and VI are two ways to
perceive the same data.)
IV. Nongeneric in meaning and exclusive in
form.
Words such as (I) anthrpos ("humanity") in the plural, tis ("any"), pas ("each"), and the
third person singular of verbs, without a subject have a generic (or inclusive) meaning. They also
in Greek have an inclusive (or generic) form. By themselves no gender is suggested. (II) Words
such as adelphos ("brothers") in the plural, sometimes in the singular, sometimes auton ("his"),
are exclusive in form (masculine), but their meaning may be generic. Similarly, illustrative
language, such as in the case of anr ("man"), and metaphorical language, such as huios ("son")
used for the Christian are exclusive in form, but generic in meaning. (III) Sometimes an
inclusive form, such as "human" (anthrpos) can be used to describe a nongeneric entity, such as
a man or a woman. (IV) Sometimes an exclusive form, such as anr ("man") or gun
("woman") in the singular or plural is used nongenerically to describe a specific group.10
Thus, when Bible readers come to translation, they find themselves having to weigh out
these issues: should both original form (language) and sense (meaning) be translated? Should
only sense be translated? Ultimately, all devout Christians should invest the time to learn the
original Greek and Hebrew in which the authors wrote so as to supersede these problems.
However, all translators, no matter how devout, must wrestle with these issues.
What Are Examples in Translation?
5
The Original Has Inclusive Form
For instance, anthrpos is used in the New Testament to speak of humans as opposed to
God, Jews and Gentiles as opposed to Jewish males only, and of a person representing a group.11
One example of generic anthrpos is: "You are not false to humans but to God" (Acts 5:4).
Peter uses anthrpos for Gentiles and Jews while he uses anr for the more specific reference to
himself as a Jew: "You believe as forbidden for a Jewish man (anr) to associate with or
approach a non-Jew; but to me God has shown no human (anthrpos) should be called common
or unclean" (Acts 10:28). Paul, in contrast, says: "Indeed, I, a human (anthrpos), I am a Jew"
because he may be highlighting his humanity as opposed to national origin (Acts 21:38-39).
When John wrote that Jesus, "the true light" enlightens "every person" (John 1:9), no one
yet has suggested that this use of even the singular anthrpos is not generic (I). Yet, without any
clear contextual indicators some commentators have treated anthrpos in the plural in 2 Timothy
2:2 as not generic, although by definition, anthrpos in the plural is generic. Thus, this practice
shows that only because some people have a philosophical assumption that differs with the
generic meaning of this term, they then have to derive a meaning that contradicts its clear
meaning.
Now, if the singular anthrpos refers to an individual, why then use "man" or "woman"?
For instance, when referring to women only, Peter uses anthrpos. Translations, such as the
NIV, NRSV, NKJV, RSV, render 1 Peter 3:4 as "let your adornment be the inner self" (NIV,
NRSV), "hidden person" (RSV, NKJV, NAS) or "hidden personality" (N.T. Modern English).
By using inclusive language, although Peter here intends nongeneric meaning (III), these
translators have communicated the form of the original Greek. In contrast, translations such as
the KJV ("hidden man of the heart") render with such a choice neither the inclusive form nor the
correct nongeneric meaning (female). Even though Peter writes only of females, even
specifically "wives" (3:4) in this sentence, he describes them as "human," in their generic selves.
In other words, even though they are females, they are also humans, and a writer can choose to
describe only women as "human."
Why then, if in the instance of 1 Peter 3:4 so many translators have decided to use
inclusive English language ("self," "person") to render inclusive Greek language (anthrpos),
even though the term referred only to women (nongeneric in meaning), have so few translations
done the same in 1 Timothy 2:5: "one mediator between God and men (man), the man (Man)
Christ Jesus" (KJV, NKJV, RSV, NEB, REB [himself man], TEV 1966, NIV, New Trans.
[mankind])? In 1 Timothy 2:5 anthrpos is set in the plural to refer to all humans, while Jesus
is described as anthrpos (singular). Even though Jesus may have been a male, Paul here
describes him as a "human," even placing the two instances of anthrpos next to each other
("mediator between God and humans, human Christ Jesus") to highlight the humanity of Jesus.
If Paul had emphasized Jesus' maleness, then women might wonder if Jesus was an apt
representative or mediator for women. But, for their salvation, Jesus must be representative of
women and men, as inclusively human.12 As a matter of fact, in the New Testament, Jesus never
once uses anr ("man") for self-description.13 Thus, translations such as the following render
best the generic meaning and language of the original Greek: "God and humankind, Christ Jesus,
6
himself human" (NRSV). (See also NIVI, CEV, NCV, Inclusive Language Bible. The 1992
edition of the TEV has "human beings . . . the man Christ Jesus.")
Wayne Grudem and Andreas Köstenberger have written detailed articles supporting the
May 27, 1997 "Guidelines for Translation of Gender-Related Language in Scripture" adopted at
the Focus on the Family's headquarters in Colorado Springs. The guidelines conclude that
anthrpoi (plural) "refers to people in general, and can be translated 'people' rather than 'men',"
but "the singular anthrpos should ordinarily be translated 'man' when it refers to a male human
being." However, "'man' should ordinarily be used to designate the human race or human beings
in general."14 Köstenberger concludes that calling Christ Jesus "human" "dilutes the maleness of
Jesus. . . . Jesus' earthly life and sacrifice on the cross" was "made as a man, a male." Grudem
also explains that "Christ as a man, in parallel to the man Adam before him, . . . was the
representative head of his people."15 Although Jesus was a man while on earth, neither to Jesus
nor to Paul is this accurate truth highlighted. If Jesus were to be described always as a "male," as
opposed to a "human," by the biblical authors, then indeed the inclusive term "human" would be
a dilution. Instead, more accurately we may conclude that to render Jesus as "man" when the
Bible text reads "human" is to superimpose an exclusive form and, for these writers, also a
nongeneric meaning to what originally was intended to be an inclusive, generic form.16 The
meaning is nongeneric to the extent that Jesus was a man, but it is generic to the extent that the
author refers to Jesus, a specific, in his generic self, a human being. In order to safeguard what
these authors have concluded are men's unique role as male heads of their families, they have
"added" to God's Word meanings that are not there necessarily. "Ideological agendas" have
indeed influenced their Bible translation.17
The Original Has Exclusive Form
However, what should a translator do if the original form or language is exclusive but the
meaning is generic? For example, Paul writes, "if any faithful [ones] (pist) have widows" (1
Tim. 5:16). Here he uses the feminine singular ending of the adjective "faithful." Possibly Paul
refers to women who manage households18 (literally, "lord over their houses") (5:14). Why then
would he refer in verse 16 only to women but in verses 4 and 8 refer to children and
grandchildren as having responsibility to care for widows? ("If any widow has children or
grandchildren" or "if any (his/her) own and especially household does not provide.") Tis is used
both in verses 8 and 16. Paul also may allude back to verse 12, "the first faith." The faithful
keep their first faith. Verse 16 also serves as an internal summary to 5:3-15: "If any faithful
have widows, let (her/him) help them and the church not be burdened, in order that the truly
widowed ones might be helped." Thus "faithful" might also refer to all believers.19 Thus, the
original Greek for "faithful" (pist) either is generic in meaning but exclusive in form (II) (the
feminine used for males and females) or is nongeneric in meaning and exclusive in form (IV)
(the feminine used for women only).
Some translations have rendered the term as generic in meaning ("If any man or woman
that believeth" [KJV], "If a Christian man or woman" [NEB]) while others have rendered it
nongeneric in meaning ("If any woman who is a believer" [NAS, NIV], "If a Christian woman"
7
[JB, REB, TEV], "If any believing woman" [NRSV], "If a woman who is a follower" [CEV]) but
none have used exclusive (or a feminine form) for a generic meaning, as in the Greek. Similarly,
James has used the feminine "adulteress" (moichalis) for his readers (4:4), an exclusive form but
here clearly generic in meaning. The KJV has rendered that generic meaning by using both the
masculine and feminine ("Ye adulterers and adulteresses") while the NIV has used generic
language (VI.B): "You adulterous people" (NIV). The NRSV has even used an exclusive
(masculine) form for a generic meaning (VI.A1) ("Adulterers!") But none of these have used an
exclusive (feminine) form for a generic meaning, as in the Greek. However, I have heard no
outcry that they have "gender-neutralized" the reference or distorted the biblical text!20
A similar challenge presents itself to the translator when rendering adelphos. In the
plural and even in the singular it may be generic (II). It also may be used metaphorically. For
instance, Liddell and Scott define adelphos, literally, as "son of the same mother," or "brother"
but in the plural "brother and sister."21 We know it can be generic because of references such as
Philippians 4:1-2 "my beloved adelphos . . . Euodia . . . and Syntyche). Two women are included
in the title adelphos. Or in Acts 16:40 Lydia is included among the adelphos. To render
adelphos as "brothers" is true to the original exclusive form (VI.A.). However, is it still accurate
to the generic meaning? Was the emphasis in adelphos on its metaphorical sense as an image of
the new familial intimacy, love, and care between Christians (John 19:26-27)? Or, is the
emphasis in adelphos on the exclusive (male) form? Köstenberger posits adelphos was used
when "men were considered to be the heads of households and leaders in the community."22
However, when James uses the feminine "adulterers" for the church neither he nor anyone else
then concludes that women, not men, were considered then to be the primary unfaithful members
of the family. Since this is the case, in a similar manner, many of the references to adelphos in
the generic in no way imply male leadership. However, Köstenberger's honest supposition shows
that the exclusive form ("brothers") has not been understood in a generic meaning (VI.A.2) by all
commentators. Therefore, while inclusive language ("brothers and sisters") does not reflect the
original exclusive form (adelphos), it better renders the original generic meaning ("siblings")
(VI.B).23
Although adelphos, literally, refers in the plural and singular to the "son of the same
mother" or "brother" as in Matthew 4:18 ("two brothers, Simon, the one called Peter, and
Andrew, his brother") (IV), even in the singular, the intention may be generic (II). For instance,
Matthew records that Jesus used the singular masculine of adelphos to encourage everyone to be
reconciled (II) (Matt 5:22-24),24 but specifies the singular masculine and feminine of adelphos
when alluding to his own family ("whoever might do the will of my father, the one in the
heavens, this one is my brother and sister and mother," Matt 12:46, 50).
The Original Has Exclusive Metaphorical Form
Metaphorical language was never intended by any writer to be literal. Metaphor or
figurative language is a type of analogy, comparing two things of unlike nature that yet have
something in common so that one or more properties of the first thing are attributed to the
second. Thus, Wayne Grudem is accurate in saying that huios ("son") when used of men and
8
women (as in Gal 4:7) highlights the figurative analogy that in Christ men and women gain "the
inheritance rights that belong to sons in the Biblical world."25 In that case, the Greek writer,
Paul, uses exclusive form with a generic meaning (II). "Sons" in English appears to have the
same meaning (VI.A.1.). However, in the United States "sons" are no longer the only siblings
who have inheritance rights. Thus, the exclusive form in English retains only some of the
original meaning (because women now have inheritance rights). In this regard, translating huios
"child(ren),"26 although it does not indicate the marvelous change of status for women in New
Testament times (VI.A.1), does indicate the author's intention to be generic (VI.B) and it renders
well the contrast with a slave (Gal 4:7). Neither translation is fully precise.27
Similarly anr in the singular is sometimes not so much used to highlight maleness as to
denote specificity. For example, James uses anthrpos ("human") even in the singular, to make
a general or abstract comment but anr ("man") to give specificity to an illustration,28 for
example, "for that human (anthrpos) should not expect that (he) will receive anything from the
Lord, a doubled-souled man (anr), restless in all his ways" (James 1:7-8); or "and let every
human (anthrpos) be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for a man's (anr) anger does
not work God's righteousness" (James 1:19-20); "Since if anyone (tis) is a hearer of a word and
not a doer, that one is like a man (anr) observing his natural face in a mirror" (James 1:23).
However, James describes Elijah as a "human," not "man," because he wants to highlight Elijah's
similar nature (homoiopaths) to all his readers (James 5:17).
Thus, if some scholars complain about the use of "people" or the plural to render anr
because of translation inaccuracy, they should also complain that the NIV or NKJV does not
always reflect the change from anthrpos to anr in the original Greek, as in "That man
(anthrpos) . . . a double-minded man (anr) (James 1:7-8) or "Elijah was a man (anthrpos)
(James 5:17 NIV, NKJV).
Jesus employs this same literary device to end the sermon on the mount: "Therefore
everyone (pas hostis) who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise
man (anr) . . . . But everyone (pas) who hears these words of mine and does not put them into
practice is like a foolish man (anr) . . . "(Matt 7:24, 26 NIV). When first-century Jews such as
James and Jesus used the singular anr, their reason may be not so much to communicate the
maleness of anr but the specificity of an illustration (II). Anthrpos is then, in contrast, more
abstract. Again, to translate anr in these examples as "man" renders the form of the original
Greek (IV), but it may mislead contemporary readers into concluding that the author's intention is
to be nongeneric in sense (VI.A.2.). To render anr as "a wise person" (Matt 7:24 CEV) brings
out the author's intention to be specific, although it may not render literally the author's original
form (VI.B). However, the author's intention is to be specific but also generic (VI.A.1.). Both
translations lack some precision.
The Original Has Exclusive Pronominal Form
Another difficulty in translation comes when translating generic third person masculine
singular pronouns or even third person singular verbs. The Colorado Springs' Guidelines
9
recommend using the generic "he, him, his, himself." But can we always be so sure which "his"
is generic, and which "his" is nongeneric? For example, is "his own (idios) house well
managing" in 1 Timothy 3:4 generic or nongeneric?29 Or, even is "a one-woman man" generic or
not generic when referring to an overseer (1 Tim 3:2)? Paul begins his discussion of an overseer
by using the generic "anyone" (tis) (1 Tim 3:1).30 The same pronoun (idios) as in verse 4 is used
in 4:2 in the feminine form because it modifies a feminine noun (suneidsis) although in 4:2 it
clearly refers to all people. In other words, the gender of the pronoun has nothing to do with sex
(natural gender), but rather the gender is grammatical, to modify its noun. When God addresses
the Israelites, God reprimands husbands who are faithless to their wives (Mal 2:14-15). I have
yet to find someone who concludes that therefore it is acceptable for wives to be faithless to the
husbands of their youth.31 Part of the difficulty is that in English, "he she, it" refer almost every
time to natural gender, whereas in Greek the use of the masculine especially can be used more
frequently for grammatical gender. In other words, the masculine or feminine ending does not
necessarily distinguish literal or even figurative sex. Grammatical gender simply refers (from the
Latin genus) to "class" or "kind," some form of classification of categories that have nothing to
do with sex.32 In Hebrew and Greek the generic form, or prior gender, will sometimes later
become the masculine form when a second category, the feminine, is developed. For example,
diakonos, "minister," is a "masculine," or o stem noun, that is used of men and women (such as
Paul, Timothy, and Phoebe [Eph 3:7; 1 Tim 4:6; Rom 16:1]). However, with the passage of time
diakonos was given first a feminine as well as a masculine article and then a feminine
(diakonissa or "deaconess") as well as a masculine ending (diakonos). Thus, when we render in
English "his" for a masculine singular pronoun, we tend to interpret "his" as natural gender,
whereas the Greeks may have interpreted it as grammatical gender. Part of the difficulty is that
English as a language is not identical in its grammatical categories to either Greek or Hebrew.
Wayne Grudem complains that rendering autos in Revelation 3:20 as "them" as opposed
to "him" results in "a loss of teaching about personal fellowship between God and an individual
Christian."33 However, what he fails to remind the reader is that Jesus speaks to "the church in
Laodicea" (Rev 3:14). The singular "you" (Rev 3:15) and "him" (Rev 3:20) probably refer to the
church as a whole. In that case, although the original Greek may very well be exclusive (II),
Jesus may intend to speak to the church as a whole. Then, in that case translating autos as
"them" (VI.B) brings out the plural nature of the readers. "Him" is more true to the original form
(II), but possibly less true to the original meaning as is "them."
Conclusion
Psalm 17:8 literally reads, "Guard me as the pupil, the daughter of the eye." The
Jerusalem Bible (J.B.) renders the Hebrew (`îšôn) literally ("like the pupil of your eye") whereas
most translators render the phrase "the apple of the eye." J.B. rendered the form of the original
Hebrew, but did it render the meaning? That is a debatable question. For readers who are
willing to use their God-given brains, "pupil," although unusual, allows them to dwell on the
figurative analogy. The pupil is at the very center of the eye. It cannot be stolen away from the
eye. In the same way, David wants to be as close to God and protected from his enemies. Other
10
readers may prefer the more colloquial "apple." Although different in form, the dynamic
meaning is easier to understand for some people. Similarly, the recent fight over "gender-related
language" is not a question of secular feminism and "distortion of the Biblical text"34 versus male
headship and elucidation of the biblical text. Rather, it involves continuing issues in translation
that should encourage dialogue over how best to communicate meaning and form today, and how
to balance the focus on the receptor language versus the source language. In reality no
translation fully reflects the source language. I tried to show through several examples that
inconsistent ways of rendering the Greek when it has exclusive forms indicates that the real
agenda in these battles is not Bible accuracy but personal ideological agendas. But to mute the
original Greek or Hebrew by using only confusing masculine "generics" is to superimpose a
conservative male agenda on the Bible without allowing the church to draw its own exegetical
conclusions from the text.
What then should Christians do? 1) Learning the original Greek and Hebrew languages,
if possible, should be a mandate for every diligent student of God's Word. Such command
removes many of the barriers, and one need no longer be hindered by other people's translations.
Why cannot Greek classes even be given in church settings for interested lay people? 2)
Christians should also take into account the variables of meaning (sense) and form (language)
when interpreting and communicating God's Word. A general exegetical rule is that when
translating for interpretation, the more literal, the better; when translating for communication, the
more dynamic and equivalent, the better. In other words, for interpretation, form or language is
more crucial. For communication, meaning or sense is more crucial. The King James Version
was such a great classic because it tried to render both form and sense. However, word meanings
have changed over five hundred years, making even the KJV obsolete at times. 3) Many very
helpful aids are available for rendering English in ways that are not only less cumbersome than
some of the more traditional exclusive renderings, but also more clear.35 I remember one sermon
I heard from a preacher who intended to encourage all his listeners, women as well as men. After
hearing a few "man's" and "men's" I began to wonder if he was ever talking to me. Then my
mind began to wander onto other topics. The lack of clarity of his language lessened the
effectiveness of his communication.
So, are we women supposed to be trained to teach others? At the source language level,
the answer is quite clear, yes. Why not then make the translation clear to reflect this teaching?
And, when translators come to render more subtle metaphorical meanings, they might argue
differently, but charging accusations of inaccuracy and distortion mutes the genuine work of
other devout Christians and obscures the genuine issues in translation.
1
Southern Seminary: The Tie Supplement 65, no. 4 (August 1997): 2.
Dennis Baron, Grammar and Gender (New Haven: Yale, 1986), 140. In Old English,
mann (or man) was used for human being, while wer and wif were used for "adult male" and
"adult female." However, "by the eighteenth century man was likely to be interpreted as a
masculine without an explicit stipulation including women" (138-39). He cites the Oxford
2
11
English Dictionary which notes that "when man refers to women it does so only indirectly, not
inclusively: >In modern apprehension man as thus used primarily denotes the male sex, though
by implication referring also to women=@ (140). See also Brian Wren, What Language Shall I
Borrow? God-Talk in Worship: A Male Response to Feminist Theology (New York:
Crossroad, 1989).
3
Luke Timothy Johnson, Letters to Paul's Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, The
New Testament in Context (Valley Forge: Trinity, 1996), 58. Many commentators use "men,"
leaving it unclear as to whether the term is inclusive or exclusive. For example, John Stott
writes: "Certainly [the handing on of the truth] would involve men, a line of 'faithful men' at
that, but the succession from the apostles is to be more in the message itself than in the men who
teach it" (Guard the Gospel: The Message of 2 Timothy [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1973],
51-52). Ronald Ward writes: "The faithful men are to be faithful in two senses. They must be
men of faith, believers" (Commentary on 1 & 2 Timothy & Titus [Waco: Word, 1974], 160).
Robert Mounce writes: "Verse 2 sets the pattern for the transmission of apostolic teaching. It is
men training men" (Pass It On: A Bible Commentary for Laymen, First and Second Timothy
[Glendale: Gospel Light Publications, 1979], 117). Gordon H. Clark writes: "Timothy was to
seek out intelligent young men who could take his place after his departure, who also could seek
out intelligent young men of the following generation" (The Pastoral Epistles [Jefferson:
Trinity, 1983)] 148).
4
Study Bible for Women: The New Testament, ed. C. C. Kroeger, M. Evans, and E.
Storkey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 454.
5
Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ed. Henry Stuart
Jones, 9th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 138, 141. Joseph Henry Thayer also defines
anthrpos as "univ., with ref. to the genus or nature, without distinction of sex, a human being,
whether male or female." Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Marshallton:
National Foundation for Christian Education, 1889), 46.
6
For example, in 1982, Vernard Eller argued that: "The person 'man,' . . . is better
equipped to 'image' God than any individual isC partly because the corporate (community) nature
of his being already has him more correspondent to God than any individual could be" (The
Language of Canaan and the Grammar of Feminism [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 13).
Again in 1997 Wayne Grudem argued: "The word man for the whole human race suggests some
male headship in the race" ("Do Inclusive-Language Bibles Distort Scripture? Yes,"
Christianity Today 41, No. 12 [October 27, 1997]: 28). In that case, "man" is not really so
inclusive after all, despite his disclaimer elsewhere, "such usage does not in fact 'exclude
women'" (Wayne Grudem, "NIV Controversy: Participants Sign Landmark Agreement." CBMW
News 2, no. 3 [June 1997]: 4).
7
CBMW: 4. E.g., David M. Scholar, AThe Inclusive NIV Situations: Reflections a Year
Later,@ Priscilla Papers (Fall 1997): 3.
8
On translation see Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of
Translation, Helps for Translators VIII (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974).
9
Noah Webster, Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, ed. Jean L.
McKechnie, 2d ed. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983), 763.
12
Acts 1:21 would be an example where anr refers to the male sex, thus "man" would be
an appropriate translation. All the original twelve apostles were men. A separate interpretative
issue would be whether that data implies that all additional first-century apostles would have to
be men (cf. Barnabas, James, and Junia [Acts 14:14; Gal. 1:19; Rom. 16:7]). See Aída Besançon
Spencer, Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1985), 101-102.
In Acts 15:22, since Judas and Silas were specifically mentioned, "men" certainly appears
appropriate. See also Grudem, CBMW: 4; Andreas Köstenberger, "The Neutering of 'Man' in the
NIVI," CBMW News 2, No. 3 (June 1997): 11.
11
See Aída Besançon Spencer and others, The Goddess Revival (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1995), 99, 253, n.13.
12
See also John 10:33; 11:50; 1 Cor 15:21; Phil 2:8. Cf. Grudem, CBMW: 4;
Köstenberger, CBMW: 9.
13
Spencer, Goddess, 99.
14
In contrast to Grudem and Köstenberger, why must anthrpos in Matt 8:27 mean
"men"? Since nowhere does the Bible text specify any sex, how would Grudem and
Köstenberger know only men were in the boat? CBMW: 4, 6, 8. Even though Old Testament
priests may have been males, the writer=s emphasis in Heb 5:1 is their humanity, their
susceptibility to weaknesses (Heb 5:2), not their maleness CBMW: 4, 10. Similarly, the focus in
2 Pet 1:21 is human will versus the Holy Spirit's will. To conclude, "We could see no reason for
such changes except a general antipathy toward the word 'men'" (CBMW: 10) is certainly unfair.
15
CBMW: 5, 10. See also Grudem, Christianity: 29.
16
Also, was the focus in John 1:6; 3:1 to highlight John's sex or his humanity? Cf.
CBMW: 8-9.
17
The intrusive nature of Köstenberger's ideology comes through especially in his
rendering of 2 Tim 3:16-17 where anthrpos is limited to "man of God" only because men are
"called to a public teaching and preaching ministry." Does this then mean women should not be
taught to use the Scriptures for good work? CBMW: 7, 10. See also Grudem, Christianity: 28.
18
For example, A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 4 (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1931), 587; Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The
Pastoral Epistles, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1924), 61.
19
John Calvin suggests this generic use also: Paul "speaks of believers who ought to
support their widows." Calvin's Commentaries: Ephesians-Jude (Wilmington: Associated,
nd.), 2207. The earliest ancient manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type (4-6 century, , A, C,
048, coptic) all support pist as original. However, by the fifth century in the Western and early
Byzantine text-types (D, italic, syriac) the masculine and feminine endings (pistos  pist) were
introduced apparently to clarify the generic nature of Paul's words.
20
CBMW: 7-8.
21
Liddell & Scott, Lexicon, 20.
22
CBMW: 11.
23
See also Rom. 8:29. Anr in the plural is another example of exclusive language which
may be generic or nongeneric in meaning (II or IV). In Acts 1:11 we readers often assume only
the male disciples are present. If this is a continuation of the conversation in Matt 28:16,
10
13
referring only to the eleven disciples, then anr would better be translated "men" (VI.A.2).
However, women are mentioned in Acts 1:14. They might also have been present earlier. Also,
when Peter addresses the crowd as anr in Acts 2:14 he maintains "your sons and your daughters
shall prophesy" (Acts 2:17). Thus, possibly in 1:14, but more certainly in 2:14, a strong
contextual case can be made that anr is intended to be generic (II). Thus, the inclusive
language "you" (Acts 1:11 NIVI) better renders the meaning (VI.B). When Paul refers to the
future false teachers in Acts 20:30 anr could be generic (II) or nongeneric (IV). However,
women are certainly included in the deceived group (1 Tim. 2:14; 2 Tim. 3:6-7), whereas the sex
of the heterodox teachers is unclear (tis, 1 Tim. 1:3). cf. CBMW: 4, 12.
Köstenberger mentions that not rendering anr in the plural "men" comes "dangerously
close to usurping Luke's role as the author of inspired holy Scripture" (CBMW: 11). However,
Amen@ (anr in the plural), especially as an adjective (as in Acts 2:14), might simply be an
ancient formal way to begin a public address. Whereas, when Luke used "male and female" ) as
in Acts 5:14), he may be emphasizing the total number of people involved (Elizabeth G. Lynn,
unpublished manuscript, Gordon-Conwell Tehological Seminary, Hamilton, MA, February
1998). Thus, again the issue is whether literally reporducing the original form best
communicates the original meaning.
Grudem writes "no women were allowed" in the temple area (CBMW: 4). However, the
Bible does not specify in which part of the temple area the crowd began to shout. Men and
women could stand in the "women's court." Thus anr in Acts 21:28 could include women.
Since the Greek has no nongeneric "parent(s)," patr in the singular and in the plural may
very well be better rendered nongenerically as in Eph 6:1 ("parents"). Eph 6:2 clarifies "father
and mother." To say "'fathers' faithfully represents the male leadership present in Biblical
families" is definitely to superimpose on the Bible text illegitimate "ideological agendas" which
are not explicit in the Greek. CBMW: 5, 7. On the use of masculine language for God see
Spencer, Goddess, 114, 120-129.
24
See also 2 Thess 3:6, 15; Matt 5:23.
25
CBMW: 5.
26
Liddell and Scott lists the primary meaning as "son." However, also listed are "child"
and "to adopt as a son," Lexicon, 1847.
27
CBMW: 4.
28
Paul also uses anr in 1 Cor. 13:11 (IV). However, is the focus on his maleness
(VI.A.2) or his maturity (VI.A.1)? Since anr is contrasted to "child," "adult" (NIVI) renders the
specific illustrative nature of anr (VI.A.1), whereas "man" renders only the form. cf. CBMW: 4.
29
Wayne Grudem suggests that women can be taught that "he, him, his" do not in fact
"exclude women." Would they be taught that in 1 Tim. 3:4? CBMW: 4.
30
The Colorado Springs Guidelines agree that "tis can be translated 'anyone' rather than
any man.'" CBMW: 6.
31
See also Matt 5:31-32.
32
Spencer, Goddess, 122, 124.
33
CBMW: 3.
34
CBMW: 7.
14
35
Nancy Hardesty, Inclusive Language in the Church (Atlanta: John Knox, 1987);
Rosalie Maggio, The Nonsexist Word Finder: A Dictionary of Gender-Free Usage (Boston:
Beacon, 1989); Casey Miller and Kate Swift, The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing (New York:
Lippincott & Crowell, 1980); Sharon Neufer Emswiler and Thomas Neufer Emswiler, Women
and Worship: A Guide to Non-Sexist Hymns, Prayers, and Liturgies (New York: Harper &
Row, 1974); Francine Wattman Frank and Paula A. Treichler, and others, Language, Gender,
and Professional Writing: Theoretical Approaches and Guidelines for Nonsexist Usage (New
York: Modern Language Association, 1989); Robert F. Hogan, ed. "Guidelines for Nonsexist
Use of Language in NCTE Publications" (Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English,
1976). The Fall 1997 issue of Priscilla Papers (11:4) is devoted to the defense of inclusive
language.