What do you think?
Rate this book
The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God's Words
"The Bible is God's own Word to us." Translating the words of God has become an even more daunting task in recent years as the pressure of "political correctness" and various activist agendas have sought to influence the landscape. No issue has become more controversial than gender-neutral Bible translations. Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem examine the translation practice of replacing the generic "he" and the specific "father" with the gender-neutral "they" and "parent." While translators may be well intentioned in seeking not to offend, Poythress and Grudem contend that the results are subtly changed meanings of the original texts and less-than-accurate translations. Throughout, however, the authors seek to build a dialogue that will result in understanding both sides of the gender-neutral controversy and the challenge of producing accurate Bible translations.
- GenresChristianityNonfiction
377 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2000
52 people want to read
About the author
Vern Sheridan Poythress
75 books149 followersVern Sheridan Poythress was born in 1946 in Madera, California, where he lived with his parents Ransom H. Poythress and Carola N. Poythress and his older brother Kenneth R. Poythress. After teaching mathematics for a year at Fresno State College (now California State University at Fresno), he became a student at Westminster Theological Seminary, where he earned an M.Div. (1974) and a Th.M. in apologetics (1974). He received an M.Litt. in New Testament from University of Cambridge (1977) and a Th.D. in New Testament from the University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa (1981).
He has been teaching in New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia since 1976. In 1981 he was ordained as a teaching elder in the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod, which has now merged with the Presbyterian Church in America.
More information about his teaching at Westminster can be found at the Westminster Seminary website.
Dr. Poythress studied linguistics and Bible translation at the Summer Institute of Linguistics in Norman Oklahoma in 1971 and 1972, and taught linguistics at the Summer Institute of Linguistics in the summers of 1974, 1975, and 1977. He has published books on Christian philosophy of science, theological method, dispensationalism, biblical law, hermeneutics, Bible translation, and Revelation. A list of publications is found on this website.
Dr. Poythress married his wife Diane in 1983, and they have two children, Ransom and Justin. He has side interests in science fiction, string figures, volleyball, and computers.
The family lived on a farm until he was five years old. When he was nine years old he made a public commitment to Christ and was baptized in Chowchilla First Baptist Church, Chowchilla, California. The family later moved to Fresno, California, and he graduated from Bullard High School in Fresno.
He earned a B.S. in mathematics from California Institute of Technology (1966) and a Ph.D. in mathematics from Harvard University (1970).
He has been teaching in New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia since 1976. In 1981 he was ordained as a teaching elder in the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod, which has now merged with the Presbyterian Church in America.
More information about his teaching at Westminster can be found at the Westminster Seminary website.
Dr. Poythress studied linguistics and Bible translation at the Summer Institute of Linguistics in Norman Oklahoma in 1971 and 1972, and taught linguistics at the Summer Institute of Linguistics in the summers of 1974, 1975, and 1977. He has published books on Christian philosophy of science, theological method, dispensationalism, biblical law, hermeneutics, Bible translation, and Revelation. A list of publications is found on this website.
Dr. Poythress married his wife Diane in 1983, and they have two children, Ransom and Justin. He has side interests in science fiction, string figures, volleyball, and computers.
The family lived on a farm until he was five years old. When he was nine years old he made a public commitment to Christ and was baptized in Chowchilla First Baptist Church, Chowchilla, California. The family later moved to Fresno, California, and he graduated from Bullard High School in Fresno.
He earned a B.S. in mathematics from California Institute of Technology (1966) and a Ph.D. in mathematics from Harvard University (1970).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
November 16, 2024
So, I know I'm biased, but please let me explain. This is the counter-argument to the Gender Inclusive debate in biblical translation. Unlike Strauss and Carson, who advocate, to some extent, the adoption of gender-inclusive practices regarding grammatical and cultural circumstances in which both sexes were envisioned, Poythress and Grudem reject the practice.
Strauss, Carson, Poythress, and Grudem are all complementarian Christians (they believe God created males and females with distinct differences that complement one another). Yet, interestingly, within Carson's book, he critiques Grudem and Poythress for basing their refusal of gender inclusion on a complementarian fear, which they deny within the writing of this book. And yet, that denial is refutable within the same writing, in some cases even the same chapter. This book has several main arguments, which I will summarize momentarily. Yet amidst them are the same two reoccurring motifs: feminism and complementarianism (or a counter to egalitarianism). Unlike Strauss and Carson, who approach the topic from linguistic and historical perspectives, Grudeum and Poythress continually present a rebuttal of feminist practices and anger at changing linguistic norms.
When I started reading, I wanted to know why Grudeum is so fiercely against this translation issue. For this, I am grateful for reading this lengthy book. However, his central premise has left me scratching my head, and I'll be evaluating it further as I continue reading. He believes that while the text is inclusive, it is only inclusive through the intended "sample," who serves as the "representative" through who others of both sexes can interpret and apply whatever principle or moral is within the text. In essence, they are unwilling to change to inclusive language because they believe the authors intended the text to be selective as a model from which others should interpret. Regarding this kind of sentiment and conclusion, I find it hard to dispute Strauss and Carson's finding that complementarianism is at the heart of this issue for Grudem and Poythress.
Other reasons are the notorious slippery slope, patriarchy in society (which I found much more compellingly written in the Strauss and Carson books), and a more confined semantic range of key terminology. In conclusion, if I were recommending a book for someone to find out more on this topic, I would recommend Strauss or Carson (likely Stauss; I found his book very engaging and thought-provoking). Grudem and Poythress place the foundation of their argument upon a theological perspective that requires acceptance in order to find support
*there is an interesting timeline of the NIVI controversy in here that is helpful for tracing the conservative backlash!
Strauss, Carson, Poythress, and Grudem are all complementarian Christians (they believe God created males and females with distinct differences that complement one another). Yet, interestingly, within Carson's book, he critiques Grudem and Poythress for basing their refusal of gender inclusion on a complementarian fear, which they deny within the writing of this book. And yet, that denial is refutable within the same writing, in some cases even the same chapter. This book has several main arguments, which I will summarize momentarily. Yet amidst them are the same two reoccurring motifs: feminism and complementarianism (or a counter to egalitarianism). Unlike Strauss and Carson, who approach the topic from linguistic and historical perspectives, Grudeum and Poythress continually present a rebuttal of feminist practices and anger at changing linguistic norms.
When I started reading, I wanted to know why Grudeum is so fiercely against this translation issue. For this, I am grateful for reading this lengthy book. However, his central premise has left me scratching my head, and I'll be evaluating it further as I continue reading. He believes that while the text is inclusive, it is only inclusive through the intended "sample," who serves as the "representative" through who others of both sexes can interpret and apply whatever principle or moral is within the text. In essence, they are unwilling to change to inclusive language because they believe the authors intended the text to be selective as a model from which others should interpret. Regarding this kind of sentiment and conclusion, I find it hard to dispute Strauss and Carson's finding that complementarianism is at the heart of this issue for Grudem and Poythress.
Other reasons are the notorious slippery slope, patriarchy in society (which I found much more compellingly written in the Strauss and Carson books), and a more confined semantic range of key terminology. In conclusion, if I were recommending a book for someone to find out more on this topic, I would recommend Strauss or Carson (likely Stauss; I found his book very engaging and thought-provoking). Grudem and Poythress place the foundation of their argument upon a theological perspective that requires acceptance in order to find support
*there is an interesting timeline of the NIVI controversy in here that is helpful for tracing the conservative backlash!
May 28, 2013
Vern Poythress is Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, USA. Wayne Grudem is Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary, Phoenix, USA. Both of these eminent evangelical scholars are authors of numerous books and articles in scholarly journals. This book responds (p.135) to D. A. Carson’s book The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism and Mark Strauss’s book Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation and Gender Accuracy, which represents the positions of those evangelicals supportive of a Gender-inclusive Bible (p.121).
Translation and Feminism
The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy has fifteen chapters and six appendices, and is a reaction to the growing number of gender-neutral Bible translations, marking where the various agendas of feminism (p.116; 138), complementarianism and Bible translation clash. The subject is not new to the authors as various articles by both have been incorporated into the book (p.18). If the whole issue is new to the reader, the book commences with a foreword by Valerie Becker Makkai. The linguistic challenges of gender-neutral translations are highlighted. The preface lives up to claims that the book is written in ordinary English, free of as much technicalities as possible (p.18). The authors define a Gender-Neutral translation as one that avoids the generic “he” and changes single subject pronouns to plural. They explain their modus operandi in defining translations as Gender-Neutral or not (p.20).
Content
In chapter one the authors seek to demonstrate that there is a serious problem with inclusive language translations because they subtly alter meaning and nuance, and therefore are not the most accurate translations (p.23). They go as far as to claim that the debate about women elders is obscured (p.24), and issues of human sexuality will not be clear to discern from Gender-Neutral translations (p.23). What seems to be underemphasized is that the Hebrew and Greek documents will always be there to refer to. It is not until chapter three that the authors state clearly that it is the original manuscripts that are inerrant (p.25) rather than what they term Gender-accurate English translations.
Chapter two provides a detailed time-line for the controversy, which also demonstrates that the authors were active participants to the dispute precipitated by the heated conflict between Zondervan Publishing and Joel Belz of World magazine. Poythress and Grudem were signatories of the Colorado Springs Guidelines (which appear in full with explanatory comment in Appendix 1 of this book), which agreed translation conventions for the Committee on Bible Translation (p.50).
Poythress and Grudem extol the virtues of the Bible in chapter three. However the other evangelicals to whom this book was written as a response, would also hold a high view of Scriptural inspiration, therefore despite the informative material, the chapter seems superfluous to the subject of the book, apart from it serving as an attempt to imply that gender-neutrality is something that would cause evangelical credentials to be questioned.
Although Poythress and Grudem claim their focus is translation issues rather than egalitarian and complementarian views on gender (p.24), it becomes clear in the following chapters that the authors have a clear complementarian theological agenda that is more than a mere altruistic interest in translation principles.
Chapter four does not add to the argument of the book as it delineates translation principles and problems that those on both sides of the inclusive language argument in the Evangelical world would generally agree upon.
In chapters five and six the authors get to the point of their book delineating acceptable changes of gender-related terms and what they claim should never be changed. These are reasonable and well argued chapters as they clarify that some gender inclusive language is viable as well as needed when it is obvious that women are also being referred to. However this claim is weakened in chapter nine with the statement that inclusive language should not be used in the Church (p.164).
Chapters seven through to eleven deal with the generic “he” from various perspectives stating this is the largest problem caused by gender-neutral translations as it affects thousands of verses (p.118). The issue is narrowed to the backward-referring generic “he” (p.118). Footnote 123 makes clear what is meant by this, which is restructuring the whole sentence to discard “he” resulting in altered meaning. By far the most serious issue raised is the obscuring of the New Testament fulfilment of Messianic promises in the Old Testament (p.130) by the change of singular to plural, first person to second person and third person generic statements (p.121). Psalm 34.20, for example is changed to “their bones” from “all his bones” (p.130).
There is an attack on rationalism and egalitarianism in chapter eight which seeks to discredit those ideologies because of their association with the godless French Revolution (p.143-4). The authors’ underlying complementarian agenda becomes very clear in this chapter (p.144). The explanatory statements of various Gender-Neutral Bible translations are dissected. Because God spoke the Ten Commandments in Hebrew in masculine singular (p.153), the implication is the masculine default setting of ancient patriarchal cultures is appropriate for contemporary Bible readers. However, the repeated warnings about loss of nuance and meaning (p.163) in inclusive translations of the Bible, must be balanced with the fact that the New Testament authors themselves were willing to lose nuance and meaning with their use of the Septuagint and flexible translations of the Old Testament as long as the main meaning was not lost. This is glossed over by the claim that New Testament authors were more like preachers making applications (p.194).
Chapter nine takes a more trenchant tone comparing inclusive language to fascism (p.164) and minimises concerns about patriarchal language assumption as mere radical feminist propaganda (p.165). The authors use the exaggerated language such as the taboo of generic “he” and constant feminist pressure (p.171) and tend to conflate the Gospel with gender issues (p.182).
Chapters twelve and thirteen look at translating other gender language terms and defends translating אָדָם exclusively as man, providing a thorough list of examples. This is a detailed chapter illustrating the difficulty of translating historically rooted gender specific words in a gender-neutral way.
The shorter chapters of fourteen and fifteen conclude the book providing a test to discern a Gender-Neutral Bible (p.277) and state that avoiding maleness is not a product of advances in scholarship, rather a cultural fad (p.282). The authors claim the modern psyche is in the grip of feminist dogma which drives the desire for Gender-Neutral Bibles. The challenge is issued not to trim Bible translation policy to fit modern thought patterns (p.283).
Conclusion
Poythress and Grudem demonstrate a clear grasp of translation issues surrounding gender-neutral versions of the Bible and highlight serious problems with Christological issues and retaining intracanonical connections. However, they are as tied to their complementarian ideology as the feminists and egalitarians they critique.
Translation and Feminism
The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy has fifteen chapters and six appendices, and is a reaction to the growing number of gender-neutral Bible translations, marking where the various agendas of feminism (p.116; 138), complementarianism and Bible translation clash. The subject is not new to the authors as various articles by both have been incorporated into the book (p.18). If the whole issue is new to the reader, the book commences with a foreword by Valerie Becker Makkai. The linguistic challenges of gender-neutral translations are highlighted. The preface lives up to claims that the book is written in ordinary English, free of as much technicalities as possible (p.18). The authors define a Gender-Neutral translation as one that avoids the generic “he” and changes single subject pronouns to plural. They explain their modus operandi in defining translations as Gender-Neutral or not (p.20).
Content
In chapter one the authors seek to demonstrate that there is a serious problem with inclusive language translations because they subtly alter meaning and nuance, and therefore are not the most accurate translations (p.23). They go as far as to claim that the debate about women elders is obscured (p.24), and issues of human sexuality will not be clear to discern from Gender-Neutral translations (p.23). What seems to be underemphasized is that the Hebrew and Greek documents will always be there to refer to. It is not until chapter three that the authors state clearly that it is the original manuscripts that are inerrant (p.25) rather than what they term Gender-accurate English translations.
Chapter two provides a detailed time-line for the controversy, which also demonstrates that the authors were active participants to the dispute precipitated by the heated conflict between Zondervan Publishing and Joel Belz of World magazine. Poythress and Grudem were signatories of the Colorado Springs Guidelines (which appear in full with explanatory comment in Appendix 1 of this book), which agreed translation conventions for the Committee on Bible Translation (p.50).
Poythress and Grudem extol the virtues of the Bible in chapter three. However the other evangelicals to whom this book was written as a response, would also hold a high view of Scriptural inspiration, therefore despite the informative material, the chapter seems superfluous to the subject of the book, apart from it serving as an attempt to imply that gender-neutrality is something that would cause evangelical credentials to be questioned.
Although Poythress and Grudem claim their focus is translation issues rather than egalitarian and complementarian views on gender (p.24), it becomes clear in the following chapters that the authors have a clear complementarian theological agenda that is more than a mere altruistic interest in translation principles.
Chapter four does not add to the argument of the book as it delineates translation principles and problems that those on both sides of the inclusive language argument in the Evangelical world would generally agree upon.
In chapters five and six the authors get to the point of their book delineating acceptable changes of gender-related terms and what they claim should never be changed. These are reasonable and well argued chapters as they clarify that some gender inclusive language is viable as well as needed when it is obvious that women are also being referred to. However this claim is weakened in chapter nine with the statement that inclusive language should not be used in the Church (p.164).
Chapters seven through to eleven deal with the generic “he” from various perspectives stating this is the largest problem caused by gender-neutral translations as it affects thousands of verses (p.118). The issue is narrowed to the backward-referring generic “he” (p.118). Footnote 123 makes clear what is meant by this, which is restructuring the whole sentence to discard “he” resulting in altered meaning. By far the most serious issue raised is the obscuring of the New Testament fulfilment of Messianic promises in the Old Testament (p.130) by the change of singular to plural, first person to second person and third person generic statements (p.121). Psalm 34.20, for example is changed to “their bones” from “all his bones” (p.130).
There is an attack on rationalism and egalitarianism in chapter eight which seeks to discredit those ideologies because of their association with the godless French Revolution (p.143-4). The authors’ underlying complementarian agenda becomes very clear in this chapter (p.144). The explanatory statements of various Gender-Neutral Bible translations are dissected. Because God spoke the Ten Commandments in Hebrew in masculine singular (p.153), the implication is the masculine default setting of ancient patriarchal cultures is appropriate for contemporary Bible readers. However, the repeated warnings about loss of nuance and meaning (p.163) in inclusive translations of the Bible, must be balanced with the fact that the New Testament authors themselves were willing to lose nuance and meaning with their use of the Septuagint and flexible translations of the Old Testament as long as the main meaning was not lost. This is glossed over by the claim that New Testament authors were more like preachers making applications (p.194).
Chapter nine takes a more trenchant tone comparing inclusive language to fascism (p.164) and minimises concerns about patriarchal language assumption as mere radical feminist propaganda (p.165). The authors use the exaggerated language such as the taboo of generic “he” and constant feminist pressure (p.171) and tend to conflate the Gospel with gender issues (p.182).
Chapters twelve and thirteen look at translating other gender language terms and defends translating אָדָם exclusively as man, providing a thorough list of examples. This is a detailed chapter illustrating the difficulty of translating historically rooted gender specific words in a gender-neutral way.
The shorter chapters of fourteen and fifteen conclude the book providing a test to discern a Gender-Neutral Bible (p.277) and state that avoiding maleness is not a product of advances in scholarship, rather a cultural fad (p.282). The authors claim the modern psyche is in the grip of feminist dogma which drives the desire for Gender-Neutral Bibles. The challenge is issued not to trim Bible translation policy to fit modern thought patterns (p.283).
Conclusion
Poythress and Grudem demonstrate a clear grasp of translation issues surrounding gender-neutral versions of the Bible and highlight serious problems with Christological issues and retaining intracanonical connections. However, they are as tied to their complementarian ideology as the feminists and egalitarians they critique.
October 25, 2021
Short take - having read Carson, and now this book that takes the opposing view, I find the arguments put forth by Poythress and Grudem much more persuasive. Gender-neutral translations obscure underlying theological meaning in favor of a politically correct translation philosophy that does not improve understanding. It sacrifices accuracy for no real gain in clarity.
August 29, 2020
A gracious and unequivocal answer to the controversy.
January 6, 2023
Thought-provoking and technical, but a bit dry.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews