The New International Version (NIV) Bible is one of the most popular modern English Bible translations. First published in 1978 and updated in 2011, the NIV aims to balance readability and accuracy when translating from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.
One of the debates surrounding the NIV is whether it uses gender-neutral language. Some criticize the NIV for avoiding male pronouns and terms in reference to God and humanity. Others argue the gender-inclusive language more accurately reflects the meanings of the original texts.
Here is an in-depth look at the evidence on both sides of this debate.
What is Gender-Neutral Language?
Gender-neutral language avoids assumptions about a person’s gender by using inclusive terms. For example, gender-neutral language would use police officer instead of policeman, representative instead of congressman, or humankind instead of mankind.
Gender-neutral Bible translations use equivalent terms in place of masculine pronouns and words when referring to groups of mixed gender or people in general. For example, “sons of God” may become “children of God,” and “brothers” may become “brothers and sisters.”
Using gender-inclusive language in Bible translation is controversial. Opponents argue it distorts the original meaning and theology. Proponents say it more accurately conveys the intent of gender-inclusive passages.
Does the NIV Use Gender-Neutral Language?
The NIV avoids some male pronouns, especially when referring to groups of mixed gender. For example, Psalm 1:1 reads “Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked” rather than “Blessed is the man who does not walk in step with the wicked.”
The NIV translates the Hebrew word ‘adam as “human beings” rather than “man” when referring to humanity as a whole (Genesis 1:26). The Greek word anthropos is also translated “human beings” or “people” rather than “men.”
The NIV replaces some generic masculine terms with gender-neutral alternatives. “Brothers” becomes “brothers and sisters” in some passages (James 2:15). “Men” becomes “people” or “humanity” when referring to both men and women collectively (Matthew 4:19).
However, the NIV maintains male pronouns when referring to God and Jesus. God the Father remains “He” not “they.” Masculine pronouns and terms referring to Jesus are also unchanged.
Examples of Gender-Neutral Language in the NIV
Here are some examples of how the 2011 NIV uses more gender-inclusive language than the 1984 NIV and other translations like the ESV:
| Verse | 1984 NIV | 2011 NIV | ESV |
|---|---|---|---|
| Psalm 1:1 | Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked… | Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked… | Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked… |
| Matthew 4:19 | “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.” | “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.” | “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” |
| 1 Corinthians 15:21 | For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. | For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a human being. | For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. |
| James 1:12 | Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial… | Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial… | Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial… |
| James 2:15 | Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. | Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. | If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food… |
As these examples demonstrate, the 2011 NIV frequently replaces masculine pronouns and terms with more gender-inclusive language when referring to people generically.
Arguments Against Gender-Neutral Language in Bible Translation
Opponents of gender-neutral Bible translations like the NIV argue:
- It distorts the meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek.
- It obscures theological truths about God’s masculine identity.
- It reflects ideological influences rather than translating accuracy.
- It inappropriately imposes modern sensibilities on historical texts.
The Hebrew and Greek words translated as “man”, “brothers”, etc. were understood to refer to both men and women inclusively. While the male terms carried collective meaning, opponents argue against replacing them with plural terms in English translation. They claim this obscures the original meaning.
Most opponents accept some gender-neutral terms for groups of mixed gender, like “brothers and sisters.” However, they argue the NIV goes too far in eliminating male words referring collectively to “man” or “mankind.”
Many opponents are especially concerned about removing masculine words associated with God. God is referred to as Father and with masculine pronouns throughout Scripture, which reflects God’s revealed identity. Critics believe gender-neutral translation erodes the biblical basis for God’s masculine depictions.
Some also accuse inclusive translation of reflecting ideological influences from feminism or political correctness rather than an unbiased approach to translation. They argue gender-neutral language does not improve accuracy but imposes modern sensitivities on historical texts in unhelpful ways.
Response in Favor of Gender-Inclusive Translation
Defenders of gender-accurate translations like the NIV counter:
- Male terms were often used generically due to the patriarchal cultures the Bible was written in.
- Inclusive language more accurately conveys the intent of generic masculine passages.
- It does not remove God’s masculine identity and attributes.
- Translation always involves some cultural accommodation.
While Scripture reflects patriarchal cultural contexts, proponents argue this does not mean generic “he” or “man” accurately represent the intended meaning in every case. Using male examples and representatives was common practice, even when teachings applied equally to men and women.
In passages about all people or mixed groups, defenders believe gender-inclusive translation like “brothers and sisters” or “humanity” better convey the original meaning. Generic “he” is limiting and distracting for modern readers.
Proponents emphasize inclusive translation does not challenge masculine descriptors for God Himself, such as Father and pronouns like “He”. The focus is on removing unintended male bias when referring to people inclusively.
They argue translation always involves some cultural accommodation. Just as the Bible was translated from Hebrew and Greek into the common language of its readers, inclusive translation adapts terms to avoid misunderstanding today.
Conclusion
The gender-neutral language debate reflects deeper disagreements about translation philosophy. Should Scripture be translated word-for-word, or with more flexibility to convey ideas accurately? Does removing masculine generics distort meaning or reveal it more clearly?
All translation involves interpretation and imperfect decisions. There are reasonable arguments on both sides of this debate.
The NIV certainly utilizes much more gender-inclusive language than formal equivalence translations like the ESV. Whether one sees this as clarifying or compromising meaning depends on presuppositions about translation ideology.
Those wanting a more masculine-literal translation are better served by the ESV or similar versions. The NIV provides an alternative approach, illuminating meaning in ways supporters believe are more accurate even though less literal.
There are merits and limitations to both perspectives. The key is reading Scripture thoughtfully in community, depending on the Spirit’s wisdom to apply God’s timeless truth to diverse cultures and eras.