You are quite right about the Ten Commandments and other passages being addressed to men within a patriarchal framework. We do not want to hide these facts.

However, we also need to recognize that some Bible versions have the goal of placing masculinity above accuracy. I have trouble with these Bibles making the claim that they are literal.

For example, in Greek the word anthropos means “person” of “human” and it is the word used in philanthropy and anthropology. But look at this.

“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people (anthropos),” 1 Tim. 2:1

“and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men (anthropos) who will be able to teach others also.” 2 Tim. 2:2

Why is anthropos translated as “people” in the first verse, and by “men” in the second? Because the translators do not think that women can be Bible teachers.

So, I agree that we should not hide the patriarchy that is there. But I protest strongly against a translation that inserts into the translation a patriarchal slant that was not in the original.

This is a serious problem throughout. Yes, we must face the patriarchy of that society as it was. But what are we going to do about the patriarchy of our own society?

I like your point about “readability”. The bible is confusing enough as it is, so why confuse people even more by writing “men” when it really means “people”? That is a good point.

I think we should always have bible translations which are the closest we can get to the original language and sense, both for old and new believers but I have a particular interest in ‘readable’ bibles for those enquiring into the Christian faith and new believers. Even ‘old’ believers can not necessarily understand the thoughts expressed and just be attached to the sound of certain verses. Anything which makes God’s word more understandable must surely be good.

Even with the gender inclusive language and modern english translations, there is still enough patriarchy to show the kind of culture in which the OT was written and how it had developed by the time of Jesus. No amount of gender correction can take away from the general tone of patriarchy which pervades and which you rightly point out shows how much the world needs redeeming.

Liz (83973): “What that says to me is that the Bible was written for men and sometimes women were included.” Actually I get that impression straight from the bible itself. Just about every commandment, blessing, and curse written in Hebrew is written to a masculine singular addressee. There are times when you’re supposed to know that the masculine singular includes women. For example, in the passage on the Nazirite vow, “When a man or a woman desires to make the vow of the Nazirite… then he shall not drink of the fruit of the vine…” etc. But that just shows that in Hebrew, the man really does represent the woman. Doesn’t this irk anyone else besides me?

Let’s not ignore this blatantly patriarchal language when arguing for gender-inclusive bibles. We must not argue that the bible is inherently gender-inclusive, and therefore our translations should be as well. That is simply not true. Ok, so the small fraction of cases that really are gender-neutral should be translated as gender-neutral (and even ones that are feminine, like the Spirit of God). But it doesn’t help the cause of egalitarianism to ignore the overwhelmingly patriarchal language of the bible; rather it gives fuel to people like Grudem.

In fact, I don’t really know a good reason why we should have gender-inclusive bibles except maybe as a more comfortable resource for new believers. But shouldn’t we present the bible as it is, with all its gore and violence, and all its patriarchy and sexist language? Shouldn’t we condemn the evil that the bible depicts and explain that this is the world that God wanted to redeem?

The Psalms are not typically in the feminine. I must have given a false impression. Only when the entity addressed is in the feminine then the verb is in the feminine. These entities include the “soul” “Zion” and “Jerusalem” for example.

Most of the Psalms are in the masculine addressing God, or addressing the congregation as a group. My point would be simply that the pronouns and inflections are not uniquely in the masculine but sometimes also in the feminine, so Grudem can hardly argue that God intends that only the masculine pronoun should be used, or that the masculine pronoun has theological importance.

Most often the pronouns are masculine, as in Psalm 1 the paradigmatic “man” ish is masculine. But in Psalm 103 the address to “self” or the “soul” is in the feminine.

For the people of God, they can be masculine as in Ex. 4:22 “Israel, my son,” or feminine as in “daughter Zion” or “daughter Jerusalem.” This reflects the metaphorical use of grammatical gender, but it is not a universal truth that the people of God are feminine or masculine.

Think of water – power of life, and of death. Fire also represents the “spirit” but also “destruction.” Metaphor is metaphor.

Even if the feminine is the daughter/bride in Hebrew (sometimes mother), also we need to remember that the “excellent wife” of Proverbs 31 means “noble wife.” For example, this was translated into Greek as “andrea” meaning literally “manly” or “courageous” and then into Latin as “fortis” or “strong” and then into English as “virtuous” meaning excellent, but now read back as “chaste.” In fact, the word “virtuous” comes from “vir” which is Latin for “man” so “virtuous” could be read back as “manly.” Woman as either “manly” or “chaste” found in exactly the same word.

This little example shows that over the millennia the “good wife” has been understood as manly, courageous, strong or chaste, depending on the metaphorical understanding of masculinity and femininity over the centuries.

Personally, I think the eshet chayil or excellent wife, really means “noble wife” as in heroic wife, as a class statement, she is a wife of noble class, and she earns this title of “nobility” by her industry, strength and wisdom.

There is, IMO, a basic misunderstanding about masculinity and femininity in the church today. True sexual complementarity is man and woman as “king and queen,” rather than “ruler” and “subject” as is so sadly claimed by the very flawed kephale study of Grudem.

The godly man and woman are both noble together, rather than the “noble male” and the “dependent female.”