Here are sixteen points of supposed agreement on gender language in Bible translation enumerated in the very helpful volume edited by Mark L. Strauss The Challenge of Bible Translation: Communicating God’s Word to the World.[1. Strauss, Mark L. 2009. The Challenge of Bible Translation: Communicating God’s Word to the World. Kindle Locations 2323-2371. Zondervan. Kindle Edition.]

When he claims “all agree,” Strauss is “referring to Carson, Poythress, Grudem, and myself, though in most cases I believe it would include others who have written on this topic (including Grant Osborne, John Kohlenberger, Andreas Köstenberger, Darrell Bock, Craig Blomberg, Jon Weatherly, and others).”[2. Ibid., loc. 2815-2817.] “P&G” is shorthand for Poythress and Grudem.

1. All agree that gender-accurate (gender-inclusive, gender-neutral) translation is a good thing, when the use of such language accurately represents the meaning of the original text. In many cases the use of an inclusive term improves the accuracy of the translation. An example of this is the translation “person” in contexts where Greek anthropos is used generically to refer to either a man or a woman. Romans 3:28 (TNIV, italics added) accurately reads, “For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from observing the law.”
2. All agree that care should be taken not to use inclusive language when the original author intended a gender-specific sense. The (biological) gender distinctions of the original text should be respected.
3. All agree that translations should seek not to obscure cultural features, including patriarchal ones, that were part of the original meaning of the text.
4. All agree that gender-specific terms should be used with reference to historical persons when males or females are specified in illustrative material, and in parables where characters are male or female.
5. As a possible qualifier to the previous point, all agree that words should be translated according to their sense in context, not according to extraneous features associated with their referents. For example, an author may use anthropos in the sense of “human being,” even though the person referred to happens to be a male. James 5:17 is accurately translated “Elijah was a human being [anthropos] just like we are,” because anthropos in this context means “human being,” not “male human being” (the “we” is surely inclusive). Though Elijah was a male, this characteristic is extraneous to the sense of anthropm os in context (cf. Acts 10:26; John 10:33; 1 Tim 2:5).
6. All agree that there is nothing inherently immoral or evil in masculine generic terms. The goal of translation should not be to abolish male references but to determine which English words and phrases most accurately and clearly reproduce the meaning of the original text.
7. All agree that grammatical gender is different than natural or biological gender (sex). It is therefore incorrect to demand the reproduction of grammatical gender across languages with different gender systems.
8. All agree that Greek anthropos is accurately translated “person” or “human being” when the author intended to refer to either a man or a woman.
9. All agree that Greek anthropoi is accurately translated with inclusive terms like “people” or “human beings” when the author intended to include both men and women.
10. All agree that Hebrew ,îsh sometimes has an inclusive sense, and in these cases it is accurately translated with expressions such as “each one” or “each person.”
11. All agree that adelphoi is accurately translated “brothers and sisters” when the referents include both males and females
12. All agree that Hebrew banmîm is accurately translated “children” when the referents include both males and females. While most would say the same about Greek huioi, P&G affirm this only reluctantly and with qualifications.
13. All agree that Greek pateres may be translated “parents” instead of “fathers” when the referents include both males and females.
14. Do Greek pateres and Hebrew ,abmôt ever mean “ancestors”? Most commentators would say yes. P&G seem to agree with this in principle, but they reject this translation in practice and do not discuss passages where both males and females are in view (e.g., 1 Sam 12:6; Heb 3:9).
15. All agree that the translation “man” for the human race is one of the most difficult issues in gender-related translation and that there are no easy answers. Neither English “man” nor terms like “humanity” or “humankind” can capture all of the wordplays present in the Hebrew admamm. Whichever translation is used, footnotes are appropriate to explain the wordplays of the original text.
16. Similarly, all agree that the translation “son of man” for Hebrew ben admamm and Greek huios tou anthropmou is another difficult issue without easy answers. While these phrases usually mean “human being,” this translation may obscure messianic references in some contexts. Again, explanatory footnotes are sometimes necessary. A number of other agreements could be added to this list, but these are sufficient to demonstrate common presuppositions and philosophical perspectives.

Do you agree?