Question:  Why does the AV7 Bible replace the word "brethren" with the word "family+" in many places?

Answer:  The Greek root "adelf+" from which both words are translated, literally means "from the same womb."   In most instances, unless the context clearly indicates that those being addressed or referenced are specifically all males or all females, "family" is generally more accurate than "brethren" or "brothers." Obviously, births "from the same womb" can and very commonly do include both males and females.

"Brethren" is an archaic term that one rarely if ever hears in everyday speech or writing today. While "brethren" is an exclusively masculine term, "family" is an inclusive term that refers to both males and females. "Family" is applicable in a wide variety of contexts. It can refer to blood relatives, or to a mixed group of men and women of common beliefs or common interests, or to the family of a certain company or city or state or nation, or even broadly to the family of mankind. For ultimately, all of humanity did indeed come forth from a common ancestor, one woman's womb.

A very compelling point of reference to consider in this regard is provided in this quote from Galatians 3:27-28: "For all+ who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek. There is neither bond nor free. There is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Surely it is clear beyond doubt or question, that when the Word of God, Jesus Christ, and His Apostles addressed great crowds of people, they were certainly not speaking only to the males in those crowds, but to everyone, both males and females equally. Without question, the Word of God and accompanying Scriptures are intended for both men and women equally and not just for males to the exclusion of females.

The use of masculine pronouns and other masculine terms such as "brethren" in traditional English translations of the Bible (and versions that have simply followed that example) and in other writing in the past was merely a convention born of patriarchal cultures. There is no technical, etymological, nor contextual basis for artificially imposing a masculine attribute to words where the context fails to make a specific sex distinction applicable.

Surely no one who reads Mark 16:16 in this archaic style of language, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ..." would argue that it is only possible for males to believe and be baptized. Therefore, is it not obvious that a much more appropriate reading should be: "Those who believe and are baptized (including both males and females) shall be saved."

Without question, in many instances in which the word "brethren" or "brothers" has been used in the past, the context clearly indicates that the audience being addressed was not exclusively males, but rather was undoubtedly comprised of both males and females.

The AV7 exhaustive concordance (as shown in the excerpt below) identifies 16 variant spellings of "adelf+." Five of these are identified by the Strongs number 79 and are translated as "sister" or "sisters" in 24 instances. Of the remaining 11 variant spellings, 9 are identified by Strongs number 80 and two by Strongs number 81. These may be translated as "brethren" or "brother" if and when the context clearly indicates that a masculine form is necessary. If that is not the case, however, the inclusive term "family" is surely more fitting.

Contexts provides clarification in many cases. But one must wonder about the efficacy in using "brother" and "brethren" in cases where the context seems clear that a wider audience is intended. The objective is not to impose a "gender neutral" characteristic but rather to simply achieve "audience inclusive" renderings. Conrad: The root elements in the cognate m. and f. words ADELFOS and ADELFH are Alpha sociative and DELF- ("womb"), so that the compound means "from the same womb." The words do therefore mean "brother" and "sister" in the normal literal sense of children of the same mother, whether or not begotten by the same father. But the words, especially the generic masculine ADELFOS, have extended senses and may refer to persons with whom one shares some sense of kinship by virtue of citizenship or religion or whatever. And, it is the special sense of being a fellow-Christian that is involved in the common use of the archaic English plural "brethren."

In the NT one will find all three of the usages ... but the question is, is it legitimate to understand--and also to TRANSLATE--the specific usage of ADELFOS in the sense of "fellow-Christian" to include female believers. I would answer that question with a ringing "Yes indeed!"

The answer to this question about ADELFOS is in Galatians 3:27-28: among those who have been baptized into Christ, all human distinctions, be they social, ethnic, or even biological, cease to matter. All who have been baptized into Christ are brothers and sisters without distinction of rank or privilege. One has the same kindred relationship and the same moral obligations and responsibilities toward all. Inasmuch as any human being is capable of redemption, the implications of these verses are universally applicable to all human beings.

Re the use of ADELFOS in Matthew's gospel: It is not a problem if one views the NT as a corpus of texts that interpret each other. Though it could be a problem if one tries to understand what Matthew's gospel means by ADELFOS apart from other NT texts.

The problem is this: as a document composed by and for either Jewish Christians or Jews committed to Christ (who have not abandoned Judaism or their ethnic identity as members of Israel), does Mt hold with the patriarachal tradition of Judaism and understand the word ADELFOS to refer only to males.

I think it quite possibly does. However, even if that were true, the gospel of Mt is only one document of the whle of the NT corpus. Therefore, for that reason, the implications of Gal 3:27-28 are applicable to anything Mt's gospel says about ADELFOI in the sense of "fellow-Christians."

There are passages in the NT where forms of ADELFOS and of ADELFH should be understood in the literal sense of "blood-brother" or "blood-sister." There may also be some passages in which the words refer to fellow-nationals in a larger group, although this is less common. However, when the words are used for "fellow believers," then there is no legitimate reason for understanding them as referring only to males.

Any discerning reader can make distinctions based on context.

Most languages have been shaped by patriarchal traditions in which masculine words are used legitimately in a generic sense and there are rarely any obviously "inclusive" words.

The word "kin" has the limitation of only referring to blood relations and/or mutually-socially-committed persons like members of an ethnic group or members of a fraternity. Thus, it is not adequate to clearly express the inclusive gender idea that is needed.

Certainly an argument can be made that using "family" is not a sufficiently literal translation. In Mt 5:22-24, one could object that such a translation appears to extend the obligation even beyond believers, so that anyone angry with any other human being may be "in danger of the judgment."