This is one of my gripes in contemporary translation. You don't see ἀδελφοί being translated as "brothers and sisters" in any translation until the late 1990s because it was considered by many to be a capitulation to feminism. Just like the English use of "brothers", context determines if ἀδελφοί is gender inclusive or not.
ανθρωπος (man) is another example of a male-oriented word in Scripture that can be gender-inclusive that has been feminized (human, person, the one, etc...).
It was never really an issue of understanding either. The feminizing influence on the English language has come about as a direct result of Feminists in academia and the media. I lament that many translations do not reflect the fact that the Scriptures were inspired in thoroughly male-oriented, gender inclusive language.
Also, it's not that these sorts of things are happening here and there for clarity in some places that would be otherwise difficult for the English reader, but we are finding this sort of thing to be done systematically.
I realize people will quip and say that the male-oriented language in the Scriptures was simply a reflection of the times in which it was written (which pretty much holds true for the entire history of man up until the late 20th century), but this is precisely why, beginning in the 1960s, Feminists have waged their war on language. Male-oriented language actually MEANS something, and feminists HATE it.
Even ανηρ is getting emasculated and this is not a word that can be gender inclusive. For example, τέλειος ἀνήρ from James 3:2 is rendered in a number of translations as a gender inclusive phrase. This goes against the meaning of the word as well as the context...for here James is addressing the men of the church—that many should not be teachers. He is not addressing the women because it was already established that none of them were to be teaching in the church (1 Timothy 2:12) and his use of language reflects this.
Robert, as I pointed out in my posting, your gripe is with ancient translations as well, since the KJV does not share your principial objection to
any translation of "male" words by gender neutral equivalents (a classic misunderstanding of linguistics, since by definition, a generic use of a word is non-gendered). For example, the KJV translates
'ish as "person" in 2 Sam 4:11 (where modern translations generally have "man"!) and
'adam as person in Ezek. 44:25. If it is acceptable for clarity, here and there, isn't that exactly what those who translate
adelphoi as "brothers and sisters" argue that they are doing? You may not like their translational choice, but there is no ground to assume a mass conspiracy toward feminism on the part of all modern translations. Could it be that modern usage has simply shifted to the point where clarity might be obscured by the old translation? It is simply the same translational process that the KJV used in translating
bene- regularly as "children" (a gender neutral term) rather than "sons", a "masculine" term that sometimes can be used with a generic sense. Nothing more and nothing less.
By the way, an obvious place where the KJV should have used "human" for
adam for clarity is Numbers 5:6, where by rendering both '
ish and '
adam as man you end up with the confusing phrase "When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit..." That makes it sound as if you have women committing distinctly masculine transgressions (whatever those might be). It would have been much clearer to say "When a man or woman shall commit any sin that a human (or "person",
'adam) may commit..." And I think you would agree that no issue of male headship is at stake here.
