Ed Vitagliano
AFA Journal news editor
May 2002 – Christian conservatives are charging the publisher of the New International Version (NIV) with what is one of the gravest of sins in the evangelical world: fiddling around with the inerrant Word of God, especially at a time when our culture is burning with the raging fire of moral relativism.
The battle lines are being drawn over Zondervan Publishing House’s release of Today’s New International Version (TNIV) of the New Testament, with the Old Testament scheduled for release by 2005.
The controversy is no minor flare-up: Zondervan is the world’s largest publisher of Bibles, and the original NIV, which will still be available, is the most widely read translation in the world.
Critics contend that the TNIV is a “gender-neutral” translation, in which many of the clearly masculine nouns and pronouns in the original text (except those referring to God or Jesus) have been translated in a neutral manner – “man,” for example, becomes “person.”
Conservative scholars weigh in
Leading the outcry is World magazine, not surprising for those familiar with the controversy over gender-neutral Bibles. In 1997 World stunned the evangelical community with a series of articles about Zondervan’s plans for a new gender-neutral NIV version.
Zondervan initially denied World’s reports, but the magazine’s follow-up articles nailed the lid shut. After a sustained barrage of denunciations from the evangelical community, Zondervan finally admitted to the planned changes, and backed away.
It was a complete retreat. A press release from the International Bible Society (IBS), the NIV’s international copyright holder, said it had “abandoned all plans for gender-related changes in future editions” of the NIV. In fact, it said it was planning to keep the current NIV unchanged, and had “no plans for a further revised edition.”
Executives at IBS have now apparently changed their minds – again. In fact, the announcement in late January of this year that the TNIV New Testament was being released indicated that “plans for a further revised edition” must have begun soon after IBS made its pledge in 1997.
In response, conservative evangelicals have again weighed into the fray. Almost 40 well-respected scholars – including R.C. Sproul, John Piper, and Paige Patterson – have signed a document rejecting the accuracy of the TNIV. The statement said, “In light of troubling translation inaccuracies – primarily (but not exclusively) in relation to gender language – that introduce distortions of the meanings that were conveyed by the original NIV, we cannot endorse the TNIV translation as sufficiently accurate to commend to the church.”
Changing God’s word?
The sticking point in the debate over accuracy concerns the simple question of gender. In Romans 4:8, for example, the NIV says, “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.” The word translated “man” is the Greek word aner, which always refers to a male. However, since it is obvious that women are also blessed if their sins are forgiven, is it OK to substitute the gender-neutral word “person,” as the TNIV does?
Zondervan says the answer is yes. On its Web page promoting the TNIV, the publisher said, “The TNIV uses generic language only where the meaning of the text was intended to include both men and women. These changes reflect a better understanding of the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew.”
Critics say efforts to neuter passages like Romans 4:8 confuse the application of scriptural truth with the accurate translation of the original text. Dr. Wayne Grudem of Phoenix Seminary in Scottsdale, Arizona, who has co-authored The Gender-Neutral Bible: Muting the Masculinity of God’s Words with Dr. Vern Poythress of Westminster Theological Seminary, said:
“Of course these verses apply to women as well as men, just as the parable of the prodigal son applies to women as well as men, and the parable of the woman with the lost coin applies to men as well as women, and the command, ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife’ applies to not coveting your neighbor’s husband if you are a woman. But in none of these cases should we translate it to be the parable of the prodigal child or the parable of a person with a lost coin, or change the Ten Commandments to read, ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s spouse.’ Leave the Scripture gender specific where the original language is gender specific.”
Furthermore, what determines, as Zondervan puts it, “the meaning of the text?” World’s Gene Edward Veith asks, “Is a translation of a text supposed to provide what it says or what it means? Or what the translator thinks it means, or wants it to mean?” He adds, “[H]ow can a scholar … be so confident of what the original text ‘really means,’ other than what it says?”
If a translator substitutes what he thinks something means for what it literally says, that might put the readers of the Bible at a distinct disadvantage. “A person has to know ‘what it says’ before trying to figure out ‘what it means,’” Veith said.
Political correctness out of control
Some conservative critics believe the problems with the TNIV go even deeper – that the changes clearly reflect the imprint of political correctness or even feminism.
World’s Joel Belz, for example, points to the translation of John 6:33, where the NIV says, “For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” The TNIV, however, changes the verse: “For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” (Emphasis added).
“So, since the reference is so clearly to Jesus, why the need for eliminating the masculine pronoun?” Belz asks. “The evidence is overwhelming. The editors of this Bible have a preoccupation with doing away with anything masculine.”
This is especially touchy for evangelicals who hold to the inspiration of Scripture. If the Holy Spirit chose a masculine noun through which to convey truth, what gives mere men the right to ignore that choice?
Thus critics point to the numerous instances in which the TNIV strips away the masculine meaning of the Greek aner, which the NIV faithfully translates “man.” Grudem says that aner “occurs 216 times in the New Testament, and there is no case where it clearly includes women.”
In fact, Grudem said, if “persons” had been intended, there is a clear choice in the Greek. “It has been well-known by Greek scholars for centuries that the term anthropos can mean either ‘person’ or ‘man,’ depending on the context,” he said.
Even the enthusiastic praise of some Christian leaders for the TNIV appears to hint at the influence of political correctness. Denver Seminary professor of New Testament Dr. Craig Blomberg said, “Knowing real-life women readers who I want to have treasure the Bible, I realize that it’s not natural any longer for people to read that kind of language – particularly for women readers to read it and think that they are being addressed.”
It is important to note that Blomberg is not saying that people who translate the original text are putting it into archaic terms. Instead, he is implying that the original text of the Bible is sometimes so obsolete that modern-day translators have to improve upon it by changing its meaning.
On its Website Zondervan has tried to bolster support for the TNIV by citing endorsements from Christian leaders who favor the translation, like Dr. David W. Miller, senior pastor of the Church at Rocky Peak (Chatsworth, California). “The TNIV is not ‘gender sensitive,’ it is ‘gender accurate!’ It simply says it like God said it. I’m ready to switch over!” Miller effuses.
In reality, the TNIV does exactly the opposite. Instead of IBS translators putting it exactly “like God said it,” they appear to be putting it like they think God ought to have said it.
Evangelical leader and Christian psychologist Dr. James Dobson may have said it best five years ago, when, in the throes of the initial debate, he said, “I find it breathtaking [that anyone] would feel justified in editing the utterances of the Holy One of Israel.”
Zondervan and IBS state that Today’s New International Version, (TNIV) is simply a “gender accurate” translation. Is it truly more accurate on gender than the original NIV? The Web site of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) has posted a list of over 100 inaccuracies in the pages of the TNIV (www.cbmw.org). Below are a few comparisons between the original NIV and TNIV, with comments from evangelicals.
NIV: Hebrews 2:6 “What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?”
TNIV: “What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?”
Criticism: “Removes the possibility of connecting this with Jesus, who called Himself ‘the Son of Man.’ Mistranslates the singular Greek words huios (‘son’) and anthropos (‘man’). No longer calls the human race ‘man,’ but ‘mere mortals.’” (CBMW)
NIV: Hebrews 2:17 “[Jesus] had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest…”
TNIV: “[Jesus] had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest…”
Criticism: “Did Jesus have to become like a sister ‘in every way’?…This text does not quite proclaim an androgynous Jesus, but it comes close….” (Wayne Grudem, World, 2/16/02)
NIV: 1 Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus…”
TNIV: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, Christ Jesus, himself human…”
Criticism: “The result of the process is sometimes even an unwillingness to say that Jesus is both God and male.” (Susan Olasky, World, 2/23/02)
NIV: James 1:12 “Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life…”
TNIV: “Blessed are those who persevere under trial, because when they have stood the test, they will receive the crown of life…”
Criticism: “Mistranslates the Greek word aner, which means a male human being. Loses the probable allusion to James’ brother Jesus, “the man” who truly persevered under trial. Loses the allusion to example [of] the “blessed man” in Old Testament wisdom literature (Psalm 1:1; 32:2; 40:4, etc.)” (CBMW)
NIV: Acts 17:22 “Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: ‘Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious.’”
TNIV: “Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: ‘People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious.’”
Criticism: “Suggests that there were women debating on the Areopagus. Mistranslates Greek aner, ‘men.’” (CBMW)