Criticism of Today's New International Version

From Wikinfo

See main article on Today's New International Version

Today's New International Version, (TNIV) a Bible translation released in 2002, has sparked controversy and discussion since its introduction.

Among the most frequently discussed (and debated) changes in the TNIV are those involving the use of gender inclusive language to refer to people. Various terms are employed such as "gender neutral" or "gender inclusive". When negative connotations became attached to the latter two, supporters employed the term "gender accurate."

For example, in the TNIV, Genesis 1:27 reads: "So God created human beings in his own image," where many older translations use the word "man" as a generic reference to humanity. Matthew 5:9 reads: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God," instead of "son." (Interestingly, the King James Version uses "children" here too.) And Romans 3:28 reads: "A person is justified by faith," instead of "a man is justified by faith."

Masculine references to God (e.g. "Father," "Son," etc) are not modified in the TNIV.

Opponents of this approach point out that many of the terms in question are grammatically masculine in the original languages. (In Greek and Hebrew, as in Spanish, nouns and pronouns have grammatical gender. Whilst English nouns and pronouns do not have grammatical gender, nouns like "boy" are masculine, and such as "girl" are feminine.)

Most liberal and conservative translators are in common agreement that there are cases within the text that correctly lend themselves to inclusive language but the divergence of opinion is that often inclusive language versions go beyond this.

The two main criticisms of the worst of gender inclusive language are:

• To achieve its aims, inclusive language can force an incorrect translation onto the text - i.e. going beyond substituting plural pronouns where singular once existed, in that the noun is made plural and genderless in order to remove the singular "man" and the "he" pronoun which may follow. Also to achieve its gender neutral presentation a poor grammatical style (but one accepted by many) is adopted. Examples; Psalm 1:1; "Blessed are those who do not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers". This verse is now aimed at a genderless group of people, where the accurate translation examines the godly individual over against the many ungodly. The meaning of the verse is lost. Accuracy is sacrificed for political correctness. Revelation 3:20; "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me." and John 6:44; "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day". This problem of plural pronouns is located in the lack of a singular gender-neutral pronoun in English. Yet this is not just a problem for the English Language, and in fact is more complicated in the Romantic Languages, where the plural pronouns are either feminine or masculine, with no gender neutral pronoun!

• It caters to a feminist, politically correct agenda, which makes the translator also an interpreter who appears to proceed mechanically with the idea that every occurrence of adam, anthropos and adelphoi are to be understood in a gender-inclusive sense, and where an archetypical single person is being identified, the same mechanical process renders this in plural. Essentially translation gives way to paraphrasing governed by a bias. For example in Acts 1:16 "andres adelphoi" literally "men and brethren" (=kinsmen) is gender specific. The "adelphoi", in this instance is governed by andres and cannot be taken as inclusive of women, yet the TNIV translates this as "brothers and sisters"! In Acts 7:20 it is noted ?he (Moses) was brought up in the house of his father? - the real gender accurate translation, in the TNIV it is transformed into "he was cared for in his Parent?s home". Whilst "parents" is sometimes acceptable as a meaning for the plural of pater, the Greek text has the singular "patros". From this verse you only achieve "parents" by pluralising and paraphrasing in line with a bias, which seeks to neuter the masculine.

A complete catalogue of criticisms can be found on Inaccuracies in the New Testament

- Proponents argue that the critics of inclusive language confuse grammar for meaning - that the grammatical gender of a word has no bearing on its meaning. (For example, in Spanish the word for table, mesa, is grammatically feminine, but that does not mean tables are female.) The two main arguments in favor of inclusive language are:

• It is claimed that no such male nuances of meaning exist in passages translated with inclusive language; therefore translations like the TNIV more accurately communicate the meaning of the text. For example words like "adelphoi" previously translated "brothers", could be understood as gender inclusive and was (dependant upon context) comprehended in New Testament times as inclusive. With the shift of time and customs, "brothers" has become understood as a collective masculine word. It is right therefore in a large number of passages to use "brothers and sisters", which is gender accurate to the text.

• Traditional forms of English (in which terms like "man" and "he" applied to both genders) are falling out of everyday use and are likely to be misinterpreted, especially by younger readers. Also it is argued that use of what is claimed as the singular they does not obscure the individual application of passages like Revelation 3:20, because such use is increasingly common in the English language and is easily understood by most readers. Also, supporters maintain that the 'singular they' has a long history in the English language.

Approximately 30% of the changes found in the TNIV involve the use of gender inclusive language[1].

The TNIV's approach to gender inclusive language is similar to that of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the New Living Translation (NLT), the New Century Version (NCV) and the Contemporary English Version (CEV), which have all been subject to criticism by Evangelcial Christians.

Some have suggested that the TNIV is essentially a republication of the NIVI, an inclusive language edition of the NIV that was published in the UK in the late 1990s. However, there are several differences between the two translations. First, the entire Committee on Bible Translation (or CBT, the same committee that translated the NIV) worked on the TNIV. This was not the case with the NIrV. Second, as noted above, the TNIV is a thorough revision based on the NIV; as such, it is far more than merely a "gender inclusive" update of the NIV. Third, the TNIV adopts a more conservative approach to gender language, retaining masculine languages in some passages where the NIVI did not (for example, Proverbs 3:1). Fourth, the TNIV was more than a decade in the making, while the NIVI was a much shorter project.

The TNIV and hoi ioudaioi

In the TNIV some original Greek text references to hoi ioudaioi (literally, the Jews), are translated as referring to Jewish leaders of Jesus' day. For example, in the gospel of John (e.g. John 18:36), the TNIV translators and a number of other biblical scholars now render hoi ioudaioi as "Jewish leaders," and not to the Jews as a whole. Although it is claimed that this change was justified in terms of interpretation by biblical scholarship [2] [3] [4], the result is that the TNIV is less anti-Semitic than English versions which retain the literal translation of "the Jews." The TNIV is not alone[5] among English Bible versions in following recent biblical scholarship on this matter.
Some in terms of a literal reading of the text, have criticized this change from "the Jews" as being untrue to the text, others, however, may regard this change as bringing the translation closer to the intent of those source texts. The reality is that the complexities of understanding the divisions of Synagogue and Church and its impact upon the text, the use of the definite article (the) which is suggestive that all Jews were involved, coupled with anti-Semitism, have forced translators to interpret the text, rather than provide a straight translation. There is an excellent article by David Burke [6] which provides a scholarly overview.

The TNIV Launch and Ensuing Controversy

When TNIV was launched first in 2002, its publication caused considerable controversy, especially among American fundamentalist Protestants. Some claimed the publication of a gender-inclusive bible was a betrayal because the International Bible Society said in a 1997 press release that it would "[abandon] all plans for gender-related changes in future editions of the New International Version (NIV)." IBS and Zondervan claimed that the TNIV is a new translation, but most conservatives reject this as a mere loophole.

In spite of the fact that its word choices are much more conservative than many other Biblical translations, the TNIV has received much more attention than other comparable projects, mainly because the original NIV has been the best-selling English Bible version in the United States for over 20 years.

In 2005, Zondervan planned to advertise the TNIV in Rolling Stone as part of its campaign to launch the full TNIV Bible to ?spiritually intrigued 18- to 34-year-olds?[7]. Just weeks before the ad?s scheduled run date, Rolling Stone pulled the ad, citing a policy against religious advertisements in its magazine. A media frenzy ensued, beginning with a story in USA Today, and two weeks later, Rolling Stone reversed its position and eventually ran the ad.

In 2006, Zondervan announced the production of The Bible Experience, an audio recording of the TNIV featuring performances by Angela Bassett, Cuba Gooding Jr., Blair Underwood, Denzel Washington and several other leading celebrities. The Bible Experience New Testament was released in October 2006.

Also in 2006, Zondervan launched the TNIV Study Bible with updated study notes (based on the NIV Study Bible) and a 700-page topical index.

Critics and Supporters of the TNIV

In 2002, a number of prominent evangelical leaders and scholars expressed their opposition to the TNIV. These include James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Wayne Grudem, D. James Kennedy, Albert Mohler, John Piper, Dennis Rainey, Pat Robertson, R.C. Sproul, Joni Eareckson Tada, and others [8].

Additionally, both the Presbyterian Church in America and the Southern Baptist Convention have passed resolutions ([9], [10]) expressing disapproval of the translation.

Other scholars and leaders have openly supported the TNIV, including Rob Bell, Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, Don Carson, Jim Cymbala, Peter Furler, Bill Hybels, Tremper Longman, Erwin McManus, John Ortberg, John Stott, Philip Yancey, and others [11].

In 2006, the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) officially recognized the TNIV as an acceptable translation for use in its churches. The TNIV has also gained widespread use within the Evangelical Covenant Church.

Although it is now stated that "TNIV is a revision but not a replacement of the NIV", there was a suggestion that this might be the case, a suggestion which caused bad publicity. It was noted in the USA "World Magazine" 29th March 1997, that Kenneth Barker, the CBT chairman and secretary clearly stated that the Committee for Bible Translation?s desire is to have only a "gender-inclusive" NIV. This was reported in an article headed "Stealth Bible" Femme Fatale cover story[12]. As a result of the Inclusive Langauge controversy, some Evangelicals made preparations to ensure that a Bible which still catered for Evangelcials would be available. From this two new versions appeared as alternatives; The Holman Christian Standard Bible[13] and The English Standard Version[14].