The main points that Dr. Strauss tries to make are not new, but have already received a response in Vern S. Poythress and Wayne A. Grudem, The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God’s Words (GNBC; Broadman & Holman, 2000; now online at www.cbmw.org/resources/books and www.keptthefaith.org).
Dr. Strauss says that the TNIV makes improvements to the NIV, such as using person or people when that is what the Greek means. But this has never been the question under debate (see my approval of such changes in GNBC, 91-99, 197-198). The question is not whether the TNIV got some things right, but whether it is faithful in the area of gender—and there are many places where it is not, verses with changes in meaning due to the gender-neutral policy stated in the TNIV preface.
For example, the TNIV changes father to parents (Heb. 12:7), son to children (Gal. 4:7; Heb. 12:7b; Rev. 21:7), and brother to fellow believers (1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Thess. 3:15; 1 John 2:10). This neutering of meaning conforms to political correctness. In all these verses, the Greek is singular, and the singular form consistently carries a male meaning that is dropped by the TNIV (GNBC, 251-276; “Analyzing Today’s NIV,” www.keptthefaith.org). Dr. Strauss confuses the discussion because, under the term inclusive, he unfortunately lumps together these cases that wrongly change a male meaning with cases that rightly translate a Greek meaning that is already explicitly inclusive (GNBC, 94-95, 115-117).
TNIV’s systematic elimination of generic he also causes meaning changes (GNBC, 111-232, 335-347).
Consider Revelation 22:18:
NIV: “If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues … “
TNIV: “If anyone of you adds anything to them, God will add to you the plagues … “
The TNIV’s change implies that “you” all will receive plagues for the sin of “anyone of you.” The TNIV obscures the meaning in the very verse that forbids tampering with God’s Word! The TNIV removes the masculine singular he/his/him/himself over 400 times (see www.no-TNIV.com). Moreover, in Greek a generic masculine singular typically suggests a male example, and is not purely gender-neutral, because the text will sometimes shift seamlessly from a generic masculine to a specific male example (GNBC, 142-145, 336-339). Contrary to Dr. Strauss’s assumption, the match between Greek and generic he is very good.
The TNIV says of Jesus, “He had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest” (Heb. 2:17). Jesus did become fully human, identifying with both men and women. But high priests were always male. By adding sisters right after brothers, and following it with the telling phrase in every way, the TNIV makes it sound as if Jesus is bisexual (male and female).
Such changes, though subtle in individual cases, accumulate to many meaning changes in the whole. In the process, even though the translators did not intend it, plenary inspiration is undermined.
Mark Strauss responds to Poythress.
Copyright © 2002 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
Related Elsewhere
Our TNIV Debate package also includes:
The TNIV DebateIs this new translation faithful in its treatment of gender?
Is the TNIV faithful in its treatment of gender? NoPolitical correctness puts pressure on translators to change details of meaning.
Is the TNIV faithful in its treatment of gender? YesThe TNIV does not eliminate gender distinctions but rather clarifies them.
A Response to Vern PoythressThe TNIV preserves the original meaning.
For coverage of the TNIV debate, see these articles from Christianity Today:
Getting the TNIV Debate StraightOur policy against negative ads doesn’t mean we’re cutting off discussion. (June 7, 2002)
TNIV Critics Blast Scripture ‘Distortions’But evangelical backers of new translation say gender changes are ‘accurate.’ (March 19, 2002)
Why the TNIV Draws IreNo translation is perfect, and each must be read with a careful exegetical eye. A Christianity Today editorial. (March 19, 2002)
Which Version Should We Use?What we said when the NIV was first published. A Christianity Today editorial. (March 19, 2002)
Christian History Corner: Translation WarsSharp as debate over the TNIV may be, the version’s translators are getting off easy compared to John Wycliffe and William Tyndale. (March 1, 2002)
Weblog: The TNIV Battle ContinuesDobson and others launch “Kept the Faith” to accuse TNIV creators of violating their word and God’s (Feb. 11, 2002)
Comparing the Three NIVsHow does the TNIV treat verses that were earlier criticized as theologically incorrect? (Jan. 31, 2002)
Weblog: Southern Baptist Leaders So Upset About TNIV That Denomination May Abandon NIV (Jan. 29, 2002)
Revised NIV Makes Its DebutTranslators alter 7 percent of the text to update style and gender issues. (Jan. 28, 2002)
The TNIV Web site offers the full New Testament text (in Adobe Acrobat format), a questions and answers section, endorsements, and other promotional material. Zondervan is also providing free copies of the translation.
Criticisms of the TNIV are available at KeptTheFaith.org and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
Michael W. Holmes, professor of biblical studies and early Christianity at Bethel College writes on the TNIV in the current issue of Books & Culture, a Christianity Today sister publication.
Christianity Today coverage of gender-inclusive Bible translation includes:
The Battle for the Inclusive BibleConflicts over “gender-neutral” versions are not really about translation issues. (Nov. 15, 1999)
Do Inclusive-Language Bibles Distort Scripture?He Said, They Said (October 27, 1997)
The Great Translation DebateThe divide over gender-inclusive Bibles hides what unites us. (Oct. 27, 1997)
Hands Off My NIV!Bible society cancels plans for ‘gender-accurate’ Bible after public outcry. (June 16, 1997)
Bible Translators Deny Gender AgendaFocus on the Family yanks children’s Bible; NIV translator loses seminary job. (July 14, 19997)
Previous Christianity Today articles on Bible translation include:
A Translation Fit For a KingIn the beginning, the King James Version was an attempt to thwart liberty. In the end, it promoted liberty. (Oct. 22, 2001)
The Reluctant RomansAt Douai in Flanders, Catholic scholars translated the Bible into English as an alternative to the Bible of “the heretics.” (Oct. 22, 2001)
We Really Do Need Another Bible TranslationAs good as many modern versions are, they often do not allow us to hear what the Holy Spirit actually said. (Oct. 19, 2001)
Old Wisdom for New TimesThe International Bible Society is doing “spiritual archaeology” and retro-publishing to reach seekers. (April 23, 2001)
And the Word Came with PicturesVisual Bible International (VBI), is producing a movie version of the Bible book for book, word for word. (March 1, 2001)
New Bible translations help to preserve world’s disappearing languagesThe total number of languages in which the Bible is available in part or in its entirety now stands at 2,233. (Feb. 28, 2000)
What Bible Version Did Jesus Read?What does the knowledge that Jesus used different versions of Scripture mean for us today? (April 26, 1999)
On the Shoulders of King JamesBarclay M. Newman has kept before him a question posed by the translators of the 1611 King James Version: “What can be more [important] than to deliver God’s book unto God’s people in a tongue which they understand?” (Oct. 27, 1997)
Confessions of a Bible TranslatorAs a stylist on a new translation of the Bible, Daniel worries over the effectiveness of the language into which the text is translated. (Oct. 27, 1997)
