Over the past three weeks, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) has been conducting a review of the recently released and extensively revised new NIV (2011).

As of now, the translation is only available online. Zondervan’s release of the TNIV in 2002 (New Testament) and 2005 (full Bible) brought about a significant controversy in the evangelical community over Bible translation philosophy in general and translation of gender-related passages in particular.

Given that the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) used the TNIV as their starting point, and that CBMW was deeply involved in opposing the TNIV, we feel a certain obligation to provide an assessment of the new NIV (2011). CBMW does this out of a sense of fairness toward a new product and a sense of responsibility to its constituency.

· First, we are grateful for the openness and honesty expressed by Zondervan and the CBT during the early stages of this revision. Several private conversations were held long prior to the finalization of the work of the CBT (indeed, the CBT humbly solicited input from a number of sources), and the leadership at Zondervan was very forthright about their intentions and plan. Particularly to be commended are Zondervan President Moe Girkins and CBT Chairman Doug Moo. Their integrity from the very beginning of this process has set the stage for a respectful discussion of substance of this new translation.

· Second, we are thankful that the CBT made some significant improvements in various areas. For instance, in many passages “man” and “mankind” replace a gender-neutral equivalent, resulting in greater accuracy in translating the Hebrew or Greek text. This is also true in many cases for the words, “he,” “him,” “his,” “brother,” “father,” and “son.” In numerous passages that now contain these words, the CBT revised many of the most egregious passages that concerned us previously.

· Third, to offer an instance of a typical gender-language change from the NIV to the TNIV to the new NIV (2011), Revelation 3:20 is an interesting example. It illustrates how the CBT has tried to dial down the one-size-fits-all gender-inclusive approach of the TNIV. In 1984, the NIV translators were comfortable with “generic he.” With the TNIV they insisted on only using the gender-inclusive plural them/they. But in 2011 they have taken a middle ground, using “that person…they.”

NIV (1984) 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 him, and he with me.

TNIV (2005) 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.

NIV (2011) 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 that person, and they with me.

Several things may be noted about the new rendering.

1. The CBT has obviously taken seriously the criticism that the TNIV’s use of generic plurals (them/they) in place of singular pronouns (him/he) in the interest of deploying gender-neutral language potentially obscured an important aspect of biblical thought—that of the personal relationship between an individual and God expressed ubiquitously in the Bible by generic singulars (him/he).

2. The CBT has attempted to remedy this problem without reverting to masculine singulars, but by mixing gender-unspecific singulars and plurals (that person/they). And they do so offering as justification and precedent – current English usage, Shakespeare and the Greek NT!

3. This is still going to leave pastors and teachers with the rather onerous task of repeatedly advising the flock: “that is a singular ‘they’” or “that is a singular ‘them.’” And in many important verses, a reader will not be able to tell if “they” is meant as singular or plural from the new NIV(2011) English text alone (see John 14:23 for example).

4. Furthermore, ironically but importantly, “that person” has a very cold, impersonal feel in comparison to both “them” and “him.” That is not how we speak when we want to maximize the warmth and intimacy of our relationship with someone in English. “That person” is how we speak about someone we don’t know. The new NIV (2011) is going to struggle with that, regularly.

5. Nevertheless, the CBT has at least wrestled to try to retain the individual aspect of Revelation 3:20 in the new NIV(2011), but their desire to avoid the use of a generic “him” has led to the use of a more distant-sounding “that person.”

· Fourth, there are some significant problematic passages in the new NIV(2011) that have been retained from the TNIV, not the least of which is the deliberately ambiguous rendering of authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12 as “assume authority.” The CBT says that this leaves the interpretation of the passage open, but it actually intentionally introduces a crucial ambiguity that is not found in the original NIV (which accurately translated authentein “have authority”).

The new NIV(2011)’s translation of authentein designedly lends itself to a common current egalitarian misinterpretation of this passage (i.e., that Paul is only addressing the case of women illegitimately “assuming” authority, rather than prohibiting women from having/exercising authority as teacher/shepherds of the church). Bells should go off when one notes that even the gender-neutral NRSV translates authentein “have authority” here (!)—along with the NIV, NLT, HCSB, NKJV, and NIRV, while the NASB, HCSB and ESV similarly translate it as “exercise authority.”

Thus, the CBT is out on a limb here over against the other main modern English translations. And it is out on a limb precisely because of its attempt to be “neutral” on a passage that even the translators of the NRSV have not attempted to make more amenable to an egalitarian interpretation. There are, of course, other problems with the rendering “assume authority” in contrast with “have authority” (NIV) and “exercise authority” (NASB).

For instance, it is clear in English that the latter two prohibit women from the being in the state of having/holding/exercising of authority, whereas “assume authority” could easily be misconstrued as pertaining only to the taking up of authority (whether legitimately or illegitimately) or the way in which one comes into the state of authority.

But where is the evidence that authentein indicates only entry into a state of authority? Thus the introduction of “assume” here carries with it a connotation that either misleads or allows the English reader to be misled.

Indeed, we think the new NIV (2011)’s rendering of these passages alone may cause it to struggle for wider acceptance. And then there are passages where the familiar and beloved poetry of a half-millennium of the Bible in English are lost, Psalm 23:4 being a prime example. “Darkest valley” (an unfortunate holdover from the TNIV) is just never going to be able to compete with “valley of the shadow of death.”

So, though we are genuinely thankful for the many positive changes in the new NIV (2011), and though we are deeply appreciative of the very different process by which our friends at the CBT and Zondervan pursued and unveiled this new version, we still cannot commend the new NIV (2011) for most of the same reasons we could not commend the TNIV.

Our initial analysis shows that the new NIV (2011) retains many of the problems that were present in the TNIV, on which it is based, especially with regard to the over 3,600 gender-related problems we previously identified. In spite of the many good changes made, our initial analysis reveals that a large percentage of our initial concerns still remain. CBMW will be releasing an exact percentage after we complete our full detailed analysis. We are also still concerned about the frequent omission of the words, “man,” “brother,” “father,” “son,” and “he.”

As the evangelical community turns to CBMW for trusted counsel on contemporary Bible translations that are faithful and accurate in their rendering of gender-language, we will continue to point them to the many translations available today that do a better job than the TNIV and new NIV (2011) – translations like the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), the New American Standard (NASB), the New King James (NKJV), and the English Standard Version (ESV).

If you want more information about gender-neutral translations we recommend that you look at the resources available at http://www.cbmw.org/Gender-Neutral-Bible-Resources. Though most of this material was prepared in relation to the TNIV, much of it still applies to our primary concerns about the new NIV (2011), and interested readers can still use it as a help in examining individual verses in the new NIV (2011).

Our prayer is that evangelicals will continue to be very discerning with regard to the Bibles that they purchase and will utilize those translations that are the most accurate.

This article first appeared on the CBMW website and is used with their permission.
Source: http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/CBMW-Responds-to-New-NIV2011

[Editor’s note: the original URL (link) referenced in this article is no longer valid, so the link has been removed.]