The New NIV

Here we go again. The 2011 NIV is being criticized for its inclusive language. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood [CBMW] is taking the translation committee to task for inaccurate gender language. More than 2700 of the problems critics identified in the controversial TNIV remain in the NIV 2011, and because of those problems the CBMW cannot recommend the revised translation.

As Baptist Press reports correctly, the debate centers on translation philosophy: Is it permissible to make the English translation inclusive when the intent and application of the verse are also inclusive? My answer to that question would be yes. A translation, especially a dynamic equivalent, can certainly do that. Is it wrong to ensure communication? I would say no as long as there is no violence to the intent of the Greek or Hebrew text. Do people speak in gender inclusive ways today? Yes. I even preach that way and have for years. I seldom use the masculine pronoun exclusively and have urged my students to do the same thing. We must communicate. We can without destroying the integrity of God's message. Overall then I believe the criticisms of CBMW are unwarranted. I understand their concerns of course and share in their desire to ensure biblical family values, but making the English text more gender inclusive is helpful and maybe even necessary.

There are two verses in Paul's writings that are especially criticized by CBMW. The first is 1 Timothy 2:12. The 2011 NIV renders the verse, "I do not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." The criticism is over 'assume authority' over against 'have authority,' found in the 1984 version. CBMW charges that the change will allow those who embrace women pastors and elders to argue that women are not assuming authority but have been given it by others. To be honest those who claim that women can serve as pastors and/or elders use the same argument with 'have authority.' One will not be convinced either way using the new translation. Doesn't the word 'assume' imply initiation of some kind? BDAG translates the word as 'to assume a stance of independent authority.' That definition seems to imply initiation. I'm not sure that the 2011 NIV needed to change the translation of v. 12 [I don't think I would have], but neither do I think the translation committee has violated the intent of Paul's writing.

Then there's Romans 16:7. This is the famous (or infamous) Junia verse. The 2011 NIV reads: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was." The 1984 NIV translated Junia as Junias, a male name and textually very doubtful. The controversy here concerns a preposition translated 'among,' which gives the impression that Junia was an apostle. Other versions, such as the ESV would translate the preposition as, 'well known to the apostles,' eliminating the possibility of a female apostle. The difficulty with the ESV and translations like it (including HCSB) is while that use of the preposition is possible it is not the ordinary use of it and unlikely. The most probable translation is that of the 2011 NIV. For those who do not wish to believe that a woman could be an apostle, it is common knowledge that the word in Greek more generally means 'messenger.' Perhaps Paul had in mind the more common and not the technical use of the term. We simply do not know, but I would rather grapple with the use of apostolos in this verse than do some translation gymnastics with the preposition. Interpretations like the ESV or HCSB seem to me to be more a product of one's ecclesiological presuppositions rather than a good translation of the Greek text.

Our presuppositions are hard to get out of the way when we interpret the biblical text. For example, the fact that I'm a Southern Baptist who affirms our denomination's doctrinal statement will lead me to see verses like 1 Timothy 2:12 and Romans 16:7 in a certain way. Good hermeneutics, however, call for as objective look at the text as possible. We must allow the texts to say what they say. We can grapple with and even argue about the meanings. But let's translate them correctly. In the two cases above, the 2011 NIV does a decent job. I would give it a "C+" on 1 Timothy 2:12 but an "A" on Romans 16:7.

Let's get back to the overall philosophical problem here. How do we translate God's Word? Language usages change. We all know that, and that's why the KJV is a problem for so many people. No one I preach to on Sunday uses "thee" or "thou." Translations must change as well. Good translations will communicate the unchanging Word of God so it can be understood by as many people as possible. You may not agree with gender inclusive language, but the fact remains that it is the way people communicate in 2011. Shouldn't a Bible translation show that as long as there is no violence done to the Greek or Hebrew texts? Can that be done? The answer to both questions is yes. More gender inclusive language does not have to undermine the authority of Scripture. I think that CBMW is reaching out too far in its overall criticism of the 2011 NIV.