by Tyler Young (written in 2002)
When Thomas Jefferson put quill to parchment to record the self-evident truth that “all men are created equal,” did anyone think he had in mind only the male, and not the female, of the species? Are we to think that when the Bible tells us “God would have all men to be saved” that he does not desire the salvation of women as well? For centuries men (excuse me, “people”) have understood the generic use of masculine pronouns to represent both genders. William Strunk, Jr., in his acclaimed work, Elements of Style, said,
The use of he as pronoun for nouns embracing both genders is a simple, practical convention rooted in the beginnings of the English language. He has lost all suggestion of maleness in these circumstances…It has no pejorative connotation; it is never incorrect.
That work, however, was first published in 1959, and does not reflect the influence of modern egalitarians over the past generation on popular usage. The rise of feminism has created a mentality which regards the generic use of male gendered terminology as a vestige of a patriarchal era, an oppression of women which cannot be tolerated. The more recent (1996) American Heritage Book of English Usage notes,
The reforms involving gender are explicitly political in intent and represent a quest for social justice…. The movement to reduce sexism in English has been remarkably successful by historical standards. Whether you agree with these efforts or not, there is no denying that they are widespread both in speech and in writing. A glance at any newspaper or five minutes in front of the television news will produce evidence to show that people are changing their language to accommodate concerns about fairness to both sexes.
That is why we do not have mailmen anymore, but “postal workers.” Forget calling a policeman—he’s a “police officer.” Firemen? No, “firefighters.”
Indeed, people are changing their language to accommodate cultural attitudes. But some are doing more than that. They are changing the Bible.
The International Bible Society (IBS) and Zondervan Publishing House recently announced plans to publish Today’s NIV, a “gender-neutral” revision of the New International Version. This is significant since the NIV is the most widely used English Bible, with more than 150 million copies sold since it was introduced in 1973. In 2001, it held a 32.1 percent share of the Bible market (the King James had a 22 percent market share, followed by the New King James with 10 percent and the New Living Translation with 8 percent). IBS and Zondervan, widely respected among denominationalists for their generally conservative influence, were criticized by prominent evangelicals when they first announced five years ago their plans to publish a revision of the NIV that would be “gender accurate.” In March of 1997, World magazine blew the whistle on their plans, noting that the IBS-licensed retranslated NIV already available in Great Britain said in its preface, “it is often appropriate to mute the patriarchalism of the culture of the biblical writers through gender inclusive language.” Under pressure from influential evangelicals like Dr. James Dobson, conservative scholars, and groups such as the Southern Baptists, whose leaders threatened to stop using the NIV in their Sunday school materials, IBS and Zondervan announced they had “abandoned all plans for gender-related changes in future editions of the New International Version.” That was then. Obviously, they abandoned their plans to abandon their plans to rework the most popular English Bible.
Despite the controversy surrounding it, the TNIV is receiving high praise from some. “This revision is a milestone in modern translations,” says Alan Johnson, Ph. D. Professor of New Testament and Ethics at Wheaton Graduate School. Gilbert Bilezikian, Professor of Biblical Studies at Wheaton College, calls it a “seeker-friendly translation” and boldly declared, “The TNIV has become the best translation of the New Testament in the English language. It has achieved improved readability of the Scripture without compromising the integrity of the original text.” Has it? We know the NIV already compromised the integrity of the original text in the name of readability. For whatever improvements it may make, an examination of the TNIV reveals its ideologically motivated translators have introduced even more distortions of scripture.
The publishers inform us that the TNIV is 93% identical to the NIV. For those aware of the problems with the NIV, including a number of blatant manipulations of the text in support of denominational doctrine, this itself may be problem enough. But what is especially troubling about the seven percent change is the attempt to purge the text of those allegedly offensive and misleading generic male gender references. The TNIV stays clear of the blasphemous territory boldly tread by the Inclusive Translation, which replaces all references to God as Father with, “Father-Mother” (as in “Our Father-Mother in heaven,” Mat. 6:9) and changes Jesus from the “Son of Man” to merely, “the human one.” But its tinkering with the verbiage of scripture is still appalling.
Of their tampering with gender references, the TNIV publishers protest the charge that they have made a “gender neutral” version. Instead, they claim to use “inclusive language” that is “gender accurate,” adding, “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.” Thus, while the NIV of 1 Timothy 2:4 states that God “wants all men to be saved,” the TNIV tells us God “wants all people to be saved.” In James 1:12, the NIV states, “Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life;” but the TNIV reads, “Blessed are those who persevere under trial, because when they have stood the test, they will receive the crown of life…” In these and other passages, the TNIV mistranslates the Greek word aner, which means a male human being and can only be accurately translated with the word “man.”
The TNIV changes Luke 17:3 from, “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him,” to, “If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke the offender, and if they repent, forgive them.” The words “or sister” and “offender” are added with absolutely no justification from the Greek text. To avoid the awkward, “he or she” and “him or her,” (for the antecedents “brother or sister”) the plurals “they” and “them” are used to refer to the singular “brother” or “sister,” a glaring breech in English grammar. Gender bending of this sort is found throughout the version. To eliminate the generic “he,” plural forms are changed to singulars again and again.
Compare Hebrews 12:7, which reads in the NIV, “Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?” with the TNIV: “Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children; For what children are not disciplined by their parents?” The Greek terms hious (“son”) and pater (“father”) in their singular forms cannot mean “child” or “parent” as the TNIV mistranslates them.
And what of the claim to have used generic language only when both men and women are in view? Look at Hebrews 2:6 in the NIV: “What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?”; now the TNIV: “What are mere mortals, that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?” By mistranslating houis (“son”) and anthropos (“man”) into the more general “human beings” and “mortals,” the application of this text to Christ as the “Son of Man” is, at the very least, undermined.
Then there is 1 Timothy 2:5. The NIV has, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” but the TNIV, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, Christ Jesus, himself human.” Jesus was not only human, but a certain kind of human, a man—a point the TNIV is willing to obscure in this text.
While IBS and Zondervan declare their use of “inclusive language” has not altered meaning, in fact it does often cloud correct understanding. When Paul addressed the Athenian philosophers on the Areopagus, he began with, “Men of Athens,” but the TNIV tells us he said, “People of Athens” (Acts 17:22). The effort of historical revisionists notwithstanding, there is no evidence that the Areopagus included women, but the TNIV allows for that possibility; the original text does not. The same problem occurs with Acts 20:30. When Paul addressed the elders of the church at Ephesus he warned them, “Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth,” but the TNIV states, “Even from your own number some will arise….” Again, the Greek aner cannot be properly translated as “some.” It appears this was another politically motivated change, as the TNIV language removes the clear impression of the Greek text that the elders were, in fact, men.
As with numerous other modern versions, the TNIV translators have taken it upon themselves to interpret, rather than strictly translate, the text. Even if a masculine term is being used generically to refer to all people, that determination should be made by the exegete, not the translator. Before we can determine what a text means, we must first know what the text says.
Another case of irresponsible handling of the text is the TNIV’s substitution of “believers” or “people of God” for the term saints. Gene Edward Veith is correct when he observes
But this obscures an important theological point, that Christians are considered by God to be holy. If the translators wanted a new term for the word used in Greek, they might have used something like, “holy ones.” But to change “saint” to “believers” focuses on belief rather than holiness; to “people of God” focuses on their membership in a community. Those do apply to Christians and are described elsewhere, but “saint” contains a profound theological insight that is blithely swept away.
For still another example, compare the NIV of Rev. 3:20, “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,” with the TNIV: “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.” Here, as elsewhere, the mistranslation of the Greek masculine singular pronoun autos (he) as “they” and “them” hides a nuance of meaning. One writer lamented that “the cumulative effect of hundreds of such changes is not only poor grammar but a loss of the Bible’s emphasis on individual responsibility and individual relationship with God.”
Aside from the obvious bow to the gods of political correctness, the TNIV publishers claim these gender adjustments are necessary to make the Bible understandable. The TNIV website carries this recommendation from a Senior Pastor of the Church of the Resurrection,
I remember how excited I was when my daughter began reading her new Bible. But then one night, as I put her to bed, she asked, “Daddy, why is the Bible only written to boys?” My heart sank. I tried to explain to her that male pronouns are sometimes used to refer to both men and women. She was utterly perplexed by this. Nowhere in her life experience were male pronouns used to relate to everyone. I've always loved the NIV, and I am very excited about this revision that will allow the NIV to speak to an entirely new generation.
Our hearts should sink, too, but not over the ridiculous idea that we or our children cannot understand the generic use of male pronouns, but over the dumbing down of the Bible for the allegedly ignorant masses. How in the world did previous generations understand the use of masculine language? Are we just too dim-witted to figure out what great grandma, with her third grade education, understood? We already have “seeker-friendly” churches with ten-minute sermons to accommodate the attention span of the MTV generation—now we have to have seeker-friendly Bibles too?
As with the NIV, there may be merits to the TNIV, for sure. But the injection of politically correct language to appease ungodly attitudes, and the resultant inaccuracies this creates, is a serious offense which must be condemned. We should welcome any new translations which updates the text while being true to the original words of scripture. But we must reject the work of translators who apparently would rather change the word of God to try to make it conform to their beliefs, rather than conform their beliefs to the word of God. In this writer’s view, the TNIV falls into that category.