Editorial

We offer this issue of JBMW in order to assist the reader in a charitable yet discerning critique of Today's New International Version (TNIV). It does not appear that evangelicals will soon come to an agreement on the use of gendered language in Bible translations. Yet, as this debate continues, we hope to make substantive contributions that honor God's Word, as well as those with whom we disagree. We are aware that other translations also deserve interaction. However, since the TNIV is a revision of the widely read NIV, we believe it demands a concentrated response.

Two mistakes ought to be avoided in this debate. First, it is not our intent to judge the motives of those on the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT). We do not pretend to know the hearts of the translators. They have stated clearly that they want to produce an accurate and faithful translation of the Scriptures.¹ In and of itself, this is a commendable goal. But asking hard questions about motives is still fair play.

Second, it is naïve to think that anyone comes to the task of translating the Bible with a completely unbiased and objective posture. Even for the most skillful translators, pre-understanding and presuppositions exist. Though the members of the CBT have clearly stated some of their presuppositions, it is appropriate to evaluate whether those presuppositions do, in fact, yield an "improved representation of the Word of God."² Thoughtful readers will still ask, to what degree should "many diverse and complex cultural forces"³ influence the use of the English language in translating God's Word?

We begin with Russell Moore's concern that individualism among evangelicals—as evidenced, in part, by the proliferation of Bibles marketed toward specific groups—overshadows the fact that the Bible belongs to the community, the church. Moore argues that only in a context where evangelicals look more to parachurch ministries and publishing houses than the church could the production of the TNIV emerge. The next article, by John Mark Reynolds, responds directly to statements made by Zondervan that explain their reasons for publishing the TNIV. These statements, Reynolds shows, are based on fallacious reasoning or faulty assumptions and should not, therefore, guide the translation of Scripture.

Wayne Grudem and Vern Poythress each contribute articles drawing from their years of evaluation of gender-neutral translations. Comparing several passages of the TNIV with the NIV, they show how revisions distort or obscure the message of the text. Justin Taylor also approaches translation methodology in the TNIV by evaluating certain key texts. Ironically, the changes introduced result at times in language contrary to the CBT's stated aim of accessibility by limiting readers' interpretive options.

Old Testament scholar Bob Cole offers a thorough examination of the TNIV's rendering of Psalm 1. Analyzing the history of interpretation and verbal and thematic ties between Psalms 1 and 2, Cole argues that the TNIV has allowed a generalizing interpretation of Psalm 1 to dictate their translation. In so doing, the TNIV hides from the English reader the connections of Psalm 1 with Psalm 2 present in the Hebrew text. This is particularly significant, argues Cole, because Psalms 1 and 2 abound with Messianic implications.

The next article in this issue examines a larger consequence of the TNIV's translation. Michael Travers and I offer an inter-disciplinary look at the ancient conversation on gender that permeates literature and Scripture. By veiling the gendered-language of the Scriptures for the English reader, the TNIV effectively mutes the authoritative word on gender in this centuries-long discussion.

Finally, Russell Fuller recognizes the need for modern translations of the Bible, and yet he argues that modern translators ought to follow certain proven principles that have blessed the church for centuries. Doing so will result in a translation that is accurate and faithful to the original languages, not one informed by contemporary ideologies or modern sensibilities.

We hope the work of these authors will contribute to a critical approach to the TNIV and the wider debate on gender-specific language in translation. More than that, we want to encourage greater reverence for the written Word of God. The efforts of the CBT to produce an accessible translation of the Scriptures are laudable. Yet the translation philosophy guiding their work unnecessarily distorts and obscures the message of the text in many places. The authors contributing to this issue, then, cannot endorse or commend the TNIV as a reliable translation.