Today’s New International Version: A Brief Look at Its Methodology and Some Examples

Introduction

Before examining a few translation choices of Today's New International Version (TNIV) and the methodology behind it, I think it would be wise to express gratitude to God for the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) for the TNIV. They labored over God's word for ten years in order to produce this translation for the church. The brothers and sisters on the translation committee are some of the finest biblical scholars in the world, and they made an enormous investment of time, talent, and energy over the course of the past decade. We can be, and should be, grateful for their labors. Countless people will read this Bible. Through its words and by the Spirit, they may meet our great covenant Lord, being convicted, instructed, and edified. For that, we should thank God.

Along with that expression of gratitude comes regret for debate. Doubtless those who were involved with this translation project have been on the receiving end of a great deal of criticism. When one part of the body hurts, we all should hurt. And one part of the body should not rejoice in the hurt of another part! And yet there is something more important than our limbs: the truth of God and the health of the church. That is why debate will be with us till Christ returns. John Stott said it well: "The proper activity of professing Christians who disagree with one another is neither to ignore, nor to conceal, nor even to minimize their differences, but to debate them."¹ That does not mean, however, that we take any pleasure in the necessity of participating in such debates.

Our aim in this debate should be the glorification of God in Christ, the love of our neighbors as ourselves, and the edification of the church. I pray that the concerns enumerated below—and expressed more fulsomely and eloquently by others—would be used of God to strengthen, not undermine, the church and her commitment to God's holy word.

The TNIV Website

Despite a proliferation of journal articles, academic papers, festschrift essays, blogs, debates, and books, the fact remains that most people in our churches remain unfamiliar with the key lines of argumentation from both sides. One resource at their disposal is the TNIV website: http://tniv.info/. What one discovers upon using this site is a mixture of clarification and inconsistency.

The Goals of the TNIV

Those who visit this site will be helped in understanding some of the rudiments of translation theory and what the TNIV in particular was trying to achieve. Like all Bible translators, they sought to balance the twin goals of accuracy and clarity, producing a version of the Bible that faithfully represents in English the meaning of the original text, and is at the same time clear and understandable for today's readers.²

This is an important point for laypeople to understand. The translators of the TNIV have the same purpose as translators of essentially literal translations. But they disagree on methodology, the way in which one seeks to achieve those ends.

Gender-Neutral or Gender Accurate?

The most controversial aspect of the TNIV has been its so-called "gender neutrality." But according to the TNIV website, they do not consider their translation "gender-neutral."

The TNIV is not gender neutral; it is in fact "gender accurate." Gender neutrality suggests the removal of specific male or female attributes. The TNIV does not remove these attributes or "neuter" any passages of Scripture. The TNIV uses generic language only where the meaning of the text was intended to include both men and women. These changes reflect a more precise rendering of Greek and Hebrew words.³

Note that the italicized bold words are in the original. The claim is that every instance of generic language in the TNIV reflects the authorial intention of the biblical authors to include both men and women. In responding to another question, they write,

All gender-related changes in the TNIV are made to update masculine terminology that has generic intent and is often misunderstood by today's generations. References originally intended to be masculine remain masculine in the TNIV.⁴

Again note the universalizing word "all." The claim is that every instance of generic language in their translation is warranted by an underlying generic meaning or application in the original text. No male-specific references have been changed. But can such reasoning really be sustained consistently? I suggest that it cannot.

1 Cor 15:21 as a Test Case

For example, consider the TNIV's translation of 1 Cor 15:21, in comparison to the NIV.

NIV: For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.

TNIV: For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a human being.

In this verse the TNIV renders anthropos as "human being," an obviously generic term. Based upon the criteria cited above for "gender accurate" translation—namely, that "the TNIV uses generic language only where the meaning of the text was intended to include both men and women"—one would have to conclude that the TNIV translators believe the use of anthropos in 1 Cor 15:21 was "intended to include both men and women"—despite the fact, as the TNIV acknowledges, that Paul is saying that death came through Adam (a man) and resurrection through Christ (a man).

Furthermore, based on their principle that "[r]eferences originally intended to be masculine remain masculine in the TNIV," one must conclude that the TNIV translators do not think that anthropos in 1 Cor 15:21 was "originally intended to be masculine"—despite the fact that Paul is causally tracing death and resurrection to two individual men, not two women.

This would be such a strange conclusion that it seems even the TNIV itself rejects it. In the TNIV website's "Most-Requested Passage Explanations" section, they address their critics. Their explanation, in full, is as follows:

A "change in meaning" occurs in this verse, our critics claim. The Greek anthropos can mean either "man" or "person"; but, since it refers here to Christ, it should be translated "man."

• An initial response is to question the nomenclature "change in meaning." The phrase has apparently been chosen for its rhetorical effect, since it often does not apply to the situations in which it is quoted. Consider the present text. If anthropos can mean either "man" or "person," than [] the TNIV decision to choose here "person" can hardly be called a "change in meaning." Our critics may want to quarrel with the translation decision we have made, but calling that decision here a "change in meaning" is both inaccurate and unfair.

• But what about the decision? Why "person," when Christ is demonstrably male? The issue here, of course, is whether Paul intends to highlight the fact that Christ was a male human being or that he was simply as [] a human being. The NLT, another gender accurate translation, chooses the former here; and the TNIV uses just this language in speaking about Adam and Christ in vv. 47-49 (see also Rom. 5:12, 19). And some might argue that the representative significance of Adam and Christ hinges on their being men. But this does not seem to be the point that Paul wants to stress. As the one who inaugurated the eschatological resurrection from the dead, Christ is the "firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (v. 20). That is, his resurrection includes within it, in principle, the resurrection of all who belong to him, men or women. It is his identification with human beings, not the fact of his being a male human being, that is the focus here.⁵

Let us examine this response one step at a time. First, they suggest that the charge of "change in meaning" is merely rhetorical and not substantive. Their argument is as follows: (1) Anthropos can mean either "man" or "person." (2) The TNIV decided to translate anthropos in this verse as "person." (3) Therefore, this translation choice cannot be called a "change in meaning." But this is not good reasoning, as can be shown by a thought experiment. Imagine that we found a translation that commanded us to "walk not according to the flesh but according to the wind" (Rom 8:4). One could easily reason: (1) Pneuma can mean either "spirit" or "wind." (2) This translation decided to translate pneuma in this verse as "wind." (3) Therefore, this translation choice cannot be called a "change in meaning."⁶

The second stage of their response is to deal with the actual translation decision. Why, after all, did the TNIV feel compelled to translate anthropos as "person" when clearly Christ, who is male, is the obvious referent? They answer: "The issue here, of course, is whether Paul intends to highlight the fact that Christ was a male human being or that he was simply as [sic] a human being. . . . It is his identification with human beings, not the fact of his being a male human being, that is the focus here." Now I do not know a single person who thinks that the maleness of Adam and Christ is the main point of this passage. The question is, what is so problematic with identifying two men as, well, men?

The TNIV response again shows poor reasoning. It is a non sequitur; that is, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The presupposition seems to be that if maleness is not the focus or the highlight, that one need not translate a word that points to males.

Consider the following passages from John (all from the TNIV):

• John 1:6—There was a man sent from God whose name was John.
• John 3:1—Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council.
• John 4:29—"Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Messiah?"
• John 7:51—"Does our law condemn a man without first hearing him to find out what he has been doing?"
• John 9:1—As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth.

One can easily imagine the TNIV translating all of these references of anthropos as "person," and then patiently explaining that (of course) the apostle John was not intending to highlight these characters' maleness, and that is not the focus of these verses.

But there is an even more serious inconsistency at play in the TNIV explanation. Careful readers will note that this explanation—namely, that male-specific terms need not be used if the referent's maleness is not in focus or highlighted—is quite different than their overarching principle that states, "The TNIV uses generic language only where the meaning of the text was intended to include both men and women." Instead, it now becomes something like, "The TNIV uses generic language only where the meaning of the text was intended to include both men and women, or when a male-specific reference is not really the main point or focus of the text."

It is difficult for me to see how this principle is consistently applied even in the same context as 1 Cor 15:21. As they point out in their explanation, they repeatedly translate anthropos as "man" in 1 Cor 15:47-49:

The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

By translating the reference to Christ as "man" in vv. 47-49, are they intending to imply that Paul wants to highlight in this passage the masculinity of Adam and Christ?

This is but one illustration of the way in which the TNIV translates terms with grammatical gender. I conclude that in at least this instance, their translation is unwarranted and their explanations are confusing and inconsistent.

When the Lord's People Go Marching In

The TNIV translation of generic language has certainly been its most controversial feature. But I believe it is important to see that this is but one part of a larger methodological problem—namely, the separation of form and meaning in the interest of understandability. When the translators encounter a translated term that they feel will be misunderstood by "today's generation of readers," form becomes virtually inconsequential as long as the referent of the term is preserved.

To illustrate this phenomenon, consider a word unrelated to grammatical or biological gender: hagios. Historically, this term has usually been translated "saints." But the TNIV finds this translation problematic. As they explain on their site, "The TNIV translators were concerned to reflect the original sense of the term and avoid confusion with the process of canonization within religious tradition."⁷ Donald Madvig, one of the TNIV translators, expands on this explanation: "Most people understand the term ‘saint' to refer to people of exceptional holiness."⁸

While understandable, I do not find such an explanation compelling. I am glad they chose, at times, to translate hagios as "holy people."⁹ But if the translators think it is mistaken to understand hagios as a reference to people of exceptional holiness, I am not sure that "holy people" is going to help matters. In fact, it would often exacerbate the problem. For example, consider what would happen if we translated hagios with "holy people" in Rom 12:13: "Contribute to the needs of the holy people and seek to show hospitality."

So, more often than not, the TNIV chooses to translate hagios simply as "people," "God's people," or "the Lord's people."¹⁰ Of course hagios ultimately refers to the people of God. But so do translated terms like "temple," "sheep," "bride," "household," and "body" (all of which, incidentally, can be easily misunderstood). If God wanted to convey the sense of "God's people," it would be easy to do so in Greek.¹¹ But he did not, and our translations should not give the impression that he did.

The irony is that in bypassing "form" in favor of "meaning,"¹² the translators have obscured for English-only readers the very meaning of the term as it was to be understood in its original context. Except in the few places where "holy people" was chosen as the translation, English readers of the TNIV can no longer see the rich connection to positional sanctification. In other words, the translators have deprived English-only readers of a designation that God intended for the readers of his word to know.

Jews and Jewish Leaders

Another example where this occurs in the TNIV is found when they render the word "Jews" as "Jewish leaders."¹³ I would argue that it is not the job of the translator to clear away all possible misconceptions; it is the job of the translator to translate faithfully the original words of Scripture into clear, readable English. There was a clear and simple way for the biblical authors to write "Jewish leaders" (Ioudaios prōtous)—see Acts 28:17. But in many other passages, God inspired the authors to use the term "Jews" (Ioudaios) without being more specific. But the TNIV changes all of these references to "Jewish leaders" instead.

Could it be that in some of these cases, the biblical authors, though immediately referring to the leaders and not referring to every Jew without exception, chose to use the more general term in order to convey a corporate sense of responsibility upon Israel? One need not answer in the affirmative in order to grant that it is a legitimate question for Bible readers to ask. But the TNIV, in effect, decides that issue for you, cutting off the question before it is even raised.

On the Prevention of Misunderstanding

The prevention of misunderstanding is a laudable goal. But do we ever stop to ask, "What if the terms in the original language were misunderstood in the original context?" For example, it seems highly likely that hagios, from the root for "holy," must have suggested to many that those in the church were claiming a label of exceptional holiness. It also seems likely that Ioudaios was thought to refer to every Jew. Assuming the validity of the supposition, is it not troubling to think that (1) God knew that these terms could be misunderstood, (2) he could have easily inspired other words that would accurately identify the true referents, yet (3) he chose not to?

Interpretation vs. Translation

There is an irony in that the translators' methodology might end up creating the opposite of what they intend. While it is an admirable goal to make the Bible more accessible to today's generation, the reality is that the range of interpretive options shrinks when the translators supply them for us. In other words, ambiguity often creates greater accessibility! I would argue that standard translations for study, preaching, and memorization should make the options more transparent, rather than attempting to clarify ambiguity through an overly interpretive translation.

The response to my perspective is usually that all translation is interpretation. There is a sense in which that is true, and there is a sense in which that reasoning is fallacious. Leland Ryken draws a helpful distinction here:

[T]here is a crucial difference between linguistic interpretation (decisions regarding what English words best express Hebrew or Greek words) and thematic interpretation of the meaning of a text. Failure to distinguish between these two types of interpretation has led to both confusion and license in translation.¹⁴

In my view, dynamic-equivalent translations like the TNIV make unnecessary interpretative decisions on behalf of the reader. The intent is greater clarity and less confusion. The result is that the reader has less options to choose from; and, therefore, must rely upon the experts to provide him with the correct reading.

Here are some examples—none related to gender—where the TNIV's choice of translation limits the range of interpretations and, in fact, unnecessarily interprets the meaning for the reader:

All of these examples, I would suggest, are overly interpretive. Some of the interpretations I agree with; others I disagree with. But the point remains the same: The translator has unnecessarily done the job of the reader and the teacher.

Conclusion

I close this paper by attempting to cut off three possible misconceptions. First, despite the impression one may have from the above, I do not disagree with every translation decision that the TNIV has made! There are numerous places where the TNIV is an improvement over the NIV, and we can be grateful for those improvements.

Second, when criticisms are examined in isolation, one can ask if the issues are really that significant. But we must remember that we are not dealing here with an ordinary document. We are dealing with the translation of God's very word. Every word was inspired by him. The New Testament authors often built arguments based upon a single word or a single grammatical form found in the Hebrew Old Testament.¹⁵ Jesus, quoting Deut 8:3, said, "Man lives . . . by every word that comes from the mouth of God" (Matt 4:4). "Every word of God proves true" (Prov 3:5). No translation is infallible. But when there are systemic changes made to a translation of God's word, and those changes obscure or distort God's intended meaning for his people, that is a matter worthy of our concern.

Third, some readers may get the impression that I see absolutely no value for dynamic-equivalent translations. I strongly believe that the church should be united around an "essentially literal translation." And yet at the same time I believe that other versions may be used as a supplement to regular Bible reading. In some cases, the translators' choice will prevent the reader from asking the right questions or making the correct connections. But in other cases, using such translations may suggest another faithful way of interpreting the text.

What is a mistake, I would argue, is to make a dynamic-equivalent translation like the TNIV a primary translation for studying, memorizing, teaching, and preaching.