|
| Christian news worldwide |
 Home |
 Archives |
 Subscriptions |
 Adverts |
 Find a church |
 About us |
 Contact us |
 Site Map |
 PrintableVersion Today's New International Version of the New TestamentShould we omit the masculine details of meaning that modern culture finds offensive? TODAY'S NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT At the heart of the controversy is this: In hundreds of verses the TNIV translates only the general idea of a passage and omits male-oriented details. Such changes may sound more acceptable to modern culture, but details of meaning in the underlying Greek text are lost. Here are some examples: Hebrews 2.6NIV (1984) Hebrews 2.6. What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? Hebrews 12.7NIV Hebrews 12.7. Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? TNIV. ... what children are not disciplined by their parents? The TNIV mistranslates the Greek terms huios ('son') and pater ('father'), which in their singular forms do not mean 'child' or 'parent'. It also obscures the parallel with God as Father in this passage. Is it true that children are disciplined by their parents? Yes. Is that what this verse says? No. The author is using a specific example and the TNIV has changed it to a generalisation. Luke 17.3NIV Luke 17.3. If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. TNIV. If any brother or sister sins against you, rebuke the offender; and if they repent, forgive them. The TNIV inserts 'or sister', which Jesus did not say. Jesus is using a single male individual ('your brother') as an example of a general truth, but TNIV will not let him do this. I agree that the verse applies to sisters who sin, but that is application, it is not translation. The Bible often points to a single individual to teach a general truth, as in the parable of the prodigal son (which applies to prodigal daughters, but should not be translated prodigal 'son or daughter'). Similarly, in the Ten Commandments, 'You shall not covet your neighbour's wife' also applies to not coveting your neighbour's husband, but we should not change the words of God to translate Exodus 20.17 as 'You shall not covet your neighbour's wife or husband.' God's words are not ours to add to as we will. The TNIV also translates the Greek singular masculine pronoun autos ('he, him') as 'them', which is fuzzy grammar in written English and puzzles readers who will wonder if Jesus meant that plural people ('they') had to repent. Hebrews 2.17NIV Hebrews 2.17. For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. TNIV. For this reason he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Did Jesus have to become like his sisters 'in every way' in order to become a 'high priest in service to God'? All the OT priests were men, and surely the high priest was only a man. This text does not quite proclaim an androgynous Jesus (who was both male and female), but it surely leaves open a wide door for misunderstanding, and almost invites misunderstanding. Meditate on that phrase 'in every way' and see if you can trust the TNIV. The emphasis on Jesus as a male has been neutralised. There are many other problems, such as changing 'Jews' to 'Jewish leaders' in Acts 13.50 and 21.11 (and several times in John) with no justification in the Greek text, thus obscuring larger corporate responsibility. With respect to gender language, 'he' is changed to plural 'they' 271 times (and to so-called 'singular they' 112 times), 'he' is changed to 'you' 90 times, to 'we' 9 times, and simply omitted 48 times. 'Father/fathers/forefathers' are removed 39 times. Singular 'brother' is changed to 'brother or sister' or something like 'believer' 43 times. 'Man' (when translating the male-specific term aner) is changed to things like 'people' or 'friends' 26 times. In each case these changes remove details of meaning that are there in the Greek text. I agree with removing male-oriented words when there is no male-oriented meaning in the original Greek or Hebrew text. But when there is a male meaning, we dare not under-translate and conceal that meaning just because that emphasis is unpopular today. Public statementOver 100 of the most respected evangelical leaders in the US have now signed a public 'Statement of Concern' opposing the TNIV, and several Bible scholars have listed other objections (see many more details at www.cbmw.org). If the TNIV should gain wide acceptance, the precedent will be established for other Bible translations to mute unpopular nuances and details of meaning for the sake of 'political correctness'. The loss of many other doctrines unpopular in the culture will soon follow. And at every case Bible readers will never know if what they are reading is really the Word of God or the translators' ideas of something that would be a little less offensive than what God actually said. 'You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it' (Deuteronomy 4.2). Wayne Grudem is Research Professor of Bible and Theology at Phoenix Seminary in Scottsdale, Arizona, USA. Previously he taught for 20 years at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, USA. He is a graduate of Harvard University (BA), Westminster Seminary (MDiv), and the University of Cambridge (PhD). He is the co-author, with Vern Poythress, of the book 'The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: muting the masculinity of God's Words' (available in the UK through www.amazon.co.uk). © Evangelicals Now - August 2002 |
|
