The CBE Scroll

Comment by Jorge Luis

April 4, 2006 @ 12:53 pm

It seems you are blending two different issues here: translation and gender roles. You make it sound as if the TNIV is an “Egalitarian” (Biblical Feminist) version! Many of the translators of the TNIV and many of its advocates are not just egalitarians but complementarians too. (E.g. Douglas Moo, D. A. Carson, Craig Blomberg, Mark Strauss, etc.)

And, aren’t there egalitarians who use other versions yet remain egalitarians? Who are they trying to “control”?

Comment by Jon Trott

April 4, 2006 @ 9:05 pm

Jorge,

I appreciate your thoughts. But I’d note that the issue of “control” re the TNIV is indeed a huge one. Complementarians were indeed involved, along with egalitarians, in the TNIV process. But those declaring a war upon the TNIV (and I recall the WORLD magazine blitzkreig featuring a cover story with a TNIV superimposed with a B-1 Stealth Bomber in that regard, also what I considered quite intemperate remarks from Dr. James Dobson) were to my knowledge entirely from the complementarian camp and basically seemed intent upon dechristianizing the scholars who worked on the TNIV. This, of course, was highly ironic in light of egalitarian concerns that “control” over women — and any Bible translations exposing gender bias — was indeed the agenda of these anti-TNIV forces. Craig Blomberg’s role in the TNIV is highly laudible, along with the other complementarians who participated. But I personally find it instructive that the movement’s main spokespersons seem united in their resistance to the TNIV as they are in their resistance to women as full co-participants with men in God’s Church and God’s world.

Comment by Ron Smith

April 4, 2006 @ 10:37 pm

Thank you both Jorge and Jon for your comments. One other interesting thought on the TNIV for me is that some of the loudest critics of the TNIV have probably not done a lot of translating. [By that, I mean large portions of the New Testament]. I say this simply because their responsibilities require huge amounts of their time in other areas. Just look at the lists of critics. Many of them are not New Testament translators, even some of the more theologically inclined critics are more centrally studying or teaching theology and not specifically the text of Scripture. As I wrote above, the overwhelming majority of evangelical NT scholars are egalitarians and thus they would totally disagree with the complementarians who criticize the TNIV based on gender issues.

Comment by Lori

April 5, 2006 @ 2:09 am

I have mixed feelings about the TNIV. I do fully agree that, whatever they may actually say about bad translating, at the heart of it the issue is women and whether to include them. I believe most of the critics of the TNIV regard it as the “feminist bible,” and so instinctively oppose it.

On the other hand, I heard one of those critics on the radio. Ironically enough, it was on Dobson’s program, so I took it with a grain of salt. However, they read several passages from the TNIV and I have to admit that I agreed that it probably wasn’t appropriate to make some of those passages inclusive. For instance, I remember they read this psalm that was clearly messianic, yet used the he/she. I think in that instance it should have been limited to “he” since it was talking about Jesus.

Overall, I don’t think the TNIV was a bad idea, and I have no problem with anyone using it. For me, personally, though, I think I’ll stick to using another translation.

Comment by Jon Trott

April 5, 2006 @ 11:21 am

Lori, for the record I prefer the NRSV, with its lineage going back to the KJV yet also with modern scholarship and literary considerations taken into account. The NIV/TNIV, to put it rudely, isn’t quite as poetic a read as the RSV / NRSV family for me. That probably just means I’m a snot.

Comment by Craighton

April 5, 2006 @ 11:43 am

To me, the list of anti-TNIV scholars is notable for being primarily if not exclusively baptist and reformed. While I appreciate balanced discussions and expositions of the TNIV debate like Pastor Mark Roberts has done with an emphasis on contemporary English usage, it appears to me from the nature of this list of scholars that maybe there’s also a theological approach or bias in effect that is clouding their vision. I don’t really know, but I do suspect, that the word “control” is quite appropriate.

Comment by Lori

April 6, 2006 @ 10:15 am

Jon, I personally use the NASV, because I’ve heard it’s one of the best in terms of translating directly from the original documents, i.e. without rewording it. When it comes to beauty of language, though, nothing will ever be able to top the KJV. The 23rd Psalm just doesn’t sound as good in any other version.

Comment by Lori

April 6, 2006 @ 10:18 am

Craighton:

I don’t want this to become uncivil, so I have to be careful. However, let’s just say that it doesn’t surprise me in the least that most of the anti-TNIV scholars are Baptist and reformed. Nope, doesn’t surprise me…

Comment by B-W

April 6, 2006 @ 11:30 am

Lori in #4:

I did not hear the scholar in question on Dobson’s program, nor was I involved in the translation of the TNIV. However, based on my seminary education, I wonder if the reason for the “neutral” translation might be that the translators wished to maintain the meaning of the message as it might have been understood by the readers of ancient times. Before the coming of Christ, readers (hearers, more likely) would not have necessarily read this passage in messainic terms (although they might have. The point here is that we have the benefit of hindsight.) and would certainly not have known that the messiah would definitely be a male (although I grant that the ancient audience would likely not have ever considered the possibility that the messiah might be female).

The point being that one of the intentions of the TNIV is to remove interpretive barriers to understanding that did not exist in the words used in the past. Maybe words which we interpret as male in modern English were intended in more generic ways. The TNIV seeks to acknowledge this.

Comment by Can Dance

April 7, 2006 @ 6:11 pm

Actually the scholar that appeared in the FOTF program was none other than Grudem himself.

Comment by Brandon Withrow

April 8, 2006 @ 5:07 pm

There are plenty of Reformed Christians that are opposed to the TNIV; however, I would say that I’m noticing a shift in thinking among Reformed Christians (even in generally complimentarian denominations) toward egalitarianism or some hybrid. And perhaps in a few short years, things will be different.

Regarding control: being Reformed and tied into the Reformed community, I would say that I’ve met plenty who would fall into the description of being controlling when it comes to women. However, I’d say that often transcends a theological system and is often a matter of a problem of the heart.

Aside from heart issues, there are other factors as well, though. As Craighton pointed out, there are theological/confessional commmitments that inform their decisions. Certain approaches to covenant theology have at times emphasized a view of gender that looks like it belongs more in the time of Job sacrificing for his family rather than in a period informed by Galatians 3:28. I do not believe that the former is the natural conclusion of covenant theology though.

It is also worth noting that more changes are likely to come in the future as Reformed Christians continue to evaluate and incorporate (even in part) the ideas of N.T. Wright. But that is a whole other issue…

Comment by B-W

April 12, 2006 @ 12:25 pm

Lori in #4,

Was the Psalm discussed Psalm 8:4?

In the more recent thread on the TNIV, Craighton referenced Craig L. Blomberg’s article, “Today’s New International Version: the Untold Story of a Good Translation,” and I have since read through it.

Here is what Blomberg (a complementarian) had to say about the translation of that particular passage:

Heb. 2:6-7—People familiar with the NIV (or even KJV with appropriate “thous”
and “arts”) are used to hearing, “What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?” as a quotation from Psa. 8:4. The TNIV reads instead, “What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?” The
charge has thus been leveled that a Messianic Psalm has been distorted and the links between Hebrews and Jesus, the Son of Man, have been lost. But, in reality, Old Testament scholars are largely agreed that Psalm 8 in its original context was not Messianic, but was speaking of human frailty and the marvel of God’s care for us puny, mortal creatures. When Jesus calls himself Son of Man, he is drawing on the imagery of Dan. 7:13-14, not Psa. 8. Psalm 8 is more akin to the repeated references throughout Ezekiel to the prophet as “son of man,” meaning “merely mortal.”

If this isn’t the Psalm in question, my other comments still stand, but I thought this might be worth adding.

Comment by Greta Sheppard

April 21, 2006 @ 11:19 am

I am a newcomer to this page. I am also an ordained woman. Have not read the TNIV but plan to do so.
Re: Biblical Equality my thoughts run like this.
Adam was a hu-man. Eve was a womb-man (a human with a womb). When you think about it, the traditional ‘help meet’ theory that she was to become the ‘little helper’ to this helpless hu-man actually puts a man down. The way I see it, her sole role was never intended that she be his domestic maid and nothing else. She was to be his helper in fruit bearing. Adam only had part of the machinery, Eve had the rest of it! Thus, the term for her was ‘womb-man’. Adam needed her help in order to carry out God’s Genesis command to be fruitful and multiply. In John 15 when Jesus said, “Without me, you can do nothing,” in context He was talking about fruit bearing. We, the Bride, cannot bear fruit without the help of the Bridegroom. He is the Word, the Royal Seed. He is the last Adam (human). If we (the Bride) abide in Him,(the Word), and He in us, that is when spiritual conception takes place and we become fruitful and bear precious fruit. So, are men included in the Bride of Christ? Of course they are.
There is a feminine side to men and a masculine side to women. In Christ there is neither Jew or Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus.
Thank you for this website…I shall become an avid reader.
Greta Sheppard
http://www.sheppardministries.com

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 13, 2006 @ 4:58 pm

Woman had vast dominion over all the earth and the fowls of the air(Gen.1:21, 1:27). Man had vast dominion (the same). Neither the man nor the woman had dominion over the other one.

Comment by Wayne

July 27, 2006 @ 7:05 pm

“Eve was a womb-man (a human with a womb).”

I have heard this etymology of the word “woman” often but the word “woman” actually derives from the the Old English combination of “wife” + “man” (which meant ‘person’ way back then.

Nice thoughts expressed in your post. Thanks.

Trackback by Family Christian Bookstore

August 19, 2007 @ 12:02 am

Family Christian Bookstore…

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

Trackback by Jesus Paid It All

November 22, 2007 @ 3:31 am

Jesus Paid It All…

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

Comment by Philana

September 19, 2008 @ 1:21 pm

I have to wonder about Dr. Dobson making this an issue. Isn’t he a psychologist. He has not background or expertise in translation. So why would he think he or his organization should create guidelines for Bible translation. That is something than needs to be done by competent translators who know what can or cannot be allowed by the languages.