|
- TNIV Advanced Bible
Research Center (third party articles explore
this issue in greater detail).
- Questions
and Answers (TNIV Gender-Accurate Q. & A.)
 Learn
more about this and other examples of what has been
translated in the TNIV Bible. Select your choice
of media players:
Real
Player | Windows
Media Player
The release of the Today's New
International Version (TNIV) has reopened the
debate on the use of genderaccurate language in Bible
translation. This article is a brief primer on definitions
and clarifications for those who are new to this
debate.
The first necessary clarification is
that this debate is not about the role of women in
the church. The failure to distinguish these two issues
has created much confusion. Many conservatives on the
issue of women in ministry (like myself) support the
kind of moderate inclusive language used in the TNIV.
The real issue is about translating the
Word of God as accurately as possible. It is about
rendering the meaning of the original Hebrew
and Greek into the most precise English equivalents
possible. A simple example will illustrate this. When
Paul writes,“a man (anthropos) is justified
by faith” (Rom. 3:28 NIV), the Greek word anthropos does
not mean “a man,” but “a person.” The
reference is intended by Paul to be generic and inclusive,
referring to both men and women. Everyone agrees on
this. The TNIV therefore accurately translates this
verse, “a person is justified by faith.” This
is what the Greek term means in this context. The TNIV
is gender accurate in that it seeks to use inclusive
terms when the original author was referring to members
of both sexes, that is, when the original Greek or
Hebrew warrants it.
Most Bible versions produced or revised
in recent years—including those done by theological
conservatives—have adopted this kind of gender-accurate
language. Some of these are the New Living Translation (1996), God's
Word (1995), the Contemporary English Version (1995),
the Good News Bible (revised 1992), the New
Revised Standard Version (1990), and the New
Century Version (1987). In fact, the use of such
language is nothing new, and all translations of the
past have used some inclusive terms for masculine generic
terms in Hebrew and Greek. The King James Version often
used the inclusive “children” for masculine
generic terms sometimes rendered “sons.” Matthew
5:9 KJV reads:“Blessed are the peacemakers; for
they shall be called the children of God.” The
KJV translators correctly recognized that though the
Hebrew and Greek terms (banim, huioi) were
masculine in form, their meaning in context was generic
and inclusive.
Another clarification is also important.
This kind of gender-related language has nothing to
do with Godlanguage. None of these versions introduce
feminine language for God or eliminate masculine terms
used for God in the Bible. They introduce inclusive
language only with reference to human beings and only
when the original author intended to include both sexes.
These are not “feminist” versions of the
Bible.
Some Difficulties
While the basic issue of gender-accurate translation is relatively straightforward,
the actual process can be very difficult. This is because of the complex
nature of language and the arduous task of Bible translation. The difficulties
come primarily in two areas: first, in determining which contexts are inclusive
(referring to both men and women) and which are not. While it is obvious
that anthropos in Romans 3:28 means “person,” in other
passages it is difficult to determine whether the author was referring to
men and women. In such cases, careful study of the historical and
literary context must be made to determine the best translation. Translation
is a difficult process, and the meaning (and hence the translation) of each
passage must be made on a case-bycase basis.
The second major difficulty comes in
determining whether English masculine generics like “man” and “he” sound
inclusive to English ears. That is, are they“heard” to
include women as well as men? This is an area where
there is significant disagreement. After all, what
sounds exclusive to a young person may sound perfectly
inclusive to an older person. What sounds exclusive
to a woman may sound inclusive to a man. Different
readers hear terms differently. Advocates of inclusive
language point out that gender accuracy solves this
problem. Whereas the translation“man” in
Romans 3:28 is ambiguous (it could mean“male” or “person”),
the translation “person” is precise and
clear. Inclusive language renders the meaning of the
Greek more accurately for both kinds of readers.
Furthermore, empirical studies have
demonstrated conclusively that the English language
is changing, and that generic terms like “man” and “he” are
increasingly viewed by readers as exclusive terms.
If we want Bible translations that are as clear and
unambiguous as possible, inclusive language should
be utilized when the context is clearly generic.
Other Examples
“Man” and “he” are not the only masculine generics in
the Bible. Other masculine generic terms are also used in an inclusive sense.
The masculine Greek noun adelphoi, for example, has traditionally been
translated as “brothers” or“brethren.” However, an examination
of ancient Greek literature reveals that adelphoi often means “siblings,” or “brothers
and sisters,” not “brothers.” This is also true of New Testament
passages like Philippians 4:1, where the apostle Paul is addressing both men
and women. Everyone agrees that the sense here is not “brothers” but “brothers
and sisters,” and so the TNIV accurately translates it this way.
Other examples abound. As noted above,
even before this gender language debate, Bible versions
like the KJV often introduced the inclusive term “children” for
Hebrew and Greek terms traditionally rendered“sons” (banim
and huioi). Isaiah 1:2 NIV reads, “. . .
I reared children (banim) and brought them
up, but they have rebelled against me.”
Matthew 5:44-45 KJV reads,“Love
your enemies . . . That ye may be the children (huioi)
of your Father which is in heaven.” In these
and many other contexts, banim and huioi clearly
mean “children,” not “sons,” and
so that is how the TNIV translates them. I heard a
very conservative commentator recently refer to this
debate as a “tempest in a teapot,” and
in many ways that is what it is. People are often bothered,
even outraged, by these kinds of translations because
they do not sound like the Bible they are used to.
But to be honest, the original Bible—the Greek
and Hebrew texts—does not sound anything like
the Bible people are used to! The point is that every
English translation must take Greek and Hebrew words
and find their closest equivalent in contemporary English.
This is exactly what the TNIV is doing.
Why Bother?
The reader may still ask at this point, “Why bother?” Why should
we condescend to the changes in language produced by our heathen culture? But
we might just as well ask why the apostle Paul preached in Greek instead of
Hebrew (the language of God’s original revelation!). Or why on Mars Hill
he preached about the“unknown God” (Acts 17) instead of giving
his traditional message to Jews in the synagogue (Acts 13). The answer, of
course, is that Paul sought to present the gospel clearly and accurately for
the audience to which he was preaching. At the same time, he never compromised
the truth of the message.
Gender-accurate translations like the
TNIV seek to accurately convey the sense of the Hebrew
or Greek original, while utilizing the language people
speak today. That is the best possible goal for Bible
translation.
Mark L. Strauss
holds a Doctor of Divinity from the University
of Aberdeen and is Associate Professor of New Testament
at Bethel Seminary in San Diego, California. |
