I recently purchased the 2003 edition of How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart. I am planning a class on the subject coming up soon. I was shocked to discover that in their chapter on translations they ENDORSE the TNIV! Stuart is a professor at Gordon Conwell, a seminary that I thought was trustworthy on such matters. Use this work with your people with extreme caution. If this edition is in your church library, you may want to remove it or put a warning with it. I had read a previous edition of this work and found it to be very helpful, so I am upset at this new edition. By the way, this book is published by Zondervan, the same publishing house that puts out the TNIV. Coincidence?
Pastor Howard
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
There's no coincidence or conspiracy. Gordon Fee is on the translation committee of the TNIV (along with other great scholars like Douglas Moo and Bruce Waltke). What translaiton would you expect Fee to endorse in his own book.
There's also a couple of recordings from CRI in which Hanegraaff interviews Fee about the book and the TNIV.
The update is great, and I am going to eventually probably see about teaching it at my church. The TNIV is an excellent and accurate translation as well. Don't buy into the negative hype about it which is promulgated primarily by those who are on the committee for a competing translation. Now is THAT a coincidence?
I was unaware that Fee and these others were in on the translation of the TNIV. I looked at your blog and noticed you do not list the ESV as one of your favorite translations. I guess I prefer Formal Equivalences and see the TNIV as a large step away from that.
I must profess that I am in agreement with Pastor Sloan on the issue of the TNIV bible. This gender-neutral version of the Bible has more critiques from the people and the pulpit than it does from what you described as those on the other side of the publishing wars. Dr. Wayne Grudem stated “When translators and publishers give in to the principle of sacrificing accuracy because certain expressions are thought to be offensive to the dominate culture, this altering of the text of scripture will never end. And then readers will never know, at any verse, whether what they have is the Bible or the translators’ own ideas.” Your acceptance of this bible version tells me that you possibly are in the camp of the new contemporary Christian church, or I will just say it, Emergent church that professes a watered-down gospel using a watered-down version of the Bible. Most all those who accept this version are heading in that direction … what is the theory behind the translation? A more readable version to go along with man’s changing views in the church.
The TNIV removes the male-oriented words son, father, brother, man and he, him and his. When text is changed that should remain male-oriented in meaning it is illegitimate and inappropriate. An example: take the word "father". Heb. 12:7, "Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons," says the NIV. "For what son is not disciplined by his father?" The NIV, the original NIV, is accurate there. "Son" is singular; "father" is singular. But the TNIV changes that to, "What children are not disciplined by their parents?" There are two problems: a. It's an illegitimate translation: the Greek word pater does not mean 'parent' in Greek; it means 'father. '
b. And it surely does not mean 'parents, ' plural. It's a singular in Greek, pater. There is a problem with that. Is there any loss of meaning? Yes, because you lose the connection with God as father. It's an inappropriate loss of the word "father" and it's taken from a context that connects it with God's fatherly discipline. How many times is the word "father" removed inappropriately? "Father," "fathers," and "forefathers" are removed 49 times from the TNIV and replaced with gender-neutral language because "father" is too male-oriented. Another word, the word "brother." There are three ways that the TNIV uses to eliminate "brother:
a. The first way is to use another word, Matt. 7:3, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" The TNIV changes "your brother's eye" to "someone else's eye": "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in someone else's eye?" However, the Greek word is adelphos. It means 'brother.' It does not mean 'someone. ' It means a male human being to whom you are related as a brother, either physically or metaphorically. But the word is changed to one that is not justified.
b. The second way to change and get rid of the idea of "brother," because it is too male-oriented, is to omit the word "brother." Matt. 7:4, "How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye, ' ...?" The TNIV just drops the phrase completely, "How can you say, 'Let me take the speck out of your own eye, ' ...?" Yet in the Greek there is the phrase "to your brother," tw adelphw sou [N. B. for this transcript, "w" represents the Greek letter omicron]. It's completely left out. Words of Jesus left out of the text, no translation given for them.
c. Or another way to get rid of the word "brother" is to add the word "sister." Luke 17:3 says, "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him." Now, the problem is, this is too male-oriented to leave it just "brother," so we'll neutralize it by adding "or sister": TNIV, "If any brother or sister sins against you..." The problem is the Greek just says "brother," ho adelphos sou. There's just a Greek word for 'brother' there. There's no word for "or sister". Now, the Bible can talk about brother or sister if it wishes, as in James 2:15, "Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food." The Bible can specify that. It's easy to do so in Greek, but it was not done in Luke 17:3. Jesus is using a specific example of a brother and saying "if your brother sins." The TNIV has added words to the text. It's also added the words "against you" which doesn't represent anything in Greek. Now, someone may say, "Wait a minute, on this verse! Doesn't it apply to a sister, too? If your sister sins, doesn't it apply to sisters who sin against you? So why not add 'or sister'?" Well, that objection fails to distinguish the difference between translation and application. Let me give you some examples. Take, for example, the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15. Now, does the parable of the prodigal son apply to prodigal daughters? Well, sure, it does. But should we translate that "a prodigal son or daughter"? Or should be translate it "a prodigal child"? No! Because accurate translation means, leave it as prodigal son and then we realize that Jesus was using the example of son, but we, the readers, will know that it also applies to prodigal daughters. Let me give you another example. You have in Luke 18 the parable of the persistent widow. Here Jesus is taking a woman as an example, a woman who kept appealing to a judge to settle her case. Jesus uses that to teach us that we should be persistent in prayer. Now, does that apply to widowers? Does it apply to married persons, as well? Husbands and wives, and sons and daughters? Yes, but we don't change Jesus' parable about the persistent widow to say there was a widow or a widower, or a husband or a wife, or a son or a daughter, or a brother or a sister, who lived in a certain city and appealed to a judge. We translate as "widow" and then we realize that application is different from translation, and we make the application. Another example: in the Ten Commandments, "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife." Does that apply to not coveting your neighbor's husband? Yes it does. But should we change the words that God with his own finger wrote in the stone tablets that he gave to Moses? Should we change that so it says, "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife or husband?" Or should we change it so it says, "You shall not covet your neighbor's spouse?" because "wife" is too gender-specific? No, of course not! We can't change the very words of God. We leave it, "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife," and we make application to husband, as well. And so here, "If your brother sins," Jesus says "brother," leave the word "brother." Don't add "or sister." It's illegitimate to do that. That's not translation, that is application. How many times is the word "brother" inappropriately removed in the TNIV? 85 times. 85 times "brother" is thought to be too male-specific. These are only two words but the ramifications are tremendous to those of us against this translation. Well sir, if this is acceptable to you then may the scales fall from your eyes that you may see Truth as it is written in God’s manner not mans. Pray hard before you lead your sheep astray.The TNIV is another step in knocking down the male headship. We see it everyday on TV shows and commercials where the father is made fun of or belittled by the wife in front of the children. Coincidence sir?
Pam said, Your acceptance of this bible version tells me that you possibly are in the camp of the new contemporary Christian church, or I will just say it, Emergent church that professes a watered-down gospel using a watered-down version of the Bible. Most all those who accept this version are heading in that direction … what is the theory behind the translation? A more readable version to go along with man’s changing views in the church.
Pam, thanks for taking the time to make uneducated assumptions about me.
For the record, I am not Emergent, nor am I part of the emerging movement. In fact, I am a Southern Baptist, and am a member of a very conservative Baptist church. And for what it's worth, I consider myself a complementarian. The difference between you and me, if I can also make an assumption is that I decided a while back to make a serious investigation of BOTH sides of this issue. I wonder if you'd be willing to do the same and at least look at this article by Mark Strauss: http://www.tniv.info/pdf/Strauss_CurrentIssues.pdf
Also if your statement above held true, would you say the same thing about Douglas Moo or Bruce Waltke (both on the TNIV translation committee? Or would you characterize D. A. Carson or Timothy George as emergent (they both endorse the TNIV and are decidedly NOT emergent).
The issues are much more complicated than you characterize them
I'm up to my ears grading, so I'm going to have to come back this weekend to answer your specific charges (it's often easy to look at one scripture at a time rather than throwing bunches out, but I'm certainly up to the task.
Incidentally, you are misquoting the TNIV's rendering of Hebrews 12:7 which actually says,
“Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father?”
(Heb 12:7 TNIV, emphasis added)
Now you can complain about the rendering of υἱὸς as children instead of son, but remember that the KJV often renders υἱὸς as the inclusive (gasp!!) child or children as well (not in this verse, but see Matt 5:9 in the KJV for instance).
Like I said, I'll be back this weekend. But read Strauss' article that I linked to above so that we can have discussion based on understanding both sides of the issue.
I mean to use the phrase "uninformed assumptions" in the above comments. "Uneducated" comes across harshly and I wasn't trying to communicate that.
Play nice!
I do have some other concerns with the TNIV and it has to do with the Feminist agenda. It has been my impression (and only an impression) that the TNIV has been embraced by the feminists and those who seek to be politically correct. It seems to be embraced by those who support the ordination of women (something I also oppose).
Am I being presumptutous? Maybe. But I was at my denominations conference this year (CCCC). And which group was endorcing the TNIV - a group of Feminists. A group that was there to oppose the Counsel on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. What kind of message is that sending?
The effort is supposed to be to TRANSLATE and not to INTERPRET. I realize that there can be no translation without some interpretation, but when translators feel the need to take a masculine reference in the original language and make it "gender inclusive," what is the reason? I believe in verbal, plenary inspiration, so I take the words very important. My fear is one of a slippery slope. If you start to make these kinds of decisions regarding gender. What else could be next? If you stay as close to the original language as possible, you can't go wrong.
I realize part of the argument here has to do with preferences regarding dynamic equivalence vs. formal equivalence.
Rick,
First off, I am just a country bumpkin and will not debate with you nor violate Pastors Sloan's website. My brother is a Southern Baptist from KY and I fully well know what you believe. There are divisions within your camp, some are reformed, some are arminian, some are not complimentarian, some are landmarkist and the emergent church has infiltrated the SBC. What denomination has not been touched by this fiasco? Go to Slice of Laodecia blog and read what Pastor Ken Silva and Steve Camp have to say about it. Go to the fide-o blog. My statement was wrong in assuming and I apologize for that. I am not of the belief that a woman should be teaching a man, not in the pulpit nor in the Sunday School room, etc., so I understand what you mean. I have previously read Strauss and I have listened to his debate with Grudem. My info came from that debate. I have listened and read both sides ... you assumed wrong there. I did not realize I was complaining ... this is my last post ... I will not debate with you nor turn Pastor Sloan's blog into a shark hunt. We can peaceably disagree on bible versions. Blessings, pam <><
Still grading. Shouldn't even be looking at this!
But a couple of quick responses...
Pam, even though you don't want to debate me, I am still going to address your comments since they were directed toward me. I hope you will at least come back and read them.
Pastor Sloan, I think it would make sense that some feminists might like the TNIV more than other evangelical translations, but most whom I've known opted for the NRSV or one of the more radical (but obscure) inclusive translations out there.
Even if Bishop Spong praised the TNIV it wouldn't detemine whether it was an accurate translation or not. It has to be evaluated on its own merits, not by who likes it or dislikes it. Otherwise we are committing a guilt-by-association fallacy.
I do know that both egalitarians and complementarians were on the translational committee but both groups were interested in translating accurately and not introducing bias. Were they successful? Well, that's what careful analysis will tell. I do know, though for sure that Douglas Moo and Bruce Waltke are complementarians and some others are as well as are endorsers such as D. A. Carson and Timothy George.
You might also want to check out Wayne Leman's post, "A Complementary Agenda in the TNIV" -- http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2006/07/complementarian-agenda-in-tniv.html
You stated, "I realize that there can be no translation without some interpretation, but when translators feel the need to take a masculine reference in the original language and make it "gender inclusive..." I think here we need to be careful not to confuse reference with meaning, which is what I've found is usually taking place in most criticisms of the TNIV regarding this issue. I don't have time to go into the difference at the moment, but as I've promised, I'll come back this weekend.
Another good book I'd recommend is the Challenge of Bible Translation which has articles by quite a few good folks. Amazon link is here: http://www.amazon.com/Challenge-Bible-Translation-Kenneth-Barker/dp/0310246857/sr=8-1/qid=1166147998/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-5266958-8233718?ie=UTF8&s=books
Correction: the blog post "A Complementarian Agenda in the TNIV?" is not by Leman, but was written by Peter Kirk. Peter is himself an egalitarian, but has complained a number of times that the TNIV is too supportive of complementarian bias.
Of course, I wouldn't call it bias but just how the text unfolds...
Pam, I wanted to respond to your original message. First, you should know that the TNIV is not a gender neutral translaiton. this is a pejorative term used by the detractors. If a translation renders gender neutral, it would have to refer to individuals as "it." A term such as gender inclusive is better, however, the TNIV translators prefer to refer to their translation as "gender accurate" because they have attempted to render gender reference in English accurately as they apply to the context and meanings of the original writings and authors.
As I have already pointed out, I am not emergent, but I should also point out that just because a person uses the TNIV doesn't make that person emergent. D. A. Carson is an endorser of the TNIV, and he surely isn't emergent. In fact, he has written a book that critiques the Emergent movement.
I have also pointed out that you have misquoted Heb 12:7 which actually reads in the TNIV, "Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father?"
Regarding, Matt 7:3-4, the explanation given at TNIV.org is worth repeating here:
We have made these changes in the TNIV, of course, to reflect as best we can the intention of Jesus in modern English. What is this intention? First, we must understand the significance of the key word involved here, the Gk. adelphos. This word often refers to a "brother," or male sibling, in the biological sense (in Matthew, see 1:2, 11; 4:18, 21; 10:2, 21; 12:46, 47, 48; 13:55; 14:3; 17:1; 19:29; 20:24; 22:24, 25; 25:40). But the word is also used to refer to a person with whom we are in some kind of relationship. In a famous episode, Jesus redefines "family" in spiritual terms by claiming that everyone who does the will of his Father is "my brother and sister and mother" (Matt. 12:46-50). Perhaps on the basis of this re-definition, Matthew uses the word to describe Jesus' disciples (23:8) and even calls the disciples "my brothers" (28:10). But Jesus' own followers are not clearly in view in Matt. 7:3-4 and similar passages (5:22-24, 47; 18:15, 21, 35). Here Jesus seems to be referring generally to anyone that we might have a relationship with. The standard dictionary for New Testament Greek suggests the meaning "neighbor" here (BDAG; see also Louw-Nida). As these dictionaries suggest, the word has a generic significance in this context. Jesus is not, as some critics assert, using an individual male as an example of a general truth. He is not pointing to a man in the crowd and saying, "See this man? Here is how you should treat him." He is, rather, speaking in general about how one should treat another individual —whether man or woman. How should we capture this idea in modern English? "Brother" is less than ideal, for two reasons. First, it might be taken by some readers in its natural sense, as referring to a male sibling—clearly not what Jesus intends. Second, it could also be taken as having a male-focused nuance—again, not what Jesus intends. The NRSV uses "neighbor"; NLT uses "friend." Both are certainly acceptable renderings, and both convey a sense of close association that seems to be intended with the word adelphos. We opted simply for "someone," thinking that the context would make explicit enough the idea that the person involved was in some kind of relationship to us.
Have we translators illegitimately taken a masculine word out of the Bible, as we are criticized for doing? Well, in a sense, yes. But remember: every English translation, in this sense, "takes masculine words out of the Bible." This is because Greek uses what is called "grammatical gender" (in contrast to English, which uses only "natural gender"). All Greek substantives are either masculine, feminine, or neuter; and there is no inherent connection between their grammatical gender and what they mean. Greek pneuma, "spirit," is neuter; Greek ekklesia, "church," is feminine; the Greek ho pisteuon, "the one who believes," is masculine; and so on. In English, on the other hand, we pretty much use feminine forms to refer only to women, masculine forms to refer to men, and neuter forms to refer to things. Consider, for instance, the difference among "I hit her," "I hit him," and "I hit it." What this means is that the translator of the Greek New Testament can never simply "carry over" the masculine, feminine, or neuter forms of Greek into English: nonsense would result. The form (including the gender) of the Greek word must be carefully analyzed, and a decision made about how to render it in English. In the case of Matt. 7:3-5, the "masculine" form of adelphos has a generic sense: it is not identifying the individual as a male, but as a representative person.
However, I want to specifically address your point "c" regarding the TNIV's translation of adelphos/adelphoi. I would like to quote Wayne Grudem from his book, The TNIV and the Gender Neutral Bible Controversy.
The context of the quote comes from his discussion of the Colorado Springs Guidelines regarding gender in Bible translations. To date only two Bible versions have been translated in accordance with these guidelines, the ESV (of which Grudem is a committee member) and the HCSB (which I recommend as a much better translation than the ESV). There have been two drafts of the CSG. The original had to be changed basically because the first one didn't reflect very good Greek. Says Grudem regarding adelphoi:
"in fact, the major Greek lexicons for over 100 years have said that adelphoi, which is the plural of the word adelphos, 'brother" sometimes means "brothers and sisters" (see BAGD, 1957 and 1979, Liddell-Scott-Jones, 1940 and even 1869).
This material was new evidence to those of us who wrote the May 27 guidlines - we weren't previously aware of this pattern of Greek usage outside the Bible. Once we saw these examples and others like them, we felt we had to make some change in the guidelines."
The truth is that if a context warrants it--that is unless the author was referring specifically to a brother as opposed to a sister--a valid translation is "brothers and sisters" and reflects the intent of the original author. A prime example of this is Rom 15:14 which should obviously be translated "brothers and sisters" based on the context of the greetings in ch. 16.
Now, if you look at the ESV of Rom 15:14, you will see a textual note offering "Or brothers and sisters; also verse 30" as an alternate translation. Grudem has admitted that the more inclusive offering is accurate. Why he can't bring himself to allow it in the main text of the ESV is anyone's guess.
Regarding Luke 15 and your question, should we translate this as the "prodigal son or daughter." I'm going to assume you're being facetious here, Pam. Obviously the answer is no because the person referenced was male. The same goes for the widow in Luke 18. Nor is there any change to Ex 20:17. The TNIV never does anything like this. There's no reason to suggest such and confuse the issue.
The TNIV is a very good translation, and a conservative evangelical one at that. Don't by the hype of the detractors.
Post a Comment