Losing Something in the Translation
from NIV to TNIV

By Glenn Parkinson

The challenge to produce an accurate and helpful translation of the Bible is formidable. How do you express ideas expressed in one language using the words and ideas of another? The words and phrases of each language grow out of their own unique cultural soil. There is always a tension between word-for-word literalness on the one hand, and using different words that convey the same meaning on the other. The fact is, it is impossible to translate anything with 100% satisfaction. That is why the Westminster Confession of Faith stipulates that the only authoritative Scriptures are the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek.

Nevertheless, the Confession goes on to say that the Scriptures “are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.” Therefore, the original NIV used three different editorial committees to review each text in the attempt to balance literal accuracy with functional accuracy (English style). The result was a fine English version of the Bible.

However, society’s changing attitude towards sexual roles has added another dimension to the discussion of what makes a “good” translation: cultural sensitivity. The Committee on Bible Translation of the NIV had hoped to come out with a "gender neutral" translation several years ago, but protests from American evangelicals stopped that action. Or we should say postponed, since a new “Today’s New International Version” is coming out in America pursuing the same gender neutral goals.

What does it mean to be “gender neutral”? It could mean several things. It is a phrase that has been used by some feminists in the attempt to eliminate masculine references to God altogether. The TNIV does not take this view.

“Gender neutral” could also mean consciously avoiding the introduction of gender references in English where none exist in the original languages. For example, in the NIV, John 12:32 reads, “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” The underlying Greek says nothing about men, it says that Christ will draw all to himself. There is no reason to say all men; all people would be appropriately gender neutral. The TNIV would agree with this sort of change, but their concept of gender neutral includes more.

For example, they would point out that in ancient Hebrew and Greek societies and language, generic references to people were often expressed in masculine terms. Society was decidedly patriarchal - run by men - so masculine words were sometimes used when the meaning clearly included women. The TNIV’s goal is to be sensitive to contemporary women’s improved social status by avoiding the original masculine terms when translating biblical references which were originally intended to include women. For example, in the NIV, Hebrews 12:7 reads "Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?" while the TNIV reads, “Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their parents?” The author of Hebrews obviously does not mean to refer only to males. The TNIV uses generic language and plurals to relay essentially the same thought in gender neutral terms. This technique is used to change some 7% of the NIV in an effort to make the Bible sound less exclusive to modern ears.

Conservative evangelicals object to these changes for several reasons. For example, using plurals may obscure a biblical author’s intention to deal with individuals. There are also cases where men are clearly in view, yet the TNIV obscures the masculine reference (see Acts 15:22, where men who were leaders in the Greek become simply leaders in English). These are valid objections which should be taken seriously.

I am concerned, however, about another issue which I believe is much more fundamental. It has to do with the nature of biblical revelation.

The Bible is unique among religious books in that its message was conveyed in real, living history. Christianity is a universal religion, applicable to all peoples and times, but that is true only because the God of the Bible is objectively real, as demonstrated by His historical intervention in specific places and times. The Bible communicates God’s dealings with specific people (with particular ethnic traits) in specific cultures (with particular distinctives). The Bible is not, therefore, expressed in terms of customs or attitudes contemporary with us. It describes how God interacted with ancient Jews, Edomites, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans - not modern Americans. It describes salvation in terms of 2nd century BC covenants - not modern contracts or licensing agreements. It describes God’s roles in that covenant in terms of kings and shepherds, not presidents and cowboys.

The point is that biblical revelation was given within strongly patriarchal societies. Societies where fathers and firstborns had special responsibilities and privileges. Societies in which the covenant sign was given only to males on behalf of the next generation. Societies in which inheritance and blessing was understood largely as transmitted through males.

Please understand, I do not suggest that the practice of patriarchy in biblical days is how we should live today. There is no reason to blindly assume that the details of Israelite or Roman society accurately reflected the commands God revealed to His people. The patriarchal practices which have characteristically held sway in so many cultures typically reflect the “he will rule over you” of the curse more than the “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” of the gospel. It is essential, therefore, for modern teachers to often explain patriarchal phraseology in gender inclusive terms. There is certainly no compelling reason for us today to use “brethren” or “sonship” references to describe the fellowship of the church or its programs.

But this is a matter of replanting biblical truth in our own society, not uprooting the Bible from the society God used to cultivate it.

The concepts which define the gospel were framed in ancient patriarchal societies. It is in those terms that we must come to understand them. Only then may we turn to the challenge of applying God’s word to our own day. Of course, it is our duty to apply the Scriptures to our own society. But attempting to hide its historical roots in order to make it more “relevant” to modern ears is profoundly unwise. The Bible can be relevant to all societies only because the Living God truly did reveal Himself to specific societies.

If the actual words and original concepts of the Bible were not important—if we only “discerned” God’s word in some generic sense within the stories of the Scripture— only then would such a culturally pasteurized translation be defensible. It is disturbing that the TNIV implies this point of view. It seems to assume that because the gospel is ultimately transcultural, the biblical revelation that defines it must be indifferent to its culture of origin.

The truth is, however, that the Bible’s message is conveyed through historical narrative and references. We must, therefore, let the Bible explain itself in terms defined by the world in which it was written. This affirms that revelation was historical, and that our faith is rooted in space-time reality. Only after we affirm that revelation objectively happened and understand what it originally meant can we go on to recognize principles and patterns which are universal.

The TNIV represents a noble desire for God’s word to reach all people, women as much as men—a truly commendable sensitivity in today’s environment. Certainly, wherever interpretation is needed to explain patriarchal references, gifted teachers (or study notes in the margin) must provide it.

But culturally rewriting the Bible to hide its patriarchal structure is not the way to go. It makes as much sense as trying to make some class of readers feel more comfortable by casting Jesus as blond or slaves as union workers. It looses too much in the translation.

About Pastor Glenn Parkinson.

Contact Paster Parkinson

Back to the top

Back to archive