In March, Zondervan released a new revision of the NIV, and the new version signals a significant update to a translation that has not been revised since 1984. The 2011 NIV has many commendable improvements. Nevertheless, it represents a significant departure from the NIV that evangelicals have used for a generation. In particular, the 2011 NIV adopts a gender-neutral approach to translation—a way of rendering the Bible that has been the subject of no little controversy over the last decade. I want to highlight two critical reviews of the gender language in the 2011 NIV that have recently been released by the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (CBMW). 1.…

I would like to thank Dr. Blomberg for taking the time to interact with me on the proper translation of anthrōpois in 2 Timothy 2:2. I remain, however, unconvinced of his arguments in favor of rendering anthrōpois as “people.” I will explain why by responding briefly to items he raised in his last post.

The essay below appeared yesterday on the “Perspectives in Translation” website. It concerns how the Greek word anthrōpois should be translated in 2 Timothy 2:2. Craig Blomberg has argued that it should be rendered as “people” (as it appears in NIV 2011), but I argue that it should be translated as “men.” Here’s how other translations handle the term: “men”NASBESVNIV (1984)HCSBKJVNKJVRSV “people”TNIVNETNJBNLTNRSV One other thing before moving on to my response. Two prominent egalitarian New Testament scholars agree with me on this translation—I. Howard Marshall and Luke Timothy Johnson. Johnson is an unabashed liberal in his view of scripture, but I think his comments on this text are apt:

One cannot overestimate the importance of 1 Timothy 2:12 in the intra-evangelical debate over gender roles and women in ministry. There is a reason why countless articles and even an entire book have been written on the interpretation of this single verse. In many ways, this verse is the most disputed text in the debate. It is clear that Paul is prohibiting something, but just what he prohibits has been fiercely contested.

Kevin DeYoung picks apart John Stott’s chapter on “Women, Men and God” in the book Issues Facing Christians Today. Stott argues for a middle-way between complementarianism and egalitarianism, but DeYoung shows that Stott’s exegesis is not at all compelling. He writes: “If anyone could present a strong case for women elders and pastors, or something less than full blown complementarianism, surely John Stott could. But in actuality, a close examination of Stott’s exegesis shows just how weak the middle-of-the-road position (not to mention the egalitarian position) really is.” Part 1 of DeYoung’s critique appears today, and part 2 will appear tomorrow. Read it here.

We have introduced a significant change with the release of the latest issue of JBMW. We have moved to an exclusively online format. That means all of our articles will be immediately available for download for anyone who wants to read them. We will still produce two fascicles per year, and the first one for 2010 has just appeared at the CBMW website. Starting with this issue, readers have the option to download the entire journal in one PDF document. Readers can also view individual articles in HTML or download individual articles in PDF. Current subscribers to the print version will be receiving a letter next week explaining the changes.…