It sounds like it was more of a marketing issue than a concern for biblical translation. The TNIV did not perform well in the market. Sounds like Zondervan reacted to the bottom line more than anything else. The last thing Zondervan wants to do is upset the powerful group of conservative evangelicals. That is their bread and butter. I don’t mean to sound uncharitable, but a lot of the articles I have read on this issue mention the poor selling performance. Popularity doesn’t always equate with truth.

Also, I don’t see why being accurate in the rendering of non-specific nouns and pronouns in the text is apart of some agenda. As if Paul was only addressing the men in his congregations. You learn in first year Greek and Hebrew that groups with both genders are addressed with a masculine noun or pronoun. Why is this so troubling to some? We need to stop blaming everything on the “agenda” bogeyman.

If you want to talk about agendas, then let’s start with using the term, “gender-neutral.” The correct term is gender accurate. Saying the former frames the conversation in a particular way that is to the advantage to the beliefs of the organization. Just like the “radical feminists”, even the CBMW has it’s agendas. See, it isn’t too much fun to get accused of having an agenda, is it?

I for one will keep the reading the TNIV. I think pulling it from the shelves is a big step backwards for biblical translation as a whole. I hope that the translation committee can stand up to political pressure from groups like the CBMW and the financial pressure of Zondervan and Biblica.

I think this argument fails at many points. First it does not even seem to make an argument against “gender accuracy.” The reason the TNIV has translated genders as they have is because they believe it to translate more accurately than “formal equivalency.” To say, then, that it does not translate accurately is not an argument. The argument against this should not be based on translation philosophy, as the original post does, but should be based on a philosophy of language. The TNIV’s decision is not on translation philosophy alone, but on how language operated in the original languages and how current English is understood today.

Sue’s first post is the subject of my next critique. She quoted 1 Timothy 3:1 and pointed out that there is no masculine in the text until husband is mentioned in the next verse. This being the case, why is there no complaining that the ESV, as do others, add he before the verb? The verb and the pronoun are both ambiguous on there own terms. How dare they “add” something to the Bible, or “change” the gender of the text?

My final point can also be illustrated by 1 Timothy 3. I think it is legitimate to translate this verse with a he, because the verb and pronoun can have a masculine meaning. The problem is that saying these words necessarily have a masculine meaning. This goes back to my first argument with language. “Formal equivalents” say the words have gender impacted in them, but that is just not the case. There are indeed masculine and feminine cases, however, the masculine form would often be used to include females (Note the ESV’s annoying footnote every time brother is used). My point is that words do not carry weight by themselves; they are given meaning by co-text. It is clear that men are intended in 1 Timothy 3 because of the co-text that surrounds it, both in chapter 2 and 3. This being the case, the TNIV is no less clear because it translates the surrounding text gender accurately.

Having defended the TNIV, I do want to make clear that I am not opposed to other translations. I used the ESV for years and do not trying to get people to stop reading it. In fact, it is not until reading Doug Moo’s commentary on Colossians last semester that I picked up my first TNIV. The post mentions that a new gender accurate NIV would be divisive. I am assuming with this statement that Denny is wanting to promote unity among believers. However I do not think it would be the translation which causes division, so much as those who oppose it. I would encourage all of those who disagree with people who hold my postion as brothers and sisters in Christ who deserve love and not hate. Can we not simply say that I do not like the translation you use, but it clearly presents the gospel and instructs in matters of faith, so therefore I encourage you to read your Bible? I would guess that there are more TNIVs being read during the week than ESVs. Must we continue to ban gender accurate translations as the SBC has done and ostracize those who read them? I think there is a better way, and hopefully we will grow to love God and neighbor more with the introduction of this new translation.

I don’t think any extra footnote need to be added. If Abraham has children, why can’t God have children? Otherwise one gets the distinct impression that Christ downgrades women and makes them less visible.

(Certainly not coming to the discussion with a bone to pick – a friend of mine was on the ESV translation committee and has defended the TNIV as well. It’s fun to be a fly on the wall sometimes!)

Yes, I have that. These are under heading #3. This is not the core meaning of anthropos, but only the meaning when the word appears in conjunction with woman, or where the person is married.

I believe that in these verses listed in BDAG it is best translated as “man” also.

But for the rest, “human” or “person/people” provides the meaining.

I am sure that if you read meaning #1 you can see that this lexicon believes that anthropos refers to Christ as a member of the human race.

If you look at 3D you will see that it says “a person” owned and therefore under the control of another. Odd that the ESV translates this “men.”

3. a male person, man–a. adult male, man (Mt. 11:8; Lk. 7:25). In contrast to woman (Mt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31; 1 Cor. 7:1)
b. married person husband (Mt. 19:10)
c. an immediate descendent son, opp. father (Mt. 10:35)
d. a person owned and therefore under the control of another slave (Lk. 12:36)