NIV supporters and critics agree on how to translate gender-related language in Scripture . . .
If you put 12 men with strongly differing viewpoints on a controversial issue in one room, what do you get? If they are Christian men who are willing to pray together, and who share a desire that the Bible be translated accurately, then you just might get a surprising agreement!
That was exactly what happened on May 27 1997 at the Focus on the Family headquarters in Colorado Springs, USA. James Dobson had asked that the main defenders of the New International Version meet with a group concerned about its 'inclusive language' editions in England (NIVI) and the United States (the NIRV).
The meeting included four representatives of the NIV: Bruce Ryskamp, President of Zondervan; Lars Dunberg, President of the International Bible Society; and at the request of Ryskamp and Dunberg, Ken Barker and Ron Youngblood, two of the principal translators of the NIV.
Others came to the meeting to express concerns about the NIV: Wayne Grudem was there as President of CBMW; along with the executive director, Tim Bayly; and John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis. Also there were Vern Poythress, professor of New Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary; R.C. Sproul, Chairman, Ligonier Ministries; and others, including James Dobson, President of Focus on the Family, who had convened the meeting.
What happened?
The meeting began with an extended time of prayer. We soon saw those prayers answered, as open, frank discussion led to all expressing a sincere desire to translate God's Word accurately.
Our 'NIV concerns group' then presented a statement. R.C. Sproul opened with an expression of the importance of accuracy in translation, the realisation that language does change over time, and the caution that Bible translators must be very careful not to be influenced by wrongful intrusions of secular culture. Then John Piper presented a ten page list of specific translations in the NIVI and the NIRV which we thought to be inaccurate. Third, Vera Poythress, gave his perspective on the difficulties that Bible translators face. Fourth, Wayne Grudem presented a list of suggestions for guidelines involving the translation of gender-related language in Scripture. Finally, Tim Bayly presented some actions that we were asking the NIV representative to consider.
Surprise press release
However, two hours before our meeting had started, the International Bible Society had issued a press release that contained many of the very points that we were prepared to request from them! The surprise press release announced:
(1) that the International Bible Society was abandoning all plans for gender-related changes in the NIV;
(2) that the present NIV would continue to be published unchanged;
(3) that the NIRV would be immediately revised to bring its treatment of gender into line with the current NIV; and
(4) that the IBS would immediately negotiate with the British publisher (Hodder & Stoughton) to cease publication of the inclusive language NIV in the United Kingdom.
But one aspect still troubled us: the press release said that the reason for the decisions was the strong desire of the Christian public for an unchanged NIV, and it said that many scholars still thought that the inclusive versions rendered the original texts 'more precisely' into current English.
As our discussions continued, how-ever, we found that we shared even more common ground and we began to work on a joint statement that could be issued as a press release.
Specifics
What were some specific problems with the inclusive language translations? First, the loss of generic 'he, him, his'. We had expressed concern that the rejection of generic 'he, him, his' had obscured the personal application of Scripture to the individual in cases like: 'I will come in and eat with him' (Revelation 3.20, where the Greek pronoun is masculine singular). The NIVI had changed this to: 'I will come in and eat with them', which represents Jesus eating with a whole church, not just an individual. Such a loss of teaching about personal fellowship between God and an individual Christian affected numerous verses. Because of these concerns, we agreed on guideline A.1.: 'The generic use of 'he, him, his, himself' should be employed to translate generic third person masculine singular pronouns in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.'
We were aware that the rejection of generic 'he, him, his' could lead to the changing of person and number. To prevent such changes in person and number in translation, we agreed on guideline A.2.: 'Person and number should be retained in translation so that singulars are not changed to plurals and third person statements are not changed to second or first person statements, with only rare exceptions required in unusual cases.' This meant that Greek and Hebrew terms for 'he' would not be changed to 'they' or 'you' or 'we' in an attempt to make the translation 'gender-neutral'.
But is generic 'he, him, his' acceptable in English today? We cited at least one linguist who knew of no human language that lacked a singular pronoun that was used generically (in some languages, it is a masculine singular pronoun; in others, a neuter singular pronoun). Therefore, people who predict that English will soon relinquish generic 'he, him, his' when there is no commonly agreed singular substitute are predicting that English - perhaps the most versatile language in history - will lose a capability possessed by all major languages in the world. To say the least, this is unlikely to happen.
Women excluded?
Our response to women who say that they do not feel included by such language should be to teach them that such usage does not in fact 'exclude women' - the original author did not intend such an exclusive meaning, the translators did not intend such a meaning, and that is not the meaning that the words have when interpreted rightly in their contexts. People who are not aware of an inclusive, generic meaning for 'he, him, his' can learn it in a moment. But we also must say that we have all been told a lie - for it is a lie that such usage is 'exclusive'. We have been told this not by Bible translators but ultimately by secular feminism, which is trying to make these patterns of speech illegitimate.
Human race
We were concerned at verses which had rejected the word 'man' as a name for the human race, so that these inclusive versions said: 'Let us make human beings in our image', rather than: 'Let us make man in our image' (Genesis 1.26; the Hebrew word is the singular collective noun 'adam', the same word used as the name of Adam, and the same word used of man in distinction from woman in Genesis 2.22, 25). We agreed therefore on guideline A.3.: 'Man' should ordinarily be used to designate the human race or human beings in general, for example in Genesis 1.26-27; 5.2; Ezekiel 29.11; and John 2.25.'
Should men be called men? In many cases we were concerned that the words 'man' and 'men' were omitted from the NIVI and the NIRV for no apparent reason, especially when male human beings were referred to in the text. For example, in referring to warriors in Judges 18.7, the NIV spoke of 'five men' but the NIVI changed it to 'five of them'. Jesus's disciples were changed from 'men of Galilee' to 'You Galileans' in Acts 1.11. Paul himself, instead of saying: 'When I became a man', in the NIVI says: 'When I became an adult' (1 Corinthians 13.11). With regard to the Old Testament, we were concerned that the Hebrew word 'ish', which ordinarily means 'man' in distinction from woman, had also been 'neutered' in a number of cases.
In a similar way, the masculinity of Jesus was downplayed in the NIVI. For example, the words of Caiaphas were changed from: 'It is better for you that one man die for the people' to: 'It is better for you that one person die for the people' (John 11.50; and similarly in John 18.14; see also John 10.33). 1 Timothy 2.5 was changed from 'the man, Christ Jesus' to 'Christ Jesus, himself human'. Such translations obscure the theological truth that it was Christ as a man, in parallel to the man Adam before him, who was the representative head of his people.
Because of these concerns, we agreed on guideline A.4.: 'Hebrew 'ish' should ordinarily be translated 'man' and 'men', and Greek 'aner' should almost always be so translated.' We also agreed on the second part of guideline A.5.: 'The singular 'anthropos' should ordinarily be translated 'man' when it refers to a male human being.'
On the other hand, we recognised that there were times when some form of 'inclusive language' were appropriate in translation when the original Hebrew or Greek text was not specifically male in its meaning and when the other kinds of inaccuracies prevented by the other guidelines were not introduced. Therefore we agreed with the first part of guideline A.5.: 'In many cases, "anthropoi" refers to people in general and can be translated "people" rather than "men'"' We also agreed on guideline A.6.: 'Indefinite pronouns such as "lis" can be translated "anyone" rather than "any man".' For example, Matthew 16.24 should be translated: 'If anyone would come after me...' Similarly, guideline A.7. affirms: 'In many cases, pronouns such as "oudeis" can be translated "no one" rather than "no man'" as in Galatians 3.11: 'No one is justified before God by the law.' Guideline A.8. affirms: 'When "pas" is used as a substantive it can be translated with terms such as "all people" or "everyone".' This is seen in verses such as John 12.32: 'I will draw all people to myself.' None of us objected to any of these kinds of 'inclusive language', and in fact these principles had been largely followed several years ago in the current NIV.
The phrase 'son of man'
We were also concerned that in some cases the phrase 'son of man' had been omitted, as in Psalm 8.4: 'What is man, that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?' which in the NIVI was changed to: 'What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?'. This obscured the connection to Hebrews 2.6 where the verse is quoted. We agreed therefore on guideline A.9.: 'The phrase "son of man" should ordinarily be preserved to retain intracanonical connections.' And, of course, all participants wanted to clearly affirm guideline A.10.: 'Masculine references to God should be retained.' Other guidelines were also agreed (bottom p.19).
Summary
We left the meeting with a strong sense of thanksgiving to God for the broad agreement he had enabled us to reach. We rejoiced that at least our two groups, seemingly so far apart before the meeting, had been willing to say in a public statement: 'We agree that it is inappropriate to use gender-neutral language when it diminishes accuracy in the translation of the Bible, and we therefore agree to the attached guidelines for translation of gender-related language in Scripture.' In affirming this statement, we put ourselves on record as saying that translations that violated these guidelines did in fact 'diminish accuracy in the translation of the Bible'. We also affirmed that there are some kinds of 'inclusive language' that are valid, because we affirmed: 'We agree that there are limited times when the use of gender-neutral language enhances the accuracy of translations', and we specified several such valid uses. As a result of the discussion, and after much reflection in the past several weeks, the NIV translators and publishers joined us in agreeing that 'many of the translation decisions' in the NIVI 'were not the wisest choices'. Finally, we expressed hope that other translators and publishers would also decide to follow the guidelines we agreed on.
A. Gender-related renderings of biblical language which we affirm:
1. The generic use of 'he, him, his, himself' should be employed to translate generic 3rd person masculine singular pronouns in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. However, substantival participles such as ho pisteunon can often be rendered in inclusive ways, such as 'the one who believes' rather than 'he who believes'.
2. Person and number should be retained in translation so that singulars are not changed to plurals and third-person statements are not changed to second-persons or first-person statements, with only rare exceptions required in unusual cases.
3. 'Man' should ordinarily be used to designate the human race or human beings in general, for example in Genesis 1.26-27, 5.2; Ezekiel 29.11 & John 2.25.
4. Hebrew 'ish' should ordinarily be translated 'man' and 'men' and Greek 'aner' should almost always be so translated.
5. In many cases, anthropol refers to people in general, and can be translated 'people' rather than 'men'. The singular 'anthropos' should ordinarily be translated 'man' when it refers to a male human being.
6. Indefinite pronouns such as tis can be translated 'anyone' rather than 'any man'.
7. In many cases, pronouns such as oudeis can be translated 'no one' rather than 'no man'.
8. When 'pas' is used as a substantive, it can be translated 'no one' rather than 'no man'.
9. The phrase 'son of man' should ordinarily be preserved to retain intracanonical connections.
10. Masculine references to God should be retained.
B. Gender-related renderings which we will generally avoid, though there may be unusual exceptions in certain contexts:
1. 'Brother' (adelphos) and 'brothers' (adelphoi) should not be changed to 'brother(s) and sister(s)'.
2. 'Son' (hutos, ben) should not be changed to 'child' or 'sons' (huioi) to 'children' or 'sons and daughters'. However, Hebrew 'banim' often means 'children'.
3. 'Father' (pater, 'ab) should not be changed to 'parent', or 'fathers' to 'parents' or 'ancestors'.
C. We understand these guidelines to be representative and not exhaustive.
Ken Barker, Secretary, Committee on Bible Translation; Member, Executive Committee of Committee on Bible Translation. Joel Belz, Publishers, God's World Publications. James Dobson, President, Focus on the Family. Lars Dunberg, President, International Bible Society. Wayne Grudem, President, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Charles Jarvis, Executive Vice-President, Focus on the Family. John Piper, Member, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Senior Pastor, Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, MN. Vern S. Poythress, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Westminster Theological Seminary. Bruce E. Ryskamp, President and CEO, Zondervan Publishing House. R.C. Sproul, Chairman, Ligonier Ministries. Ron Youngblood, Member, Committee on Bible Translation, Professor of Old Testament, Bethel Theological Seminary West.
