The new NIV?

Currently many churches use Hodder editions of the 1984 New International Version (NIV) of the Bible. Hodder produced another edition of this in 2009, which, we understand, was intended to run for many years.

In March 2002, Today’s NIV (TNIV) was published. This used a lot of inclusive language and ran into much criticism for blurring gender differences which are part of the original text. A new version of the NIV is due out this summer, and as this is issued we understand that both the old NIV and the TNIV will be withdrawn.

Necessary change?

Biblica, who hold the rights to the text of the NIV, has said the publication of the new NIV is necessary firstly in terms of the changes in use of English words (who uses the word ‘overweening’ any more? See Isaiah 16.6, NIV 1984. So the word is changed to ‘great’). Secondly, they say, change is required because of progress in scholarship (e.g. the word ‘inn’ in Luke 2.7 is now believed to be better understood as a ‘guest room’). The new NIV has changed in some areas in which the TNIV drew criticism. In many passages ‘man’ and ‘mankind’ replace gender-neutral equivalents.

Inclusive language

However, concern for inclusive language is still a guiding principle in the new NIV. It is interesting, for example, to compare the different editions in the way they render Revelation 3.20.

* NIV (1984). ‘Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.’

* TNIV (2002). ‘Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me.’

* NNIV (2011). ‘Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.’

The variations seek to cater for the gender agendas of contemporary times. The truth is that in the first century many uses of masculine pronouns were understood as inclusive of both sexes. No one minded this at the time. That, of course, was also true in the Western world until the mid-20th century. But for many feminists this is now seen as offensive. The Greek of Revelation 3.20 is literally ‘him’ and ‘he’.

Thankful and concerned

The Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (CBMW) has issued a statement saying that they are genuinely thankful for the many positive changes in the new NIV (2011), but that the new NIV still retains many of the problems that were present in the TNIV. In particular, there are some significant problematic passages. Not least is the deliberately ambiguous rendering of authentein in 1 Timothy 2.12 as ‘assume authority’. CBMW believes that this introduces a crucial ambiguity which is not part of the original nor in the 1984 NIV (which translated authentein ‘have authority’). The new NIV (2011)’s translation lends itself (designedly?) to a common current egalitarian misinterpretation of the passage, that is, that Paul is only addressing the case of women illegitimately ‘assuming’ authority, rather than prohibiting women from having / exercising authority as teacher / shepherds of the church. The translation is ‘out on a limb’ when it is compared with most other Bible versions.

The CBMW statement goes on to recommend other Bible versions, including the ESV, rather than the new NIV.