Gender is the theme of the week. As many have noted, there is a lot of hubbub going around about the announcement made by Zondervan that they will be discontinuing publication of the TNIV translation in favor of NIV 2011. I think it’d be great if they built off the name of the TNIV, for something like the Revised Today’s New International Version (RTNIV). Danny had perhaps the most astute commentary yet on the ensuing fuss over the issue.
The publishers (Zondervan and Biblica) are saying that this is the first update of the NIV in 25 years. That is to say, the NIVi and the TNIV do not count as “updates.” Douglas Moo is the chairman (chairperson? 
) of the revision and has said the committee is undecided on how much gender-inclusive language the new NIV will include, and that it welcomes input at NIVBible2011.com.
That said, I’m wondering if I am accurately detecting some “code language” here and there in public comments. First of all, Keith Danby, CEO of Biblica said, “We underestimated the public affection for the NIV.” My friend Chris Spinks, who knows something about the publishing business, wonders if the NIV2011 smacks of a marketing fiasco. Along those lines, I wonder if we can translate Danby’s comments here as: “[We didn't realize we would lose our customers to the ESV when we came out with the NIVi and the TNIV.]”
Second, I detect some hints that the folks behind the revision are trying to set themselves up with “excuses” for not going with a gender-inclusive translation. Danby himself says that the TNIV was what they thought was best at the time, but now the inclusive language issue is “back on the table again.” Now for the potential “outs.” Douglas Moo says that “priorities for the new revision include accuracy, clarity and language suitable for in-depth study and outreach for an international audience.”
- “accuracy” = While I think gender inclusive language is an accurate reflection of the meaning behind the words, others would say that inclusive language does not “accurately” reflect the words themselves.
- “clarity” = inclusive language admittedly muddies things up–see my comments below in regard to Bartchy and sibling language.
- “language suitable for in-depth study” = if people want to do in-depth study, they need a more literal translation (i.e., inclusive language could be considered a barrier to in-depth study).
- “outreach for an international audience” = mission. Mission means communicating the Bible for many cultures which have not had the same kinds of social revolutions that the West has seen viz-a-viz gender roles. Therefore, mission may be an excuse to put the ixnay on the endergay inclusionway.
- Within the press release document, Moo says that the committee seeks to make the language “[reflect] the language spoken by the everyday working people of their day” or to use “Koine English” = Alas, popular culture has not exactly kept up with academic discussions of gender inclusivity. In movies, in the evening news, and on the street we still hear people using phrases like, say, ” . . . in the history of Man.” This line may be used as a way to say, gender inclusion is great and all for those fancy types in the ivory tower, but the real hardworking folks in the factories and farms just don’t relate to it.
We can all send in our opinions, and I will, but I have a feeling the traditionalist complementarians will have their followers flocking to the suggestion site, begging/demanding for an end to this “gender neutral” madness. Though it is not perfect, I had some affection for the TNIV for its attempt to move forward with gender inclusivity. Women are not “brothers” and it’s appropriate to allow present day readers of the Bible to understand the underlying meaning of “brothers and sisters” instead. Or to move away from “Man” or “Mankind” and towards “humanity” or “mortals.”
Some attempts at gender inclusivity are utter nonsense, of course (NRSV: “the accuser of our comrades“??). And my own doctoral advisor, Scott Bartchy, has made strong points about the importance of sibling language and the need to keep it sibling language–rather than searching for rhetorical diversity that isn’t in the text (beloved, friends, etc.). [See his "Undermining Ancient Patriarchy: The Apostle Paul’s Vision of a Society of Siblings." Biblical Theology Bulletin 29.2 (1999): 68-78. Or, more accessibly, here.]
Nevertheless, it is better to try your best with gender inclusion than to revert back to patriarchal translations, even if they are popular in “Koine English.” If the NIV2011 does nix gender inclusivity, what saddens me most is the bruised legacy of my late mentor from Fuller Seminary, David Scholer. In his packed-out course on women in the Bible and early church, he told us the story of his role in getting the TNIV published in the US, partially recounted here by John Dart in a 2002 issue of the Christian Century:
In 1995, an inclusive-language NIV Bible was published in the United Kingdom. In 1996, David Scholer, who teaches New Testament at Fuller Seminary, in an article in an evangelical feminist publication praised the new translation but thought it was “mysterious” to keep it quiet. Scholer later published a letter from the then-IBS president saying that Zondervan and IBS would release an inclusive version in the U.S. by 2000. World magazine then wrote about the “Stealth Bible” amid heavy criticism from Focus on the Family’s James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and others. IBS withdrew its publishing plans at that point, but a translation committee quietly continued its work.
Eventually, the voices of Scholer and those like him helped get the TNIV to press . . . for a time. As Julie Clawson of Emerging Women notes, “So to have the anti-female voices of Grudem, and Dobson, and Piper and their followers win out disturbs me. It is just one more example how for many Christians one of the central aspects of their faith is the subjugation of women.” The battle may not be “won” by either side yet. But let’s not give up, my egalitarian/feminist friends.
