There are many such issues to deal with when you update the best-selling Evangelical translation of the Bible in modern times—- the NIV. In my view the NIV has many rivals, but no peers or superiors and for several reasons: 1) it does not fudge on the text critical issues; 2) it tries to keep abreast of the growth and development of the English language; 3) it corrects previous mistakes found in the RSV, KJV, and older versions of the NIV etc.; 4) it uses good idiomatic English where warranted precisely because a woodenly literature translation is often more of an obstacle to understanding than an aide to it, especially in a Biblically illiterate age, and 5) on the whole it deals fairly with the issue of inclusive language, and does not make decisions based primarily on theological rationale, but rather on the basis of common English usage. In other words, the theological debate is not decided by the translator, nor is a particular gender viewpoint read into the text as an agenda, unlike some other translations.
Stan Gundry has very kindly sent me an advance copy of the NIV to be released in March 2011, and I like what I see, by and large. indeed I like it much better for the above reasons than either the NKJV or the ESV, and also better than the new CEB, though that translation has promise to replace the TEV in terms of the use of very simple language. Here below is the rationale portion of the introduction to the new NIV in so far as it comments on the use of inclusive language. See what you think.
——————
What Was Decided About Inclusive Language?
Nowhere in the updated NIV (nor in the TNIV, nor in any of the committee discussions leading up to either version) is there even the remotest hint of any inclusive language for God. The revisions solely surround inclusive language for mankind.
All previous Bible translation efforts have been hampered by the lack of accurate, statistically significant data on the state of spoken and written English at a given time in its history. Beyond appealing to traditional style guides, all that translators and stylists have been able to do is rely on their own experiences and others’ anecdotal evidence,
resulting in arguments such as, ?I never see anybody writing such-and-such,” or ?I always hear such-andsuch,” or ?Sometimes I read one thing but other times something else.”
As part of the review of gender language promised at the September 2009 update announcement, the committee sought to remove some of this subjectivity by enlisting the help of experts. The committee initiated a relationship with Collins Dictionaries to use the Collins Bank of English, one of the world’s foremost English language
research tools, to conduct a major new study of changes in gender language. The Bank of English is a database of more than 4.4 billion words drawn from text publications and spoken word recordings from all over the world.
Working with some of the world’s leading experts in computational linguistics and using cutting-edge techniques developed specifically for this project, the committee gained an authoritative, and hitherto unavailable, perspective on the contemporary use of gender language — including terms for the human race and subgroups of the
human race, pronoun selections following various words and phrases, the use of ?man” as a singular generic and the use of ?father(s)” and ?forefather(s)” as compared to ancestor(s). The project tracked usage and acceptability
for each word and phrase over a twenty-year period and also analyzed similarities and differences across different forms of English: for example, UK English, US English, written English, spoken English, and even the English used in a wide variety of evangelical books, sermons and internet sites.
Research of this type is just one tool in the hands of translators, and, of course, it has no bearing on the challenge of preserving transparency to the original text. But hearing God’s Word the way it was written is only one part of the NIV’s overall mission. If readers are to understand it in the way it was meant, translators need to express the unchanging truths of the Bible in forms of language that modern English speakers find natural and easy to
comprehend. And this is where a tool like the Bank of English comes into its own.
The most significant findings that influenced decision making for the updated NIV were:
• The gender-neutral pronoun ?they” (?them”/?their”) is by far the most common way
that English-language speakers and writers today refer back to singular antecedents
such as ?whoever,” ?anyone,” ?somebody,” ?a person,” ?no one,” and the like. Even
in Evangelical sermons and books, where the generic ?he,” ?him” and ?his” are preserved more frequently than in other forms of communication, instances of what grammarians are increasingly calling the ?singular they” (?them” or ?their”) appear three times more frequently than generic masculine forms. In other words, most English speakers today express themselves in sentences like these: ?No one who rooted for the Chicago Cubs to be in a World Series in the last sixty years got their wish. They were disappointed time and time again,” or ?The person who eats too many hot dogs in too short a period of time is likely to become sick to their stomach.” It is interesting to observe that this development is a throwback to a usage of English that existed prior to the solidification of the generic ?he” as the only ?proper” usage during the nineteenth century in Victorian England. Even the KJV occasionally used expressions like ? . . . let each esteem other better than themselves” (Philippians 2:3). For that matter, so did the Greek New Testament! In James
2:15-16, the Greek for ?a brother or sister” (adelphos ? adelph?) is followed by plural verbs
and predicate adjectives and referred back to with autois (?them”).
• English speakers around the world are using a variety of terms to refer to men and
women together and for the human race collectively. Plural words such as ?people,”
?human beings,” and ?humans” are very widely used. When it comes to terms that focus on humans in a collective sense, ?man,” ?mankind,” ?humanity,” and ?the human race” are all being used.
• ?Forefather” has all but disappeared from the English language as a generic term,
being replaced by ?ancestor.” Even in Evangelical sermons and writings, ?ancestor” is
more than twice as common as ?forefather.” In the light of these and other findings, the committee adopted a set of guidelines to be applied during the NIV
update process in cases where the original Greek and Hebrew texts clearly indicate an intended application to mixed groups of men and women and not just to individual men (or women) or groups of men (or women). None of these principles was applied inflexibly. How a specific usage sounded in a given context or how that context made it likely to be read was always taken into consideration. But, in general, much more often than not:
• Using
plurals instead of singulars to deal with generic forms was avoided. Except
for some instances where all alternatives proved awkward or potentially misleading, singular
nouns or substantive participles in the biblical languages were translated with singular
nouns or noun equivalents in English (?The one who. . . ,” ?the person who. . . ,”
?whoever. . . ,” and the like).
• Using second person forms instead of third person forms to deal with generics
was avoided. In other words, the translation does not read, ?You who have this-or-that
should do such-and-such,” to avoid saying ?He who has this-or-that should do such-and such.” The exception to this rule was when a second person form was already present in the immediate context and it would be poor English style not to preserve it throughout.
For example, addressing a mixed-gender audience, we would say, ?If any of you has your car on campus, may I get a ride home?” rather than ?If any of you has his (or their) car on campus, may I get a ride home?”
• Singular ?they,” ?them” and ?their” forms were widely used to communicate the generic
significance of pronouns and their equivalents when a singular form had already
been used for the antecedent. For example, ?Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them” (Mark 4:25); ?How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them. . . ?” (Hebrews 10:29); or ?Anyone who is never at fault in what they say is perfect, able to keep their whole body in check” (James 3:2b). At the same time, recognizing the diversity in modern English, a generic ?he” was occasionally retained: ?If I have rejoiced at my enemy’s misfortune or gloated over the trouble that came to him . . .” (Job 31:29).
• ?People” and ?humans” (and ?human beings”) were widely used for Greek and Hebrew masculine forms referring to both men and women. A variety of words — ?humanity,”
?human race,” ?man,” ?mankind” — were used to refer to human beings
collectively. As we noted above, modern English uses a variety of terms to refer to human
beings collectively; and the committee decided to imitate that diversity in the translation,
determining which expression fit best in each specific context. In making the decision
whether to use ?man” or ?mankind,” the committee often preferred the latter for the sake of clarity. ?Man” can mean either ?the human race” or ?an individual (male) human being,” and when a follow-up pronoun is required, the pronoun must be ?he,” creating the potential for misunderstanding. ?Mankind,” on the other hand, can only mean humanity as a whole, and the follow-up pronoun can be an inclusive ?they.”
Nevertheless, the updated NIV often uses ?man,” particularly in memorable and/or proverbial phrases: for example, ?The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). Examples of texts that now have
?mankind” where they didn’t before include: ?Let us make mankind in our image” (Genesis 1:26a); ?Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12); and ?For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).
• ?Ancestors” was regularly preferred to ?forefathers” unless a specific, limited reference to the patriarchs or to another all-male group is intended.
• ?Brothers and sisters” was frequently used to translate adelphoi in the New Testament, especially in the vocative, when it was clear that both genders were in
view. This decision reflects the consensus view among scholars (and with basis in the
dictionaries) that plural adelphoi refers to both men and women equally. Footnotes now
often appear, explaining that ?the Greek word for ‘brothers and sisters’ (adelphoi) refers to
believers, both men and women, as part of God’s family.”
While some uses of ?believers” were retained from the TNIV where ?brothers and sisters” became too awkward, many were replaced by ?brothers and sisters” to retain the familial
connotations of adelphoi.
• While the Greek word an?r (?man” or ?person”) was frequently translated with masculine forms in English, it is clear in several contexts that the word refers to men
and women equally (an option endorsed by major dictionaries of the Greek NT). The
parallelism between James 1:7 and 8 suggests that anthr?pos and an?r are synonyms;
hence, ?That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do.” In Acts, expressions addressing mixed-gender audiences such as ?Fellow Israelites” (for andres Isra?litai) accurately capture the sense of the Greek. In Acts 17:22 andres Ath?naioi cannot be rendered, ?Fellow Athenians,” because Paul was not from Athens. But ?people of Athens” works well, especially since verse 34 shows that at least one woman, Damaris, was among those explicitly addressed.
As we have said, none of these principles was implemented rigidly without sensitivity to the context and cadence of individual verses. How clusters of words sounded when read aloud, what meaning the immediate context of any given passage contributed to a translational debate and what would communicate the original author’s intentions
most clearly were always taken into account.
What Happened to Some of the Most Famous Texts on Gender Roles?
Almost nothing has changed in the translation of the majority of these texts from the 1984 NIV to the updated NIV. But the careful reader will notice a few differences. Most notable perhaps are:
• Romans 16:1-2 now reads, ?I commend to you our sister, Phoebe, a deacon [diakonos] of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor [prostatis] of many people, including me.” Complementarian and egalitarian scholars alike
are increasingly agreeing that diakonos here means ?deacon” (not just ?servant,” though?servant” is provided as an alternative in the footnote; see also the New Living Translation [NLT] and the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV]) and that prostatis means a patron or benefactor (as in the English Standard Version [ESV] and the Holman Christian Standard Bible [HCSB]), not just someone who was a ?great help” in some unspecified way. But, because different churches use labels for offices or leadership roles in so many, sometimes conflicting, senses, a footnote now explains that ?deacon refers to a Christiandesignated to serve with the overseers/elders of the church in a variety of ways.”
• 1 Corinthians 11:10 now reads, ?It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head.” The expression ?a sign of” before ?authority” in the 1984 NIV did not correspond to anything explicitly in the Greek and is increasingly recognized as an inadequate rendition of this verse. Whether Paul wanted the women in Corinth to wear
an external head covering while praying or prophesying, or simply to have long hair, or
maybe even to wear a partial face veil, the point is they should be able to control what they
do or do not have on their heads.
• 1 Timothy 2:12 now reads, ?I do not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man.” Much debate has surrounded the rare Greek word authentein, translated in the
1984 NIV as ?exercise authority.” The KJV reflected what some have argued was in some contexts a more negative sense for the word: ?usurp authority.” ?Assume authority” is a particularly nice English rendering because it leaves the question open, as it must be unless we discover new,
more conclusive evidence. The exercise of authority that Paul was forbidding was one that women inappropriately assumed, but whether that referred to all forms of authority over men in church or only certain forms in certain contexts is up to the individual interpreter to decide. Footnotes to verses 11 and 12 also inform the reader that an?r and gun? here could mean ?husband” and ?wife” rather than ?man” and ?woman.”
• 1 Timothy 3:11 now reads, ?In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.” A footnote adds, ?Possibly deacons’ wives or women who are deacons.” The Greek root word is gun?, which most commonly means simply a ?woman.” From the context, it is possible that these women were either deacons’ wives or women deacons, but neither can be demonstrated from the word alone. The old American Standard Version (ASV), the New American Standard Bibl(NASB), the New American Bible (NAB) and the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) all adopt this translation as well.
posted November 18, 2010 at 8:25 am
What!? No, “Our Parent who art in Heaven”..?
I was blown away when Zondervan released that NIV with all the gender natural/inclusive language. I remain unconvinced that it’s the best translation out there. I’m a big fan of the NET right now… What do you think of the NET?
Kurt
posted November 18, 2010 at 8:26 am
Ben, have you ever reviewed the NET Bible? How would you compare it to the NIV 2011? Thanks.
posted November 18, 2010 at 8:51 am
For example the NET reads…
Likewise also their wives(1) must be dignified, not slanderous, temperate, faithful in every respect.
I Timothy 3:11
and includes this translation note:
“(1) Or “also deaconesses.” The Greek word here is γυναῖκας (gunaika”) which literally means “women” or “wives.” It is possible that this refers to women who serve as deacons, “deaconesses.” The evidence is as follows: (1) The immediate context refers to deacons; (2) the author mentions nothing about wives in his section on elder qualifications (1 Tim 3:1-7); (3) it would seem strange to have requirements placed on deacons’ wives without corresponding requirements placed on elders’ wives; and (4) elsewhere in the NT, there seems to be room for seeing women in this role (cf. Rom 16:1 and the comments there). The translation “wives” – referring to the wives of the deacons – is probably to be preferred, though, for the following reasons: (1) It would be strange for the author to discuss women deacons right in the middle of the qualifications for male deacons; more naturally they would be addressed by themselves. (2) The author seems to indicate clearly in the next verse that women are not deacons: “Deacons must be husbands of one wife.” (3) Most of the qualifications given for deacons elsewhere do not appear here. Either the author has truncated the requirements for women deacons, or he is not actually referring to women deacons; the latter seems to be the more natural understanding. (4) The principle given in 1 Tim 2:12 appears to be an overarching principle for church life which seems implicitly to limit the role of deacon to men. Nevertheless, a decision in this matter is difficult, and our conclusions must be regarded as tentative.”
posted November 18, 2010 at 9:27 am
I am a big fan of NET version as well. I grew up reading NIV all my life but have grown to really like the NET version based off the thorough translation notes which seem to frame the Scripture very well.
posted November 18, 2010 at 12:00 pm
I do not tend to use the NIV, instead I will be drawn to the NRSV, or the new Inclusive Bible (yes, I know it is a paraphrase). But I am certainly glad to see these steps being taken in a Bible translation that is used so extensively by those who self-identify as Evangelical.
I’d say, a good start.
posted November 18, 2010 at 12:11 pm
I too like the NET bible, very helpful.
I still prefer the NIV. The newest revision of the NIV, March, 2011 release is now on Bible Gateway along with a short video by Dr. Moo one of the members on the revision committee.
Here is the URL: http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/?p=434
The bibles I routinely use in my study are the NIV, NLT_2nd, NCV, HCB, NET, NASB with Strong’s Numbers Greek/Heb.
posted November 18, 2010 at 2:54 pm
I think the NET has its merits as a study Bible but not as a pulpit Bible, and there is a difference. For one thing the NET desperately needs some literary types to make the English more fluid and flowing and readable out loud to a group of people. In other words, its weak on its oral dimensions. As for inclusive language as the above says, the NIV has never messed with the God language, and frankly at the anthropological level no one should object to calling a mixed group of people people, or human beings or the like. Its time to stop calling women men, if we really believe in gender distinctions!
And as for the NET rendering of 1 Tim. 3.11, contextually it doesn’t work. Are we supposed to think that the wives of deacons got exhorted but not the wives of elders especially when the elders are said to be married? I don’t think so. The preferred translation should be deacons/deaconesses, as with Phoebe in Rom. 16.1ff.
Bw3
posted November 18, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Ben,
Why exactly did they feel the need to revert back to “mankind” from “humankind” as used in many places in the TNIV? It seems to me an unnecessary preservation of archaic, not to mention patriarchal, language. Another unfortunate instance of capitulating to the whining of a noisy minority of folks stuck in the past.
posted November 18, 2010 at 8:58 pm
How does the translation philosophy differ (or does it differ) from the TNIV?
posted November 18, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Josh, my guess is that not much has changed. The TNIV took some backlash because the NIV folks didn’t do a very good job of explaining why they switched to gender inclusive language so many assumed a theological shift rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt. So they effectively canned the TNIV in pursuit of a translation that was less controversial.
posted November 18, 2010 at 9:36 pm
I still think that the NIV is kneejerk exclusive language. There’s lots of places where the Greek would have allowed a more inclusive use of language, but the NIV chooses male language. If you’re going to use a translation where you want to reflect the culture of the time, why not use the ESV, which is a more careful translation. I use that for study purposes, but for public use, work with the NRSV. The NRSV and NIV both are a bit too loose, however, and make too many choices for the reader. The RSV and the ESV leave interpretation of ambiguity to the reader. I always liked the RSV but must confess that the language became quickly antiquated.
posted November 18, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Ben: Thanks for this review. Very helpful and informative.
posted November 19, 2010 at 9:10 pm
I’m more interested at disability-inclusive language… like have we finally managed to lose “the paralytic” which as far as I know hasn’t been used anywhere except the bible since probably before I was born… in fact a wheel-chair using friend of mine who became a Christian as an adult didn’t even know what “paralytic” meant; she understood it to mean “drunk”! Sadly, while most Bible translation projects these days take advice on the gender thing, few look beyond their own arrogance for appropriate disability terminology.
posted November 22, 2010 at 3:50 pm
I do not have any problems with people trying to make the Bible understandable for the modern “English” reader. I am concerned rather that Biblical text might be in danger of being made subject to the constant metamorphic changes of the English Language.
Frankly I don’t agree that newer and more understandable and more gender inclusive versions of the Bible will make more people read the Bible. Rather, the truer Christians are to the tennets of Scripture, the more likely it is that we attract more people to the Bible.
posted November 23, 2010 at 11:14 am
Dr. Witherington,
While the CEB is written in more of an “easy English” style than the NIV, I find it to be more precisely translated than the TEV. Only the NT has been released, of course, but from what I’ve observed, it seems like the little nuances in Scripture that the TEV sometimes loses are retained in the CEB. I’ve been pleasantly surprised.
posted November 26, 2010 at 5:15 am
My only concern is to have the Bible translated ‘as it was written’. Even if the language is archaic and difficult for ‘modern people’ to understand, isn’t this why we have Ministers, Padres, Preachers, Bible study groups, etc., to help explain it all to us? I don’t see anybody trying to put the works of Shakespeare into modern English – it just wouldn’t be Shakespeare would it?
There is a charm and sense of being in the time of Christ to read the Bible the way He or His followers would have written or spoken.
I still have, and read, a Scofield Reference Bible version where the copyright goes back to 1907. I love the old English words and the different ways of saying things that was so much ‘then’ and not ‘now’. It lifts my Bible up from being just as everyday book to something ancient and special and coming from a world that was different and special.
posted November 26, 2010 at 10:08 am
The purpose of Gods Spirit be in you is to avoid miss translations. If you become one with Him as you are supposed to then there are no errors, no mistranslating the word because you become His living word, His spokesman. Your mind becomes His mind, one with Him. Trying to figure out what is written is for those who do not have His Spirit, His mind, and in that process opinions are formed thus doctrines are formed creating laws for what you think is the correct interpretation. If one be in Christ there is no question what the word says it becomes living and not merely studying to show thy self approved. Approval of man is if you agree with his theory about something he isn’t sure of himself.
posted November 26, 2010 at 7:04 pm
What we need is to turn back to the original Literal Translation of the Bible. There are far too many translations over the centuries (over 3,000 in the English language alone). All this is a contradiction of the original resulting in many varient texts disagreeing with one another. Young’s, Weymouth’s, Rotherham’s, are some of the current literal ones in the English language, and there are literal translations in other languages as well. Young’s is a little hard to read in the O.T. because of a lack of the future tense in the ancient Hebrew text, but I understand that there is a revised Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible which also changes this late 19th Century Bible into modern English. Also, “The Word Study Concordance”, by George Wigram and Ralph Winter, is very helpful because it lists words according to Greek usage, rather than English–but you do not need to know Greek to use it. “Young’s Analytical Concordance” is also helpful in discovering the real, literal meaning of the Hebrew and Greek. The books, “Christ Triumphant” by Thomas Allin, and “Hope Beyond Hell” by Gerry Beauchemin, as well as other books explain what has been done through church history in mistranslations of God’s Word into non-literal texts. Even the King James Translation does not claim to be a literal text– leading to errors in translation of the original texts of Hebrew and Greek into English, and also using faulty hermaneutics. Even the best lexicons are basically some scholar’s reflections on the data drawn from a concordance. Dr. Allin pointed out that Hugh Broughton, the best Hebrew scholar in England of the 17th century, when the King James Version of the Bible was compiled and translated; refused to work with the committee on this “authorized version”, because of the errors in translations of Hebrew words–likewise the N.T. Greek is not a complete literal translation either. I would advise anyone to do their research in deciding on the correct translation out of these thousands of English translations.
posted November 27, 2010 at 7:55 am
Ron a purely literal translation does not eliminate textual variants since different scholars will view which one is original differently, and in any case a purely literal translation into English in fact ruins idioms that are original to other languages. Better to have a sense or meaning correct translation.
BW3
posted November 27, 2010 at 7:59 am
Gary this is simply false. Even Spirit-filled persons make mistakes, no matter how sincere they may be nor how in tune with the Spirit they may think they are. It is always a dangerous thing to simply equate your own views and translations with those of the Holy Spirit, because it makes you no longer subject to correction, correction which we all need.
BW3
posted November 27, 2010 at 10:05 am
That is exactly what I said. If there are any questions about Gods kingdom then it is that one is in theory and not reality and does not know Him at all. We in Christ have the mind of Christ and nothing is hidden in Him. If you are one with the Father as you are supposed to be, He in you and you in Him as one, what possibly could be hidden from Him? If you are confused about His kingdom then it isn’t because He is not willing to open all of heaven to you, it is that you are lacking His Spirit, His mind. Phil 2: 5. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: was written for a purpose, Be ye perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect was written for a purpose. If one is confused about things written then you are of a different author because He is not the author of confusion. The revelation of the Christ is just that, Christ revealed in you. It is supposed to be the same Christ in you , anointed of God, that was in Christ Jesus. What was hidden from him?
John 14: 17. Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
As I said if there is confusion then I would take a long look at who is in you. It is a matter of perspective. Either you see it through the eyes of Christ who knows all of Gods kingdom or you see it through your own eyes of understanding and form opinions and make theory. And to say no one knows is to say Christ failed in His mission to show you the way, His way is not your way.
Gary.
posted November 27, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Ben, when did God give theologians or lexicographers the right to change the complete meanings of His Word? Words such as OLAM, in the Hebrew and AION, in the Greek and their plural forms–which literally and truthfully mean age, ages–should never be translated eternal, forever, forever and ever, when a period of time or times is clearly and contextually meant. I studied somewhere that the Latin word ‘aeternum’ originally meant a series of ages–not eternal– and even if it did, the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. Jerome, who translated the Bible from Greek to Latin, understood ‘aeternum’ to mean a series of ages with a beginning and an end. Ben, only God is eternal. He created times and ages, and all his creation had a beginning, including all angels and mankind. This is not the only example of mistranslations in the King James Version and other translations, before and after it. Please read the books and Bible Word Study listed in my comments above, as well as Young’s Analytical Concordance before making judgement about how the Bible should be translated and interpreted. May the Holy Spirit lead you into all truth. “God is not the author of confusion”–He means what He said, and He says what He means–His Word is not subject to some ‘so-called scholarly changes’ every century or so–don’t you agree?
posted November 27, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Gee Gary, how did all these protestant sects (over 20,000)come about all claiming to follow scripture, all interpreting differently?
posted December 5, 2010 at 11:49 pm
I’m reading the advance release of it on biblegateway.com, and I’ve found several instances of improper, or at least irritating, English resulting from the contortions required to neutralize the earlier NIV. For example, in I John 4:16, the older NIV says, “Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.” To get rid of the “him” the new NIV (NNIV?) has, “Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.” A few verse later the text is changed from “Whoever loves God must also love his brother” to “Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.” But these modifications just don’t reflect proper English. “Whoever” is singular, but “them” is plural. “Anyone” is singular, but “their” is plural. They, their, and them are often used as singulars in informal speech, but to resort to these nontraditional epicene gimmicks to sanitize the Word of God rubs me the wrong way. What are your thoughts about resorting to substandard English to accomplish the neutralization goals? I bet you know what I think…
posted April 25, 2011 at 2:01 am
I created a comparison of Romans 8 with the old and new NIV at http://www.joshhunt.com/Romans8.pdf
Josh Hunt
posted June 2, 2011 at 9:07 am
Great article about this topic, I have been lately in your blog once or twice now. I just wanted to say hi and show my thanks for the information provided.
posted June 7, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Please correct “literature” to “literal” and “aide” to “aid” in the main posting.
Inclusive language has to be natural. When the NRSV changes “what does it profit a man…” into “what does it profit people…” (or something of that sort) the read instantly feels the presence of a nannyist stickler for political correctness. Somethings this leads to real distortions, when “man” in Psalm 8 disappears, and the text is then applied to Christ in Hebrews in a meaningless way.