The NIV11’s approach to gender—variously described as gender neutral, gender inclusive or gender accurate—has been its most controversial aspect and deserves a special comment.
A starting point is to observe that all recent translations, including the ESV and HCSB (e.g. 1 Tim 2:1, 4), are more gender inclusive than the NIV84, when it wasn’t an issue. As Rod Decker suggests, “The issue involved is not if some form of inclusive language should be used, but what specific types of language are legitimate and how extensive should they be.”1
Notably, the NIV11 is more gender inclusive than the HCSB or ESV, but not as radically as the TNIV. Sometimes it has reverted to the NIV84, or gone for a new option altogether. This time, the NIV11 argues its case for its approach on the basis of careful research by Collins on current English use (the ‘receptor’ language), including in evangelical literature.2 Before assessing its approach, critics should familiarize themselves with the Collins research.
The classic example is the NIV11’s approach where it believes a singular noun (e.g. ‘man’) or pronoun (‘he’) is generic and hence not gender specific.
It has largely abandoned the TNIV’s straight shift to pluralizing every masculine singular,3 or changing third person masculine (‘he’) to second person (‘you’) so as to be gender neutral.
Instead, it often adopts a ‘plural from singular’ strategy. That is, gender-neutral pronouns (e.g. ‘they’, ‘them’, ‘their’) are used to refer back to singular antecedents in a sentence (e.g. ‘whoever’, ‘anyone’, ‘a person’). For example, ‟Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them” (Mark 4:25 NIV11). It might be inelegant to purists but it is commonly used now.
The NIV11 uses ‘people’ and ‘humans’ for Greek and Hebrew masculine words which refer to both men and women. A variety of words—‘humanity’, ‘human race’, ‘man’, ‘mankind’—are used to refer to human beings collectively. For example, it reverts (over the TNIV) to “Man shall not live by bread alone” in Matthew 4:4, because of the almost proverbial resonance this saying has achieved.
The NIV11 typically replaces ‘brothers’ with ‘brothers and sisters’. Notably, in Proverbs, for example, it only occasionally goes for a generic ‘parent’ in place of ‘father’ (Prov 15:5, 17:21) and ‘child’ in place of ‘son’ (Prov 19:13), but more often sticks with ‘father’ and ‘son’, clearly keeping the specificity of a royal father’s advice for his son.
The NIV11 reverts to the NIV84 over the TNIV on some occasions, stays with the TINV on others, and goes to something entirely new on still others. Overall, the approach to gender of the NIV11 is much better than the TNIV, and I am largely comfortable with the approach described above.
Nevertheless, one should consult the critical reviews published by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW).4
I have some sympathy to its objection to the change of “mighty men” to “mighty warriors” (especially in 2 Samuel 23 and 1 Chronicles 11), which translates the masculine plural form of the Hebrew word gibbor, which means mighty or strong. It seems a little gratuitous to remove the male referent here, given that all the warriors named here were men, and clearly the normal pattern in ancient Israel was only for men to serve in military service. On the other hand, the HCSB consistently goes for ‘warriors’ for this term.
I also think the NIV11’s change of “women” to “weaklings” in verses related to military combat is unhelpful, especially in Nahum 3:13 and Jeremiah 51:30.5 The Hebrew word is the ordinary one for women and CBMW point out that the connotation could be shame as much as weakness. Certainly the Bible considers it highly undesirable that women would be forced to serve in military forces.
One of the flashpoints is 1 Timothy 2:12 and the NIV11’s adoption of “assume authority” as the translation of authentein. CBMW believes this translation inevitably pushes an egalitarian understanding of this crucial verse, and should torpedo the NIV11.6
As a definite and public complementarian, I would counsel a little more caution.
For the sake of non-Greek readers, this word occurs only once in the New Testament, and there are not even very many occurrences of the word in the wider body of ancient Greek literature from which to assess meaning. In particular, there are very few occurrences dating from prior to the New Testament (most uses postdate it by several centuries). This should caution us against excessive dogmatism over its meaning.
I have found that many complementarians rely on what other well-known authors have said in this debate, without checking (or revisiting) the evidence for themselves. For example, they may have once read Scott Baldwin’s article on the word in the Schreiner/Kostenberger book on 1 Timothy 2.7 They then suggest this settles the matter, and it should be translated as ‘have/exercise authority’. However, they forget that Baldwin lists ‘assume authority’ as one of the range of meanings for authentein.
They also seem not to have checked the standard Greek lexicon BDAG, which gives for the meaning of authentein “to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to”. They seem not to realize that none other than John Calvin translated this verse in Latin as sumere auctoriatatem, which means in English ‘take/assume authority’.8 Further, the much-loved KJV translated authentein as ‘usurp authority’!
Certainly Kostenberger’s syntactical research shows that the two activities mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:12 (‘to teach’ and authentein) must both either be viewed positively or negatively. So since teaching in the Pastorals is almost always a positive activity, it is very likely that authentein should also be understood in a positive sense.9
Yet although preferring a translation like ‘have authority’, some complementarian scholars believe the NIV11’s “assume authority” is defensible, and counsel against dogmatic opposition to this choice.10 It would be wise to consult these very carefully argued opinions before writing off the NIV11 on the basis of this one verse.
It is also worth noting that the Chair of the NIV Committee for Bible Translation, Doug Moo, who is himself a respected complementarian, suggests that in regard to English use, to ‘assume authority’ can be negative or positive depending on context.
For example, we might say, “Barack Obama assumed authority in January, a couple of months after his election as President”. And he was quite right to do so! Or this… “After the train smash, Fred Jones assumed authority till ambulances arrived, since he had first aid experience and everyone else seemed dazed”. In this case, no one gave Jones the authority, but it seems he did a reasonable thing. So ‘assume authority’, as an English phrase, is not necessarily negative (as some have asserted).
Lastly, in terms of the practical impact of the NIV11’s rendering, I find Wendland’s comment worthy of consideration.11
In fact, I think that if a reader—unaware of this entire egalitarian/complementarian debate—were simply to read this entire passage in context, he or she would most likely think, “Paul does not want women to teach men in an authoritative way.” What is more, I fail to see any great difficulty involved in explaining the truth of God’s Word from this passage—even with NIV11’s wording.
I think the observation of CBMW that egalitarians will find the NIV11 a more congenial Bible for them to work with holds some water. However, I suggest the converse is far from true, that somehow the NIV11 approach to gender would make the natural (as I believe) complementarian understanding of the Scriptures difficult to teach and maintain.
Many complementarians may find the NIV11 approach to gender is a strong factor in leading them to prefer another translation to replace the NIV84 as their church Bible.
However I argue that they should pause before making it the only significant factor. They should certainly avoid the temptations of questioning the motives of the NIV Committee for Bible Translation or demonizing the choices of fellow complementarians who are less concerned about the NIV11’s approach.
- Rodney Decker, ‘An Evaluation of the 2011 Edition of the New International Version NT’, p. 18. ↩
- ‘Summary of Collins Corpus Report’, CBT. ↩
- But not entirely, for example it often still pluralizes in Proverbs. “A wise man” becomes “the wise” and “a fool” becomes “fools” respectively in Prov 24:5, 7, with accompanying pluralized pronouns. For some reason the ‘fool’ and the ‘sluggard’ sometimes remain as singular males (see Prov 26:4-5, 13-16). ↩
- ‘An Evaluation of Gender Language in the 2011 Edition of the NIV Bible’, CBMW. Also Denny Burk, ‘The Translation of Gender Terminology in the NIV 2011’, JBMW, pp. 17-33. ↩
- Also Isa 19:16, Jer 50:37. ↩
- CBMW, ‘Evaluation’, pp. 6-7, 9. ↩
- H Scott Baldwin, ‘A Difficult Word: auqentew in 1 Timothy 2:12’, Women in the Church, Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1995, pp. 65–103, 269–305. ↩
- See John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1979, p. 68. ↩
- A Köstenberger, ‘A Complex Sentence Structure in 1 Timothy 2:12’, Women in the Church, pp. 81-103. ↩
- For example, Decker, ‘Evaluation’, p. 28 (noting he is a complementarian on p. 35). Or see the report for the complementarian Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), by Professor Paul Wendland, ‘Evaluating the NIV11’s Translation of αυθεντειν in 1 Timothy 2:12’, p. 4. ↩
- Wendland, ‘Evaluating’, p. 4. ↩
Hi Sandy – really appreciate your article and its calming of the anxiety about gender issues and other matters about NIV 2011.
Our church is currently evaluating HCSB and NIV 2011 translations. I’ve just finished preaching through 1 John and the Psalms of Ascent using HCSB.
Over half of the feedback we’ve received from our congregation is that HCSB is often clunky in its public reading. Looking through the written responses people gave, the ‘vibe’ was that it was often awkward in rendering scripture verses; people found the HCSB often using ‘old-fashioned English’ that people would not use today. There’s no doubt that public reading is at least one important feature of a translation.
Like you, I looked back to Calvin’s commentary on the topic of 2 Timothy 2:12 and found his ‘assume authority’ reading shared by NIV 2011. I agree with your comment that a reader unfamiliar with the battle ground of 2 Timothy 2:12 would get the ‘vibe’ of Paul’s reading using either meaning you mentioned of the Greek here.
We just started our NIV 2011 evaluation so looking forward to seeing its changes. Thanks again for your excellent articles on this topic.
A really helpful, well-considered article, Sandy.
Andrew, David, thanks for your kind words.
On 1 John, interestingly we picked that to trial the HCSB on as well. In terms of reading aloud at church, I have not had a strong trend for or against HCSB so far, there have been a couple each way.
My colleague, Jim, did a very careful comparison of the Greek of 1 John and compared HCSB and NIV11, and I will see if he wishes to make a few observations.
Thanks Sandy, I reviewed the NIV11 and HCSB side by side through the whole book of 1 John, though I was assessing primarily in terms of translation rather than readability, and my personal preference is towards strong word for word equation over paraphrasing.
Nonetheless my findings were that both were good translations though I had a slight preference for the HCSB. Some of my dislikes were as follows:
In 1:4 and 2:1 NIV11 stuck with the singular “this” rather than “these” which I think will impact upon your exegesis. “These” makes you ask the question about how much of the letter he is referring to.
The HCSB translates ‘Christos’ as Messiah when separated from the word Jesus (e.g. 2:22), while NIV consistently retains Christ.
Generally I notice the NIV inconsistently used the verb “live” to translate ‘peripatew’ (2:6) and ‘menw’ but not always which I personally found bothersome.
I would love to see more integration of verbal aspect in the translations. For example “I have written” (HCSB, 2:14) makes no sense unless he’s referring to a previous letter, and this movement from present (11-13) to aorist (14) doesn’t obviously suggest two letters.
I have made a more extensive comparison that this but mostly they’re small points.
My personal punt is that the NIV11 will sound better to people who are used to NIV84 because there is so much continuity that familiar phrases will continue to sound familiar. Overall I am glad for the NIV11 because I see significant improvements over the NIV84 of which I am not a great fan.
Thanks Jim!
Also in HCSB in 1 John, I found the inconsistency of christos being translated sometimes as “Messiah” especially annoying in 1 John 2:22 where it gives
“Messiah” rather than “Christ” completely misses the critical verbal link to “antichrist” in the very next phrase.
Hi Sandy
Thanks for your helpful article.
I wonder how much various people (and let me also say “we”) have been “hurt” by the TNIV. And so whilst the NIV2011 may have moved in some very good directions, the hurt and suspicion caused by the TNIV makes it harder for “us” to think about heading (back?) towards the NIV2011.
Once bitten, twice shy.
Mike
Mike, I know what you mean. TNIV was a Bible with an obvious theological agenda (much like the NRSV), and so translated certain verses to fit in with that agenda, regardless of what the text actually said or meant.
They’ve softened (or back-pedalled) on the agenda this time around it seems, I’m assuming because it was a PR and sales disaster. But I think the egalitarian agenda is still there. As Sandy points out, ‘assume authority’ is defensible, but it is at the egalitarian end of defensible, and was presumably chosen as the more congenial option for the egalitarian reader. And I find it very interesting what they’ve done in Ephesians 5:18-22. Here’s the NIV11 translation:
“Instead, be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[Instructions for Christian Households]
“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.”
It’s better than NIV84 in that they have given some more recognition to the structure of the verse, with the participles that hang off ‘be filled with the Spirit’ in v 18.
But they still break the participle chain before its final link ‘submitting to one another’, and insert a paragraph heading and a make it a new paragraph.
The effect is to support the old (and discredited idea) that verse 21 is about ‘mutual submission’, thus softening the meaning of verse 22.
I also wonder at the addition of ‘yourselves’; as in ‘submit yourselves to your own husbands’. The ‘yourselves’ is not required by the Greek, and the NIV84 simply had ‘submit’ (as does nearly every other English translation). Does the reflexive pronoun have the effect of softening or distancing the action? I’m not sure.
Holman is certainly better in Eph 5.
Anyway, like you, Mike, I’m reluctant to trust NIV again as well.
Mike, that’s a really good observation. I agree that’s an issue. Perhaps a bridge too far for some.
My comment is that Zondervan and the CBT have publicly said they did not handle the TNIV well and that it had unfortunate effects in the evangelical community. In my first blog on this topic I summed it up as “controversial and divisive”. I do not have time to trawl past press releases and comments from their spokespeople, but I recall them being very clearly what I call regretful or apologetic about it.It shows up in the Collins research this time, for example, and the partly different results. I think even CMBW said they appreciated the lead up process more this time, even though they still reject the result.
So I guess Christianly, I want to take those statements at face value and accept the regret, and keep NIV11 in the mix to evaluate.
We Christians can also be cynics, and think that’s “just the publisher wanting to make more money”. I am sure the publishers want to make money. It is also reasonable that if we want new or properly updated English translations, we need to respect what I presume is the very large costs in assembling expert translation team, giving them the infrastructure (computer power etc), and then publishing the results. For this reason, I can understand why they need to make money out of their new translations.
Tony, got to go and do other stuff (Synod bites into one’s time), but I just wanted to publicly thank you for being willing to publish these articles.
It is important to place on record, not so much for you, but for our readers, my appreciation of your willingness.
This shows very clearly Matthias Media does not duck a hard issue or just tow a party line. I have criticised (more than once) the ESV which Matthias first distributed in Australia. And I have been permitted to do it here on the MM website.
Even though a complementarian, I have defended the validity of a flashpoint translation in 1 Timothy 2:12, which for many of our conservative, reformed evangelical friends, may immediately and instinctively find ‘soft’ or ‘weak’. And MM have been willing to publish it in their website.
I think this speaks volumes for the integrity of Matthias Media (although I am biased).
By the way, I am still open to good arguments (not party lines) on the whole gender question for NIV11, both the translational and the political (which I do think exist, albeit in second place, not first).
Thanks Sandy. That’s very kind of you to say.
Hi Sandy, I appreciate your thoroughness and especially your encouragement to trial these translations for ourselves rather than relying too quickly on what others have to say.
For those who are involved in the process of choosing translations (especially pastors), it can be helpful for to take a little step back and think about even broader issues w.r.t. translation principles. Michael Jensen interviewed Andrew Shead on the topic a few years ago and this interview is still well worth a listen.
On 1 Tim 2:12, I think you’re right to caution us against making the translation of a single word into a shibboleth for the entire translation. There are a lot of other issues lurking behind the way people approach this verse. It’s not really a matter of the translation of one word. It’s also a matter of how we approach the Bible as a whole. Do we look to conform our lives and our churches to the Bible’s overall teaching about God, ministry, men and women, or are we just relying on proof-texts to bolster our own case?
The CBMW article you referred to claims that by translating the word authentein as “assume authority”, the NIV11 in one stroke gives legitimacy to a feminist interpretation. Why? Because feminists will now be able to quote this verse (out of context) as a proof-text for their case, and nobody will have any proof-texts left to answer them. But that’s crazy. It assumes that it’s legitimate for both feminists and those who wish to answer them to argue on the basis of proof-texts alone. Since when did quoting a single verse out of context as a proof-text constitute a legitimate way to read the Bible?
I disagree with you and Sandy on the 1 Timothy 2:12. This is a deal breaker in my books. They have turned what is clear into deliberate ambiguity and have done so on purpose. I am not imputing motives. It is clear in their own translation notes:
‟Assume authority” is a particularly nice English rendering because it leaves the question open, as it must be un- less 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.
http://www.niv-cbt.org/wp-content/uploads/Translation-Notes-Final1.pdf
One verse can be enough to write off a translation and even worse than one verse is the motive to adjust God’s word to give people the options.
PS. I think we do care about a single word. Many things have been fought over a single word and I think Revelation 2:18-19 makes me nervous about people “adjusting” the Bible to make is more pleasing.
Revelation 22:18-19 *
There’s nothing like a discussion of so-called “inclusive language” to get me going, and the going has been going on for decades. Those who say that words such as “mankind” are not incluisive are simply wrong. They might not like those words being used inclusively, but they were and still are used to include both sexes. They are widely used in the media (I often hear both men and women on television say “man-made” for example) and those who try to mandate them out of Bible translations are being “politically correct” to an absurd degree. I don’t mind people using “humankind” for “mankind”, but when they say we all should follow their example they are going much too far.
In reality, the issue seems to be mainly one of academics talking to academics and having little effect on the general population.
Andrew, I am really pleased someone is taking me up on this 1 Timothy 2:12 thing.
I wonder if you can give me your reasons for being so certain that “have/exercise authority” is definitely the correct translation and that “assume authority” is definitely not a permissible translation.
I tried to supply some evidence for my opinion in my article, which I think it would be fair to interact with.
1. If Kostenberger is certainly right, as you say, then authentein MUST have a positive sense.
2. But as Moo says, the English expression “assume authority” can be either positive or negative depending on context.
3. Then they are adding unnecessary ambiguity to the English text that wasn’t there before.
4. But to make it worse, their translation philosophy statement (that I linked to )makes it clear that it is deliberate(!) ambiguity. Let the reader decide what the Bible says!
5. So we have deliberate, and unnecessary ambiguity impossed on the Bible on an area that people are unwilling to submit, therefore stop defending the indefensible!
(BTW. sumere in latin is “take up” and you’d need to find some pretty good arguments that it carries the same connotations as the english word “assume”. Added to this is the fact that is was not a part of scripture that people did not want to put into practice)
From the University of Notre Dame’s online Latin dictionary…
Brings back very rusty high school for me!
Andrew, thanks for interacting a bit further. I observe that you want to go for a higher degree of certainty (i.e. total) than many people feel is possible with this word.
In regards to dictionary definitions, there is just not lots of evidence, especially from NT times or earlier for this verb. But such evidence from uses in other literature shows what appears to be both positive and negative (and perhaps in between) meanings for the verb. Certainly the standard lexicon includes something like NIV11’s choice as an option.
Have you actually worked through Baldwin’s examples in the Greek yourself?
Kostenberger’s study shows that the syntactical pattern is always two positives or two negatives (‘almost always’ according to some from memory). As a complementarian friend pointed out to me, this doesn’t logically rule out the possibility 1 Tim 2:12 is one time he breaks a typical syntactical pattern. Almost none of us are total slaves to grammatical rules.
Further the parallel verb ‘to teach’ (when not appearing in a compound verb) is mostly, but not always a positive action action in the Pastorals (Titus 1:11).
I’m not trying to be difficult, but this analysis shows not that in this context, authentein must have a positive sense, but that it most likely has a positive sense.
I believe your conclusion is more dogmatic than the evidence allows.
Sometimes some ambiguity in translation is better to remain. For example, is “to glory” perhaps a better translation than “to boast” of the relevant Greek word Paul uses, because boasting for us in English is so persistently negative, when in Paul, sometimes it can be positive in some contexts.
Now there may well be what one might call political reasons for adopting an ambiguous translation – namely acceptability to a wider group. And you may not wish to give this ground for political reasons also. And so wider political issues might come into your wisdom in making decisions about this.
As I said above, I agree with other complementarians, that one could still quite adequately teach the biblical (i.e. complementarian) position from the NIV11.
Lastly, on the question of whether one verse is enough to torpedo a translation, can I ask you how you assess my christology example from Dr Thompson on the HCSB and Phil 2:7-8. There are certainly continuing threats to a high christology seeking to water down Christ’s divinity, and it appears HCSB in the relevant verse may give too much comfort there. Does that sink it as an option?
Thanks Sandy. Before I answer again. I’m trying understand something.
Are you saying …
1. that you are adopting the NIV 2011, even though it gets it wrong on 1 Timothy 2:12?
OR that are adopting the NIV 2011, which does a pretty good job of translating 1 Timothy 2:12?
Because you seem to be arguing on two fronts:
1. That one sentence isn’t enough to rule out my adoption of the NIV 2011.
AND
2. That the NIV 2011 translation of 1 Timothy 2:12 is something that I want to defend.
OR worse…
3. I’m adopting the NIV 2011, and I don’t care which way it goes on 1 Timothy 2:12.
Andrew, glad to answer these questions, but I encourage you to attempt a sympathetic reading of those you dialogue with. I apologise if I am wrong, but I feel a tony bit like I am being backed into a corner.
First. I am not at this point saying anything about a final decision about which translation I am adopting to replace the NIV84. I will not make that decision alone, but in fellowship with those I serve with at St Michael’s, along the lines suggested in my main article.
Second. Nor am I advocating that others should make a final decision to adopt NIV11. I think I have made it abundantly clear that some will feel its approach on gender makes it too problematic and I respect that. In fact, I have bent over backwards to say my main point is not to push for one particular outcome, but to encourage a thorough process in decision-making.
Third. I have said that I think there is generally good reason not to make one verse alone the watershed by which a translation stands or falls, and I have applied that to 1 Tim 2:12.
Fourth. All three options you provided for me re. the NIV11 on 1 Tim 2:12 are incorrect. I hold none of them.
I certainly care about what NIV11 and other translations do with 1 Tim 2:12, and I think you should perhaps reconsider even suggesting for a moment that I don’t care about the topic. The evidence of my care is in the detail of my article.
I don’t think NIV11 gets 1 Tim 2:12 outright wrong. As I have said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to meet a standard of proof to declare it definitely wrong.
Nor would I be happy to says NIV11 “does a pretty good job” on 1 Tim 2:12.
Instead like other complementarians I referenced in my original article, I prefer the translation “have/exercise authority” over “assume authority”, but believe “assume authority” is within the bounds of what is defensible.
To summarise I am defending “assume authority” as being within bounds of acceptability, not as being the best translation.
I do so to allow space also to consider the other pros and cons of NIV11 vis a vis other candidates.
‘tiny’ not ‘tony’.
(No Freudian slip at all, just clumsy fingers – that’s my story and I am sticking to it!)
Thanks Sandy.
As much as you say that you have not made a final decision, the tone of your articles makes it sound like posturing for the NIV 2011. That may not be your intention, however. If that is the case, I’m sorry for thinking this.
Thanks for taking the time to help me understand that while you prefer “have/exercise authority”, you think that “assume authority is within the bounds of what is defensible. This is much further than I obviously would be able to go.
1. If Kostenberger’s understanding of teach and authentein is almost certainly right then authentein almost certainly carries a positive meaning (have authority) – (Notice – almost certainly)
AND
2. EVERYTHING in the context pushes you to see this as a universalised teaching (all men everywhere praying (2:8); the commands for dress is universal (2:9) as is the teaching about overseers (3:1ff) and the teaching about the church of the living God (3:14-15)
WITH
3. The only thing pushing you in an opposite direction being the social force of people not wanting to obey the Lord at this point
THEN
4. To make it deliberately ambiguous because Christians will not do what God’s word is saying strikes me as nefarious. Not just political, its not about politics – but messing with the word of God – willfully.
I’m not saying that evangelicals can’t squint their eyes and read “assume authority” in the right way, of course we can. But we must not let this happen unchecked.
Andrew, I think you have put the No case very well in regards to the specific translation of 1 Tim 2:12. Thank you for doing so.
We kept looking at this in our staff planning conference these last couple of days. Those of us who have done the study agree ESV/HCSB are better translations than NIV11 in this verse. We do not agree NIV11 is outside the bounds of acceptability.
What we also did was read NIV11 aloud from vv9-15 and try to hear it as we imagine an outsider or an uninstructed Christian would do. We hunch that they would still naturally hear NIV11 as being notably restrictive about the role of women in vv11-12. As you point out, there is the universalising of the immediate context. There are still the words ‘submit’ and ‘be quiet’. There are still the reasons supplied in vv13-15.
All of that still sounds politically incorrect to the modern ear and inclines the honest modern hearer to think the Bible is saying something contrary to modern culture at that point. And of course it is.
Egalitarians will still have to do a lot of work to explain this text away.
That said, I respect your opinion and thank you for the vigour of your engagement on such an important matter.
The next step in my plan is to go and ask some of the Moore College lecturers what they think on this narrow issue and the broader inclusive language gender questions.
I don’t think there is much profit on taking this discussion too much further just now.
Thanks for your work on this Sandy. We’re thinking about the whole issue as well. Just want to know what your opinion is on what the NIV 2011 does with Ephesians 5, which Tony mentioned earlier?
If 1 Timothy 2:12 on its own isn’t a deal-breaker, do you think that the insertion of the paragraph break before Ephesians 5:21 is significant when it comes to making a choice?
Garry, thanks for your question. It’s a hard one. I am not sure I have lots to offer on Eph 5:21-22 and surrounds.
The difficulty is that v21 is like a hinge verse. Grammatically as you know, it belongs as the last of the chain of 4 participles subordinate to the command to be filled with the Spirit, and spelling out what that means. ESV and HCSB indicate this properly with their translations, unlike NIV84 and NIV11.
But conceptually, it seems to me that v21 then heads the whole set of instructions for Christian households (referred to in more scholarly literature as ‘household tables’ I think), and not just the section on husbands and wives.
So that means I do not think v21 is a general comments about mutual submission we should all give to each other (by which people mean something like respect, which isn’t what the word means).
That is, the flow is something like this…
The last aspect of being filled with the Spirit is submission to one another, and now I am going to illustrate what I mean by that in some key relationships:
* wives submitting to husbands – with husbands having non-symmetrical reciprocal responsibilities;
* children obeying parents (probably a stronger form of submission) – with fathers (and by extension mothers) having non-symmetrical reciprocal responsibilities; and
* slaves obeying masters (stronger again) – with masters having non-symmetrical reciprocal responsibilities.
If we are to have English Bibles with paragraphs, and editorial subheadings, which all modern Bibles do (at least those we are comparing), then arguably NIV11 does better here, because it groups all three sets of relationships under one editorial subheading “Instructions for Christian Households” and under one headline verse, namely v21.
I certainly don’t buy the symmetrical mutual submission argument, but I think whichever modern translation you use, you will have to explain how v21 functions and why it is not just a general comment that trumps or undermines v22ff.
This is a good principle that anybody who chooses to use the NIV11 could also apply to the words “assume authority” in 1 Tim 2:12. That is, explain how the word “authority” functions within this particular context and why the phrase can’t be used as an overarching principle that trumps or undermines the rest of the verse or the passage.
Thanks for all your hard work on this, Sandy! It’s a great service to us all.
Thanks Sandy. Like everyone else. Appreciating your work on this.
Sandy, I’ve really appreciated your articles. Thanks for the work you have put in. Having trawled through some (though not all comments), I have two questions.
1. Has anyone commented on the translation issue regarding conjunctions in the NT, especially Paul’s letters. Tony Payne commented in the Briefing several years ago (around the time Simply Christianity was publised) that this was his biggest criticism of the NIV. From my initial reading, this has improved a bit in the NIV11 but their translation principles limit the level of improvement. To my mind, this is as important, if not more so than the gender issue and this is where the HCSB is a significant improvement in my experience.
2. Has anyone commented on the quality of the OT translation? When I was at Moore College, Andrew Shead was very complementary of the OT translation of the TNIV? I have seen no blog comments so far and while I accept that the NT translation will have some priority (since it is preach on at least twice as much), getting the OT right is also very important.
On your second query, I wrote a very brief post on the OT in NIV11 here: http://blog.shields-online.net/?p=247.
Paul, thanks for commenting… And Martin, thanks for answering his question 2, about which I am not real qualified to answer.
If you go to the WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) link page on the English translation question, you can follow links to detailed assessment of NIV11 on each book of the Bible.
In regards to question 1 about conjunctions, I did note in my previous post that NIV11 restores some connectives, and gave an example. Robert Slowley’s comparative statistics on words added or subtracted in NIV11 compared to NIV84 (and TNIV) reveals that several connective words appear more frequently in NIV11 over NIV84. In particular,
* ‘so’ appears an increase of 99 more times;
* ‘as’ appears 62 more times;
* ‘for’ appears 54 more times;
* ‘then’ appears 37 more times;
* ‘now’ appears 11 more times.
(All increases are net figures.)
I cannot tell you how this compares with HCSB in terms of translating original Greek connectives, but clearly NIV11 is a significant improvement over NIV84 for those who value the connectives like you observe.
By the way, not so happy with NIV11 in the second of the three strophes (if that’s the right fancy pants term) in Gen 1:27…
Line 3 is plural with the pronoun in the Hebrew.
But line 2 is definitely singular “him”.
And in this context, where it refers back to the singular ‘man’/’mankind’ (=’Adam’) in line 1, I think something is lost. The whole of line 3 makes it clear the verse is inclusive of both genders, so I think NIV11 made a bad judgment on this verse.