Report: 75 Percent of TNIV Gender-Related Problems in Updated NIV Bible

The reading "Jesus was indignant" is in only four Old Latin manuscripts (a d ff2 r1*) and the accompanying Greek text of one of them (Bezae, D/05). All other Greek manuscripts, all other manuscripts of all known versions, and all known Fathers who cite the passage have the reading that corresponds to "moved with pity."

Earlier I remarked that the "textual decisions of the new NIV cannot always be trusted." This is because the basic rationale of the translators is that the overwhelming consensus of the Greek manuscripts, versions, and Fathers may be corrupt at any given time as they clearly demonstrate by printing "Jesus was indignant" at Mark 1:41. If such is the case, it then follows that the text they print anywhere (even if supported by nearly all the manuscripts, versions, and Fathers) may also be corrupt or at least in doubt.

In Matt 4:1, for example, one manuscript (713) says that Jesus was tempted by the Spirit, and -- I speak as devil's advocate -- even though all other manuscripts, versions, and Fathers say that Jesus was tempted by the devil, how can one be sure? Surely over-scrupulous copyists would have been tempted to change "spirit" to "devil" based on their theology and the surrounding text, while it is hard to account for the opposite change.

Yet in Mark 1:41, the error is similarly present in the smallest sliver (if it amounts to even that) of the mountain of evidence available. The reading "Jesus was indignant" is an Old Latin reading, the origin of which is tightly intertwined with the Syriac version, i.e., many Old Latin readings were translated (or mistranslated) directly from the Syriac. As Metzger rightly notes, the Syriac for "he had pity" (ethraḥam) is nearly identical with its word for "he was enraged" (ethra❛em). Perhaps an early translator merely mistranslated the Syriac and thus the error in Latin arose. The editor of the accompanying Greek text of one of these Old Latin manuscripts then translated the Latin word into Greek and the single Greek witness for the new NIV in Mark 1:41 was born. Another possibility is that some early Latin copyists mistakenly copied iratus instead of miseratus (the reading of Latin some manuscripts), especially since in spoken Latin:

Iesus autem miseratus eius (But Jesus having compassion on him)

would sound like

Iesus autem is iratus eius (But Jesus he being angry with him)

and the one copying by dictation naturally would have left out the personal pronoun is (he) as it is superfluous and in addition not found in any Greek manuscript. The same aural and even ocular error could have occurred with misertus, a cognate of miseratus.

There are indeed other reasons that explain the tiniest of aberrations in the biblical tradition here, but the point is that the fundamental principles behind the textual decisions of the new NIV are doubtful, and thus its text cannot always be trusted.

 

Are you keen enough to realize your tone is not one of encouragement around here?

Yes I realize that, just like with many other organizations, CBMW holds some positions with which I don't agree. There are some people who take their positions to extremes that I'm not comfortable with theologically.

The variety of opinions and views on this, and many other matters, is as varied as any other theological topic. I simply said there are some matters in the NIV2010 to be concerned about. I think this is a reasonable statement. The continued application of unnecessary gender neutral language is not justified in some cases.

I'm not being crass towards others but provoking a point of conversation. To simply accept the text as is and move forward without dealing with these issues obfuscates an important detail.

Well I have, actually, checked the renderings of some of these passages, just like I have for other passages in other translations. There are some cases where KJV is actually a better read of a passage than the NIV2010. Just like there are many places where the NIV is a better read on some passages than the KJV.

There is some trivial stuff. Griping about using only "brothers" when the context clearly means "brothers and sisters" isn't helpful. But where they have contributed it a mechanism of accountability to the theological agendas of some in doing translation. There are some people in the NIV team that desire to import a much more inclusive language structure onto the biblical text. I have a problem with that agenda.

Given my academic background I am probably more adept at discussing those issues with them than the average layperson. Does that mean I don't contribute meaningfully? Absolutely not, but there is still a point of conversation to be had.

I think CBMW has a lot to offer this conversation when they are welcomed in a maintain a position of sanity and reason. (Which they do whenever in these conversations) Also their broader ministry about responding to evangelical feminism by providing a robust biblical view of men and women is important in these times. I for one appreciate that voice.

 

Jerome,

I'm certainly not here to defend the publications of CBMW members, but I do agree that words like "everyone" are inherently more plural in meaning than expressions like "that person," which is obviously more singular. Just this morning I was reading one of the better NT Koine writers who wrote in Acts 3:11 συνεδραμεν πας ο λαος προς αυτους επι τη στοα τη καλουμενη Σολομωντος εκθαμβοι, where a Greek purist would never have used εκθαμβοι (plural) but rather εκθαμβος (singular) to correspond with the singular πας ο λαος (all the people). I don't remember criticizing the use of plural pronouns to correspond to plural-sounding words like "everyone" but rather using them, rather awkwardly in my opinion, to correspond to decidedly singular words like "that person." Thus the new NIV's "I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me" (Rev 3:20) does not sound normal in my opinion, and nor does its "Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them" (Rom 4:8), just as I have stated.

 

Okay,perhaps I should have used the word 'discerning' instead of keen. But your comment is a bit overboard.

I'm fine with those who merely disagree. However, extreme opinions characterize many of the statements coming from CBMW and those in sympathy with that organization. Of course I will exempt D.A.Carson from that. He has spoken at some of their meetings. He has been invited although he was an advocate of the TNIV which the organization trashed.

There are matters about the 2011 NIV that some are concerned about. And those issues are about as significant as the dropping of thee,thy and thou from the NKJV.

No one is completely satisfied with any translation. That's a fact of life. I agree that details are focused upon to the neglect of the whole. Many concentrate on a single tree instead of the forest. Thankfully consumers will continue to buy the NIV and it will maintain its #1 status despite what detracters say.

Furnish some examples please.

That's a given.

Please rephrase that one.

Some people? A majority decided on any given text. By using the term 'some people' you give the impression that a minority ran roughshod over the majority.

Rework that sentence.

Huh?

I think their voice on that issue is overly strident and silly on occasion.

 

I already said that I liked the NRSV rendering of Rev.3:20 better than the wording of the new NIV in that instance.

But in the case of Ro.4:8 I don't see any problem. It doesn't sound normal to you,but in my world it's a vey common way of speaking. You are fighting a losing battle there.

 

Or it could be that God was only speaking to men in this instance because Jewish women weren't allowed to divorce their husbands!

Nowdays we apply the verse universally to men and women alike, but when the text was written divorce was something only a man could institute.

personally, most of the complaints of the OP and this thread are nonsense at best and false witness at worst. It seems that the CTBMW began their critique from the perspective of one who has judged the motives of the translators as "evil feminists", and then sought to prove their opinion with trivialities over gender usage and grammar.

I tell you, if I could leave out all the commands that were made specifically to men, I could chop a good 75% out of my Bible. That view almost has merits.

 

I'm somewhat disappointed with many of the gender decisions in the updated NIV on intertextual theological basis.

 

not exactly sure what you mean, could you provide some examples?