Posted on 01/24/2005 1:09:50 PM PST by freedomcrusader
Beyond stealth
RELIGION: Zondervan's next-gen Bible hopes to move off the shelves at Raptor warp-speed. Despite a fast-approaching launch date and fast-track advertising, the publisher isn't sharing the full translation with independent scholars or its critics
by Gene Edward Veith
Today's New International Version (TNIV) of the entire Bible is scheduled for publication Feb. 4. Zondervan put out the TNIV New Testament in 2002. Now, with the addition of the Old Testament, the translation is complete. And the controversy, which began eight years ago and was apparently resolved, is about to erupt again.
The major difference between Today's New International Version and yesterday's NIV, the most widely used contemporary Bible translation (which will still be available), is that the new translation features "inclusive language." That is, many words referring to the male gender (the generic "he," "father," "brothers") will be changed to also include the female gender ("they," "parent," "brothers and sisters").
The TNIV publicists, in a bit of Orwellian doublespeak, are calling such revisions "gender-accurate" language. The problem, however, comes when the language is not accurate to the original text.
Sometimes the original biblical languages do use inclusive language, as is reflected in contemporary literal translations such as the English Standard Version (ESV). But the TNIV adjusts the gender even when the Bible is specific, as in translating the word for the clearly male "son" as "child."
The TNIV does not go so far as The Inclusive English Language Lectionary used for Bible readings in many liberal churches, which eliminates male pronouns that refer to God (changing "Our Father" to "Our Father/Mother"). Still, many critics believe that tinkering with the Bible's gendered language obscures what the Bible itself teaches about gender and throws off prophetic and Christological passages. The TNIV also defers to modern sensibilities by changing the word "Jews," when described as plotting against Jesus, to "Jewish leaders," or even "the leaders."
For its critics, the TNIV raises larger questions about the danger of cultural accommodation and the limits of the "dynamic-equivalent" theory of translation in which scholars translate a text according to what they think it means, rather than what it says.
News of plans to revise the NIV in a gender-neutral direction first came in 1997 ("The Stealth Bible," World, March 29, 1997). The NIV in Great Britain had already made those changes in an "inclusive language edition" (NIVI), as did the simplified New International Reader's Version (NirV), designed mainly as a children's Bible. WORLD's story revealing that the revered NIV, which accounts for nearly a third of all Bible sales, was itself on the verge of adopting these controversial changes unleashed a storm of criticism.
On May 27, 1997, in Colorado Springs, James Dobson convened a meeting of evangelical leaders, Bible scholars, and representatives from Zondervan and the NIV translation committee to resolve the disputes. At the end of the meeting, Zondervan agreed not to revise the NIV as had been planned. The participants also signed a document titled the "Colorado Springs Guidelines" that specified how gender-related language in Scripture should be handled. The guidelines indicated where inclusive language may be used and where it should not, upholding the principle of following closely the meaning of the original languages.
But then on May 14, 1999, the International Bible Society (IBS), the group responsible for the NIV, announced plans for a new translation. The group made assurances that the NIV would still be available, but that plans for what would become the TNIV would go forward.
On Jan. 28, 2002, the New Testament portion of the TNIV was published. Despite the agreement the IBS and Zondervan entered into with the Colorado Springs Guidelines, the new translation used gender-neutral language, even when it does not appear in the original biblical text.
How could the IBS and Zondervan violate their agreement so flagrantly? The commitment not to do a gender-neutral revision of the NIV could be satisfied by keeping the old NIV in print and calling the "Today's New International Version" a "new translation" rather than a revision of the NIV. But the Colorado Springs Guidelines also offered specific principles for new translations. The IBS agreed to follow them, but then did not do so in preparing the TNIV.
In July 2002, the president of the IBS, Peter Bradley, in an article for the organization's publication Light Magazine, said that the translators had to "withdraw" from the Colorado Springs Guidelines because they conflicted with the translation guidelines of the Forum of Bible Agencies, to which the IBS subscribes. But Bible scholars Wayne Grudem and Vern Poythress, in their book The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy, show that the guidelines of the Forum of Bible Agencies do not address the issue of gender language at all.
Mr. Bradley also indicated that the Colorado Springs Guidelines were forced on his organization, but Mr. Grudem—who was present at the meeting and wrote up an account of the transactions that all the participants approved—cited evidence that IBS representative Ken Barker played an active role in their development.
Zondervan Vice President Paul Caminiti told Christian Retailing Magazine that the publisher plans to answer the critics of the TNIV, to call them "to intellectual honesty and integrity." And, yet, at this point, Zondervan is not even answering the phone, refusing to talk with WORLD. "We've been directed not to speak to anyone from WORLD," said Tara Powers, a Zondervan spokesperson. After that conversation, three more phone calls were neither answered nor returned.
Zondervan is also keeping the complete TNIV under wraps. Normally, new translations are circulated to scholars in advance of their release, but no one outside of IBS circles has yet seen the TNIV Old Testament. Until the new Bible is released, a complete assessment is impossible.
But such reticence is not holding back the marketing campaign. Mr. Caminiti told The Christian Post, "The TNIV will be the biggest Bible translation launch in history." If the first TNIV translation came in like then-new Stealth technology, the complete TNIV is tracking with Raptor, an evasive, lightning-fast, next-generation jet fighter.
Mr. Caminiti told bookstore dealers that the TNIV would be supported by an "aggressive" marketing campaign. "The product rollout will be spectacular," he told CBA Marketplace. "We'll launch nine Bibles," including devotional Bibles for women and men, a church edition, a novel-like edition with only a quarter of the complete biblical text presented in chronological order with Tolkien-like maps, and a Scripture-sampler for evangelism prepared in conjunction with the Willow Creek Association. The marketing push will feature ads in magazines and websites popular with young people. But Rolling Stone, in a bit of anti-religious bigotry, has refused the ads.
For a different reason, LifeWay Christian Stores, the nation's largest religious retailer, refuses to carry the TNIV New Testament. Zondervan is accusing the Southern Baptist chain of hypocrisy, since the stores do sell the New Living Translation, which also uses inclusive language. Zondervan is also insinuating that LifeWay is protecting the Holman Christian Standard Bible, a more literal translation published by the Southern Baptist publisher Broadman & Holman.
But Rob Phillips, the director of communications for LifeWay, told WORLD that no one in the company had seen the complete TNIV yet, so no decision has been made about whether or not to carry it. But the decision not to stock the TNIV New Testament was based on three reasons: (1) More than 100 conservative Bible scholars have said they could not recommend it. (2) A resolution at the 2002 Southern Baptist Convention asked LifeWay not to carry the TNIV. (3) Customers are not asking for it.
Brett Venable, a bookstore owner from Milford, Del., agrees with that last point. He told WORLD that most of his customers want a Bible that is easy to understand and, above all, accurate. When they learn that a particular translation is gender-inclusive, they typically choose a different one.
Dale Buss, writing in the secular marketing online journal BrandChannel.com, discussed Zondervan's marketing strategy in the face of such challenges. He said that Cris Doornbos, executive vice president of sales and marketing for Zondervan, "is trying to outsmart his foes by going around them." The company "is trying to bypass Christian bookstores by pursuing mass merchandisers" such as Wal-Mart and Target. Mr. Buss also said that the TNIV New Testament is being used "as a bit of a decoy. Executives hope that the TNIV's zealous opposition will have expended all of their flak by the time the Old Testament, which makes up about two-thirds of Scripture, debuts."
—with reporting from Mark Bergin —
I'm going to stick with the English Standard Version.
?........and EXACTLY,....Who owns Zondervan these days?
It's going to bomb.
?........and EXACTLY,....Who owns Zondervan these days?
The NIV ministers to me.
Today's Noticeably Inferior Version ping.
Two words: Not acceptable.
If it is not even an attempt at an accurate interpretation of the original text, it is pure "false teaching." Nothing more, nothing less.
What are we to make of this?
I highly recommend the version at bible.net. It is free and they actually encourage copying it. It is not copywrited and they don't intend to do it anytime soon. Pastors and lay people alike can quote it publicly at will, and it is completely legal.
The NIV is SOOOOOOO 20th century.
False teaching. They are no longer interpretting the Bible. They are now "tickling ears."
The King James Version is so beautiful. Ive read some of the NIV and others and they are in my opnion just so "blah" and so "bland".. KJV all the way.. Just yesterday I read something in the New Testament that just blew me away.. I wont go into it but once again I find myslef thanking the Lord for being so patient and loving with me (and everyone else..)..
So right you are!
KJV can be very beautiful, but it is not a language I use in everyday discourse. It is better than a german bible for me, but I prefer something written in my own language.
The Book of Mormon is a nineteenth century book written in 16th century english for the sole purpose of appearing "bible-like." I don't go for "better because it is traditional."
I don't read 16th century english if I want the maximum amount of actual information to be communicated to me from the text. I read something in up-to-date english.
I can enjoy the KJV however, as much as I can enjoy Shakespeare. But I don't really trust the translation as much as some of the others.
WOW! Now you have outdone post 13! You rule, man!
I'll stick with King James.
I'd better quit while I'm ahead. 8^>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.