Evangelicals Tussle Over Jews, Gender In New Bible

Jerusalem Post / AP ^

[RCW2001]

(08:30) Evangelicals tussle over Jews, gender in new Bible

---

By Richard N. Ostling, The Associated Press

February, 13 2002

---

NEW YORK - Conservative Protestants often find themselves in theological arguments with liberals about the Bible's historical reliability. But an unholy squabble over Scripture has erupted in recent days that pits evangelicals against each other.

The flash point is the inclusive language used in the forthcoming "Today's New International Version" of the Bible, with questions of gender and proper translation sparking fierce debate - plus a side argument developing over treatment of Jews in the New Testament.

What's at stake is more than victory in an intellectual game. Millions of dollars in potential sales could be on the line.

The International Bible Society, sponsor of the new version, believes change is necessary to reach 21st century readers. Its North American publishing ally, Zondervan, now has "Today's NIV" for pro-inclusive customers, and the original "New International Version," a sales smash since its introduction in 1978, for traditionalists.

But there's danger of a gender backlash among evangelicals - the biggest consumer block among Bible buyers - as other new evangelical versions enter a competitive market.

Another problem is that James Dobson, the most influential personality in Christian radio, brokered a 1997 pact in which the Bible society and Zondervan accepted 13 anti-inclusive translation guidelines.

The Bible society is withdrawing from its "firm commitment," Dobson said Tuesday, and "risks dividing the Christian community again, as well as damaging its own reputation." He called the new Bible is "a step backward."

The language issue originated in the 1980s with the ascent of religious feminism. A panel from the more liberal National Council of Churches published translations of key Bible passages that abolished "male-biased" language regarding God and Jesus Christ.

Jesus' famous prayer became "O God, Father and Mother, hallowed be your name." To avoid male pronouns, John 3:16 turned into "for God so loved the world that God gave God's only Child." Instead of "the Son of man," Jesus was "the Human One" and "the Lord's supper" was "the Sovereign's supper."

Traditionalists and aesthetes blanched. A separate National Council committee rejected the approach when it produced the "New Revised Standard Version" of the Bible in 1989. This pioneering work left God and Jesus alone but used inclusive wording in references to humanity.

Soon after, the NIV translators began a rewrite, similarly using inclusive wording for humans only. The Bible society authorized publication of this version in Britain, but World magazine of Asheville, North Carolina, crusaded in 1997 against revising the NIV. In the end, the Bible society halted the British edition and vowed that the NIV would remain unchanged.

For future work, it agreed to the Dobson guidelines, later endorsed by major evangelical figures: Bill Bright, Charles Colson, Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy, Pat Robertson and two Southern Baptist seminary presidents.

Then on Jan. 18, the Bible society wrote the '97 meeting participants that it was about to issue "Today's NIV," thus "withdrawing its endorsement of" the guidelines which are now deemed "too restrictive" because "English usage is changing dramatically."
Last week, the New Testament portion of "Today's NIV" was displayed at a trade show and on the Internet, with bookstore release in April. The complete Bible with Old Testament is due by 2005.

Though the old NIV remains unaltered, Wayne Grudem of Arizona's Phoenix Seminary says he and others in the 1997 negotiations understood that the Bible society promised to end inclusive revisions.

"They have broken faith with the Christian public," he maintains. The Bible society, meanwhile, believes it has the right to change policies.

Grudem and colleagues in the conservative Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood of Louisville, Kentucky, quickly assembled a report citing dozens of changes they find objectionable. An accompanying statement from 30 Bible scholars declared that "Today's NIV" distorts biblical texts and "should not be commended for use by the church."

Disagreements fall into several basic categories:

• "The Jewish leaders" now oppose Jesus in John's Gospel, not "the Jews," as in most translations. Stek says the change conveys the writer's original intent, avoiding the misunderstanding that he was referring to all Jews, a touchy matter in interfaith relations. Conservative critics respect the intent, but believe the literal translation must stand.
  
  
• Added words. Rather than strict word-for-word translation from the Greek, some terms are added. For instance, "brothers and sisters" is sometimes used instead of the literal "brothers" in the Greek. John Stek, chairman of the "Today's NIV" translators, says the change is justified if the biblical group addressed included both genders.
  
  
• Male nouns. The word "man" is often changed to "person." Critics say that's acceptable when the Greek word is "anthropos," which can be generic, but the Greek "aner" means only "man." Stek says that's a matter of opinion and lexicographers disagree.
  
  
• Male pronouns. The new translation often uses plural pronouns and avoids the words "him" or "his." Critics complain this surrenders the intended spiritual force of verses referring to a single person. Stek thinks that's a modern, individualistic reading that doesn't reflect ancient culture.
  
  Verses like Acts 20:30, translated generically to imply that both genders taught doctrine in New Testament times, are a sore point for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which believes only males should exercise church authority.
  
  Such opposition "comes from an ideological agenda," said Bible society spokesman Larry Lincoln, and is disobeying biblical teaching against dividing the church.
  
  Complicating matters, some opponents of "Today's NIV" are involved with new rivals like the "English Standard Version" and "Holman Christian Standard" Bible.
  
  But Grudem contends fidelity to the exact Greek and Hebrew wording is vital.
  
  "People deeply want to trust every word of their Bibles.
  
  They meditate on every word. They preach on every word," he said. "If you don't have a Bible you can trust, it strikes at the heart of the Christian faith."
  

[DoughtyOne]

I'll continue to struggle through with my old King James standby. I never had much use for the NIV. Sometimes I'll check it out to see if there's a conflict on an issue. But that's about the only time I take note of it.

[F16Fighter]

Jesus' famous prayer became "O God, Father and Mother hallowed be thy name..."

What??

Why not just change the 'Lord's Prayer' to "Our Father, Mother, Supreme Being, Big-Guy-Upstairs, The Force, AND The Big Kahoona -- hallowed be thy name(s)"

[VeritatisSplendor]

Footnotes and study bibles were made for exactly this problem. Translators should convey the original as much as possible, and sprinkle the bottom of the page with their opinions.

Mrs VS

[Frumanchu]

Check this out. I wonder if the changes they made are strictly in the NT or if they extend to the OT.

[Hila]

Let the religious of this hour, those who don't know or want to know the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, continue to sell their false religion. Let them publish their phoney "bibles" and find out at the end of their race that they rejected Truth, which sets us free.

[meandog]

Jesus' famous prayer became "O God, Father and Mother, hallowed be your name."

Unbelievable...In just about every religion, cult, sect, denomination, et al, the creator (God) is male. BECAUSE, as a male HE is seen as all powerful. That is not to say that women do not have equal standing with the LORD. Indeed, in Christianity, the very first person that Jesus appeared to was a woman. But God, the Father; God, the Son; and God, the Holy Spirit, are male. The "woman" part of God is us, His church, the weaker vessel he loves and protects.

[Hila]

Let those who don't know and don't want to know the One True God and His Son, continue on their own path. There will always be a remnant that will be led by the Spirit of the Living God, and will turn more ane more to the Hebrew originals, instead of the humanistic Greek translations.

[CatoRenasci]

Although I'm a liberal Protestant on matters of doctrine and do not believe that the Bible is literally true in every jot and title, and indeed perhaps because I have that freedom, I stick with the majestic English of the Authorized Version (King James). To me, the language itself invokes a reverent spirit and emphasizes the import of the Bible.

What troubles me is that most Christians insist on translations in which they can understand the language without effort. I made a point, in my youth, of learning about the usage in King James and how many words differ from those currently in use, and how the grammar of the King James Bible reflects a more formal language that used the subjunctive and the intimate familiar (Thee, Thou, Thine, etc) which have dropped out of common use (but which other language keep, such as the German Du and Sie forms).

[F16Fighter]

Nothing is sacred. The very words of Jesus Christ are now deemed "offensive" by the PC Police from within. THE Bible isn't good enough. Unbelievable.

[in_troth]

Unbelievable... the very first person that Jesus appeared to was a woman. But God, the Father; God, the Son; and God, the Holy Spirit, are male. The "woman" part of God is us, His church, the weaker vessel he loves and protects.

Unbelievable yourself! So how do you know that the Holy Spirit is male? It's not Casper, you know. The main symbol of the Holy Spirit is a dove, but other symbols are used, notably fire, water, oil and air.

Symbols are reflections of human understanding of God through the prism of culture. They may be God-given through Revelation, but the understanding of them is limited by language and imagination, which are entirely human.

You crack me up!

[Jagdgewehr]

In short, the liberal theologians and scholars want to deviate from the original language and rewrite the bible to fit their perspectives. Why not omitt the passages that condemn homosexual relations?

Truth matters nothing to the liberal mind.

[in_troth]

In short, the liberal theologians and scholars want to deviate from the original language and rewrite the bible to fit their perspectives....Truth matters nothing to the liberal mind.

So you REALLY think God has male genitals? Literally?

[meandog]

Unbelievable yourself! So how do you know that the Holy Spirit is male?

First mention of the Holy Ghost: (MATT 1:18) "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was esposed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." I don't think it can be any more obvious...

You crack me up!

Don't blame me...God did that when he made you female!

[malakhi]

Check this out. I wonder if the changes they made are strictly in the NT or if they extend to the OT.

The language issue originated in the 1980s with the ascent of religious feminism. A panel from the more liberal National Council of Churches published translations of key Bible passages that abolished "male-biased" language regarding God and Jesus Christ.

Jesus' famous prayer became "O God, Father and Mother, hallowed be your name."

Wonder what they did with:

You, O Lord, are our Father;
From of old, Your name is ‘Our Redeemer.’ (Isaiah 63:16)

Disgusting. Political correctness run amuck.

[UberVernunft]

"In short, the liberal theologians and scholars want to deviate from the original language and rewrite the bible to fit their perspectives....Truth matters nothing to the liberal mind."

So you REALLY think God has male genitals? Literally?

You seem to specialize in these irrelevant red herrings. The point is that what is expected in a translation is that it does not introduce into the text any "extra" theological concepts, or at least any liberal theological concepts. Based on the vapid question you poised above it's obvious you do not even understand the points being made. Conceptualizing god as a "male" has nothing to do with physical genitals.

Your thinking is so typical of the mindless babble liberals typically bring to these discussions.

[Thorondir]

I wonder what these types did for the first three hundred years of Christianity, before Pope St. Damasus put the bible (NT) together and declared it to be the word of God? Oh, that's right, they didn't exist.

[Map Kernow]

But Grudem contends fidelity to the exact Greek and Hebrew wording is vital.

This is the key. And as I've written before, ultimately the best insurance of the true believer against PC shenanigans with the Word is to learn the languages---Hebrew (and Aramaic), and Koine' Greek---that the Bible was written in originally. It's a steep road to climb to learn these languages, but not impossible for the motivated person of faith, and it eventually vouchsafes the learner a beautiful vision.

[Jagdgewehr]

So you REALLY think God has male genitals? Literally?

How utterly ridiculous to assume I was saying that.

My point is that English translation the Holy Bible must accurrately reflect the original language as close as possible, as well as, the truth contained within.

The Greek language used in the New Testament is far more gender specific than the Hebrew used in the Old Testament.

In both languages gender is indicated either explicitly or by assumption.

Either case the original language must be strictly adhered to.

My personal view is the "He" reference to God transcends the mortal human limitations we attach to it. God, the Creator, is the perfect complete being. Neither he or she in the human sense.

God created a being, the image of Himself, and seperated this one being into two seperate genders.

That is my understanding of man, woman, and, God.

The Holy Bible should not be subject to any human agenda whether liberal, conservative, left, right, male, or, female.

Simply let the Holy Bible say what it says and decide to reject or accept it on that basis alone.

[Pistias]

What's at stake is more than victory in an intellectual game. Millions of dollars in potential sales could be on the line

What's a bias?