×

Anyone who has been following translation debates in the last couple decades knows gender has stirred up the most controversy. Critics malign competing translations as tools of complementarian or egalitarian agendas. Relationships have been strained as scholars and pastors took sides. Last year, leaders associated with the NIV acknowledged their role in the division.

In 1997, [International Bible Society] announced that it was forgoing all plans to publish an updated NIV following criticism of the NIV inclusive language edition (NIVi) published in the United Kingdom.  Quite frankly, some of the criticism was justified and we need to be brutally honest about the mistakes that were made,” Biblica international CEO Keith Danby said. “We fell short of the trust that   was placed in us. We failed to make the case for revisions and we made   some important errors in the way we brought the translation to   publication. We also underestimated the scale of the public affection   for the NIV and failed to communicate the rationale for change in a   manner that reflected that affection.

Admissions of responsibility, while helpful in rebuilding trust,  don’t change the fundamental issues. They don’t make the translation challenges disappear. And when the updated NIV went live on November 1,  readers scrutinized several controversial gender passages. One such passage is 1 Timothy 2:12.  Last week at the Perspectives in Translation forum, hosted by Bible Gateway, we opened the gender debate with a question: What’s the best way to describe the authority Paul does not permit for women 1 Timothy 2:12?

  • Denny Burk opened the discussion by observing a shift away from the NIV published in 1984, which translated Paul saying, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” The updated NIV published this month reads, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” And a footnote from the TNIV (2005) that acknowledged alternatives has disappeared. Burk contends, “‘Assume authority’ seems to imply the idea of acting independently in order to take up an undelegated authority. In other words, ‘assume authority’ has the ring of a sinful power-grab. . . . So women may in fact teach men and exercise authority over them so long as such authority is properly delegated to them by the church. It appears, therefore, that the NIV 2011 comes down on the side of egalitarianism in its rendering of 1 Timothy 2:12.”
  • Doug Moo, head of the committee that updated the NIV, responded to Burk by saying that that they dropped the footnotes because “assume authority” could support either a complementarian or egalitarian view. “[I]t is our intent,” Moo said, “to provide a translation that is faithful to the text, bowing to no particular theological agenda.”
  • Burk clarified that he did not intend to make an accusation by calling the verse mistranslated. “I just mean to say that the interpretation reflected in NIV 2011 tilts toward the   egalitarian view.” He assumes members of the Committee on Bible Translation have the best of intentions. But he wants people to recognize this move away from what came before.
  • Another CBT member, Craig Blomberg, said he proposed the translation “assume authority,” but was oblivious to earlier discussion on that phrase, because he did not help with the TNIV. He also wrote the paragraph on this verse for the NIV translators’ notes. “I can tell you authoritatively that we did NOT choose this rendering to tip the scales one way or the other.”
  • Burk concluded the week’s discussion with appreciation for the interaction with Moo and Blomberg. Still, he maintains that “‘assume authority’ is not the best way to render authentein because it seems to indicate the assumption of an undelegated authority. A number of interpreters on both sides of the gender debate have acknowledged this.”

Undoubtedly, these are critical issues. But I can’t help but be disappointed this week that readers (based on a lack of comments) show far less interest in discussing the heart of the gospel in Romans 3:25. Here we read that God put forward Jesus Christ as a hilasterion. Translators have long agonized over the best way to explain this weighty word. How you understand hilasterion goes a long way toward explaining how you regard sin’s offense against God and the nature of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. May God give us at least as much passion and energy to learn about the atonement as we demonstrate in debating gender roles.

Is there enough evidence for us to believe the Gospels?

In an age of faith deconstruction and skepticism about the Bible’s authority, it’s common to hear claims that the Gospels are unreliable propaganda. And if the Gospels are shown to be historically unreliable, the whole foundation of Christianity begins to crumble.
But the Gospels are historically reliable. And the evidence for this is vast.
To learn about the evidence for the historical reliability of the four Gospels, click below to access a FREE eBook of Can We Trust the Gospels? written by New Testament scholar Peter J. Williams.

Podcasts

LOAD MORE
Loading