The problem with TNIV Bible
 |
| Cover of an TNIV NT, 2002 (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
The defenders of the TNIV translation argue that it is driven not by a feminist agenda or by a desire to be “politically correct.” The repeated claims of its authors and publishers is that it is an endeavor to improve the “accuracy” of the English Bible. But if the TNIV is more accurate than the NIV, why does Zondervan intend to continue to publish the NIV? If Zondervan is really committed to accuracy, it would seem that it would have the TNIV replace the NIV altogether.
Actually, the TNIV appears to be a move not toward greater accuracy but away from it. One example: In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, “ ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God’ ” (Matt. 5:9). The TNIV changes sons to children. But the Greek word huios in its plural form means “sons,” not “children.” My Latin Bible translates it “sons” (filii). My German Bible, my Dutch Bible, and my French Bible translate it “sons.” Likewise, every English Bible I own translates it “sons.” Indeed, from the first century until today, the whole world has understood what the Greek says.
It was not until the advent of gender-inclusive language (the legacy of radical feminism and political correctness) that any translation dared to change the original text. This is accommodation to the culture. It cannot be explained by pointing to the fluidity and dynamism of human language. Even today, we still distinguish between male and female offspring by referring to them as sons or daughters. In the scope of Scripture, there is a theological import to the word son that is lost when it is rendered by the term child. The translators may not embrace feminism or political correctness, yet they fall into the trap of accommodating such cultural perspectives.
When a translation moves from the specific to the general (as sons to children), it is not taking a step toward accuracy, but away from it. There is a patriarchal framework to Biblical revelation that is clearly present in the original text. To “change” or “correct” that framework is to take liberties with Scripture that cannot be justified by “dynamic equivalency” or any other methodology.
The task of translation is not to provide a commentary on the original text. The work of interpreting and applying the text to the present culture belongs to pastors, teachers, and students of the Word. When translators undertake this in the name of improved accuracy, they step over a boundary the church has been jealous to guard carefully for two thousand years. Not since Marcion in the second century have we seen attempts to actually change the language of the original text.
