NIV 2011 (©2010) tagged: , , , , ,

NIV 2011 (©2010)

Posted by in Bible & Theology

By now you may be aware that the beloved (and sometimes bemoaned) NIV update is complete. The first hard copy products will be lining the shelves in March, but digital content may be out before then. Indeed, the complete text is available at www.biblica.com and at www.biblegateway.com. Despite being called the NIV 2011 (to link the version with the debut of the KJV in 1611) it bears a 2010 copyright. I don’t know why more people don’t find that as humorous as I do.

Given that the NIV is arguably the most popular English Bible version out today, regardless of our personal translation preference, we do well to take a look because many in Evangelicalism will develop their interpretation and theology based on what is stated in this version. Of particular concern to many in Southern Baptist life is the NIV’s take on gender-inclusive language and gender roles within the Church.

Some of the changes are negligible. Others interesting. Still more are going to be controversial. Here is my take on some of these changes:

1. Women Deacons

David Rogers posted an article on sbcIMPACT! defending the concept of women deacons (or deaconesses) a few months ago that garnered a lot of attention in the comments, boosting it to one of the top 10 commented posts in sbcIMPACT!’s history (#6 at the time of this writing). It appears that the NIV 2011 (©2010) team sides with David. Here is what they say in their translator’s notes:

Romans 16:1-2 now reads, ‟I commend to you our sister, Phoebe, a deacon [diakonos] of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor [prostatis] of many people, including me.” Complementarian and egalitarian scholars alike are increasingly agreeing that diakonos here means ‟deacon” (not just ‟servant,” though ‟servant” is provided as an alternative in the footnote; see also the New Living Translation [NLT] and the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV]) and that prostatis means a patron or benefactor (as in the English Standard Version [ESV] and the Holman Christian Standard Bible [HCSB]), not just someone who was a ‟great help” in some unspecified way. But, because different churches use labels for offices or leadership roles in so many, sometimes conflicting, senses, a footnote now explains that ‟deacon refers to a Christian designated to serve with the overseers/elders of the church in a variety of ways.”

The sheer volume of comments on David’s post should be evidence that this change is going to not bode well for some, whereas others will see it as a step in the right direction. I personally am in favor of the inclusion of women deacons, but that doesn’t mean I agree with the choice of the word “deacon” over “servant” here (or, for that matter, in 1 Timothy 3 where it is applied to men). Like it or not, if people were unsure of whether Phoebe was a deacon before, within a few years the majority of those in our congregations who use the NIV will be supporting this view and appealing to these verses as the undeniable evidence that Phoebe was in fact a deacon. I know that my church does not have any, and I will be checking to see if its constitution limits the office specifically to men. If it does, I foresee an issue being raised in the near future. Another conflict may arise out of the footnote. To “serve with” will likely be twisted to include preaching and teaching by egalitarians. Should this view gain momentum, complementarians on both sides of the female deacon issue will take issue with the footnote.

Will this cause church splits? Demands that the NIV change the word to “servant”? More conservative pastors and churches switching over to the ESV or HCSB? Time will tell. But I think this change will generate a lot of conversation, and if not light, much heat.

2. Say Goodbye to “Sign of”

Though the deletion of “sign of” in 1 Corinthians 11:10 is a positive change, largely because the text doesn’t support it. Although egalitarians will dislike the change because it appears even more “restrictive” of women, it is more faithful to the text, and egalitarians have had an issue with this verse before the changes were made.

1 Corinthians 11:10 now reads, ‟It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head.” The expression ‟a sign of” before ‟authority” in the 1984 NIV did not correspond to anything explicitly in the Greek and is increasingly recognized as an inadequate rendition of this verse. Whether Paul wanted the women in Corinth to wear an external head covering while praying or prophesying, or simply to have long hair, or maybe even to wear a partial face veil, the point is they should be able to control what they do or do not have on their heads.

3. “Exercise” Becomes “Assume”

If egalitarians have an issue with the change in 1 Corinthians 11:10, this change is really going to cause friction.

1 Timothy 2:12 now reads, ‟I do not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man.” Much debate has surrounded the rare Greek word authentein, translated in the 1984 NIV as ‟exercise authority.” The KJV reflected what some have argued was in some contexts a more negative sense for the word: ‟usurp authority.” ‟Assume authority” is a particularly nice English rendering because it leaves the question open, as it must be unless we discover new, more conclusive evidence. The exercise of authority that Paul was forbidding was one that women inappropriately assumed, but whether that referred to all forms of authority over men in church or only certain forms in certain contexts is up to the individual interpreter to decide. Footnotes to verses 11 and 12 also inform the reader that anēr and gunē here could mean ‟husband” and ‟wife” rather than ‟man” and ‟woman.”

Is it possible to assume authority without exercising it? I believe so. I’ve heard arguments that women should be able to pastor or teach men because they aren’t exercising authority. But the very nature of pastoring implies some type of authority is at minimum assumed. Yet changing the word “exercise” to “assume” doesn’t necessarily provide greater clarification that the pastorate is for men only. Expect arguments that a woman doesn’t assume authority if it is given to her, or that assume refers to an attitude of pride. I think the change makes a stronger case for complementarians, but it won’t kill the debate. Instead of questioning what it means to exercise authority, the challenge will come as to what it means to assume authority.

4. Wives or Women?

This passage doesn’t really favor either side in the complementarian/egalitarian debate. It was strategic to use “women” instead of “wives” because of the change to Romans 16:1-2, but the question of women deacons does not stand or fall on which word is used in this passage. Any controversial nature of this change has more to do with Romans than the context of 1 Timothy.

1 Timothy 3:11 now reads, ‟In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.” A footnote adds, ‟Possibly deacons’ wives or women who are deacons.” The Greek root word is gunē, which most commonly means simply a ‟woman.” From the context, it is possible that these women were either deacons’ wives or women deacons, but neither can be demonstrated from the word alone. The old American Standard Version (ASV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the New American Bible (NAB) and the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) all adopt this translation as well.

Other Notable (non-gender) Changes

Here are a few other notable changes to the NIV text:

  • “husband of but one wife” has been changed to “faithful to his wife” in 1 Timothy 3:2. This may fuel the debate about whether divorced men are fit for the ministry.
  • “no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation” has been changed to “no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things” in 2 Peter 1:20.
  • “valley of the shadow of death” has been changed to “darkest valley” in Psalm 24:4. The ESV retains the KJV wording, whereas the HCSB also uses “darkest valley.”
  • “sinful nature” has been changed to “flesh” in many places, according to the Translation Notes, but it has been retained in others (such as Romans 7). Switching back and forth between a more literal translation and a more fluid/dynamic translation may come across as a failed attempt to appease both sides of the word-for-word versus thought-for-thought debate.

Conclusion

Regardless of your preference or belief about “servant” versus “deacon,” “brothers” versus “brothers and sisters,” or “man” versus “mankind,” there is much in the NIV that a complementarian can applaud. We should offer our thanks for preserving distinctions in gender roles in 1 Timothy in the NIV©2010.

We are always going to find something we don’t like in most any translation we come across. There are some definite improvements in the NIV©2010 over the NIV©1984 and the TNIV. As more people look into the text and compare it to the older versions and to other translations, we will become wiser as to the total change implemented. Given the popularity of the NIV and its assumed continued success, we would do very well not to overly criticize the version because of one or two words we think would be better in a given verse or passage. Criticism and concern should be voiced where you have misgivings, but the version has and will continue to be a very useful one.

However, I think the use of “mankind” and “brothers and sisters” along with the express support of women deacons will cause some conservative holdouts to cross over to the ESV, HCSB, NKJV, and NASB. If the NIV is hoping to gain marketshare with this new, excuse me, updated translation, it is going to come from readers of The Message, the NLT, and other translations that haven’t gained much of an audience because my initial impression is that it is a step further from the ESV and a step closer to the NLT than its predecessor. If that becomes the general consensus, the HCSB may occupy the new “middle ground” where the NIV once stood between formal and dynamic equivalence.