The latest revision of the NIV… so embraces the errors of current Protestant theology that it poses a threat to sound doctrine. In many ways the updated NIV is a greater danger to faith than any other major English version of Scripture (30-31).Now if that didn't raise the anxiety of every English-speaking, Bible-loving Christian, there is more. In the article readers learn that the latest revision of the NIV is actually the work of liberal feminist conspirators. Can anyone ask for a better plot line for a conspiracy theory—sort of a reversal of the Da Vinci Code!
Tidwell points out that the latest translation committee—though still composed of a cross-section of denominational scholars—is less conservative than the original committee. Yet the only support he offers for this is that Protestant Christianity has generally embraced "mainline liberalism" which he bases on two quotes, one from Carl F. H. Henry and the other from R. Albert Mohler, two denominational scholars Tidwell will likely disagree with on most any other day. With the same broad brush, Tidwell claims that some in the Churches of Christ as well as the translators of the newest NIV suffer from this same malady of liberalism.
However true this assessment of the current state of Protestantism might be, it has little to do with the translation process of the NIV 2011. Still, for Tidwell, this assessment provides the explanation for the introduction of "feminism" as a primary agenda behind the translation of several key texts in the New Testament.
Before I engage the texts the NIV 2011 has, according to Tidwell, revised wrongly, I should share with the readers that I don't care if the NIV 2011 turns out to be a good or bad translation (readers can make up their own minds on this) since most serious students of the Bible will use multiple translations and I have access to the original languages. What I do care about is that accurate information gets to the public about what really goes on in the process of translating the Bible into clear English.
As an example, Tidwell misinforms his readers when he writes, "The doctrinal shift among Protestants caused the NIV translators to revise the version in keeping with feminist theology after aborted attempts over the past several years." Really? If this is the case, then the translators of the new NIV did a very poor job at it. God remains the Father, Jesus is still the Son, and the Twelve are all men. Furthermore elders are still presumed to be men in the NIV 2011.
To accuse the translation committee of a feminist agenda is a bit like accusing Tidwell of misogyny because the way he reads texts seems intent on excluding women.
Tidwell examines in his article three primary texts he believes the new NIV translates improperly, namely, Romans 16.1, 1 Tim 3.11, and 1 Tim 2.12. Each of these will be examined below.
Concerning Romans 16.1
Tidwell states,
Perhaps the most blatant assault on male spiritual leadership found in the revised NIV is its attempt to insinuate women into church leadership roles such as deacons. The text of Romans 16:1 in this version reads, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae.” Just in case we miss the point, the translators include a footnote: “The word deacon refers here to a Christian designated to serve with the overseers/elders of the church in a variety of ways; similarly in Phil. 1:1 and 1 Tim. 3:8, 12” (31).Beyond Tidwell's pejorative framing ("blatant assault on male spiritual leadership"?), the new NIV's offers an accurate translation of this text, though perhaps not the only way to render it. The new NIV has certainly not mistranslated it. Phoebe is, in fact, designated a diakonos in the Greek text. Furthermore, in the original language the term is grammatically masculine as the feminine form (diakonissa) did not arise until after the first century. So in short, Phoebe is every bit the diakonos as Tychicus was (cf. Col 4.7)
Here the translators have a couple of choices to make. They can translate diakonos more generically "minister" or "servant" or they can transliterate the terms as "deacon." The word occurs in a number of texts where we don't generally read "deacon" (such as Matt 20.26; 22.13; 23.11; Mark 9.35; 10.43; John 2.5, 9; 12.26; Rom 13.4; 15.8; 1 Cor 3.5; 2 Cor 3.6; 6.4; 11.15, 23; Gal 2.17; Eph 3.7; 6.21; Col 1.7, 23, 25; 4.7; 1 Tim 4.6).
So the question remains: Is Phoebe a "minister" or is she a deacon? One's prior commitments will weigh heavily on how one wants to translate this text. Either translation will show that Phoebe had an "assigned" role in the early church.
So is it true that only someone with a feminist agenda to supplant the men in the church could possibly understand Phoebe to be a deacon? One might be surprised to know that some of the earliest commentators on Romans understood Phoebe's role to be that of a deacon.
Origen (d. ca. 250):
This passage teaches that there were women ordained in the church's ministry by the apostle's authority… Not only that—they ought to be ordained into the ministry, because they helped in many ways and by their good services deserved the praise even of the apostle.Chrysostom (d. 407):
Note how many ways Paul dignifies Phoebe. He mentions her before all the rest and even calls her his sister. It is no small thing to be called the sister of Paul! Moreover, he has mentioned her rank of deaconess as well.[Pseudo-]Constantius (sometime before the seventh century):
Here the apostle demonstrates that no discrimination or preference between male and female is to be tolerated, because he sends his letter to Rome by the hand of a woman and sends greetings to other women in the same epistle.So apparently "deacon" was considered by some notable Christians, whose first language was Greek, the proper way to understand this text. And if one translate diakonos as "deacon," then of course, she was a "Christian designated to serve with the overseers/elders of the church in a variety of ways" as the new NIV's footnote indicates. The editors of BDAG think "a Christian official" is appropriate.
Perhaps the best way to translate this word is with the ambiguous "minister," even when it seems to point to an appointed function in the church. Diakonos would have been just as ambiguous in the first century. Notice that even Paul in 1 Timothy uses the word in both ways: of particular servants in the church (1 Tim 3.8, 12) and of Timothy's role (4.6). So, within in the range of meaning of this word, was Phoebe a deacon or a minister?
In addition to the citations from the church fathers above, we have evidence from governor Pliny's letter to Trajan (ca. AD 110) that the early Christians did have women "ministers" or "deacons" (Latin: ministrae). So the notion of women deacons is not a feminist invention but a practice that can be traced to just after the first century (if one excludes the evidence of Rom 16.1 and 1 Tim 3.11).
I'm always a bit amused in this discussion that in the attempt either to prove or disprove that Phoebe was a deacon or minister; people tend to miss the more important term relative to her role in the life of the church. She is not only recognized as a diakonos, but also a prostatis, "a relatively high status term," according to BDAG. With this second term the new NIV takes the more "traditionalist" translation: she is a benefactor; while the more conservatively favored ESV takes the more "feminist" translation: she is Paul's patron. One only needs a little schooling in ancient Greek and Roman culture to discover that calling Phoebe a "patron" is far more surprising than designating her a deacon.
More recent exploration into first century letter-writing practices has uncovered some other intriguing possibilities for understanding Phoebe's role in relationship to Paul's letter to the Romans.
First, a drafted letter was kept unsealed until an appropriate letter carrier was found. This allowed more current news to be added between the initial drafting and the sending of the letter. Also this allows the appropriate commendations to be made in support of the reliability of the letter carrier which appears to be the function of the commendation for Phoebe.
Secondly, Phoebe, based on the commendation in 16.1, carried the letter from Paul to the Romans. Sending a letter by private courier involved some costs and Phoebe, the minister of the church and patron of many, probably absorbed those costs personally. If her role was typical of reliable first century letter carriers, then she would have been able to nuance, fill in missing details, and correct misunderstandings on the spot. On her return, Phoebe would have been in a position to report back to Paul the effect the letter had on the Romans.
People in the ancient world who could read did not read silently—the common practice was to read out loud. Those who could not read, probably most, would have heard Paul's letter from someone who could read. Phoebe, given her place in Paul's commendation, is therefore the most likely candidate for the first reading of this letter to the various church groups in Rome.
For more information on this, see E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Compositions and Collection (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004).
Concerning 1 Tim 3.11
Tidwell comments,
In the qualifications for deacons that Paul wrote to Timothy, the revised NIV makes the text read as if some of the deacons were women: “In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything” (1 Timothy 3:11). In the footnote the translators add: “Possibly deacons’ wives or women who are deacons.”Tidwell is here criticizing the new NIV for being too literal!
Translators face several problems in translating this text: 1) the word gune can be translated either wife or woman. Context is usually the only way to determine which is correct; 2) the new NIV correctly removes the possessive "their" from before the word—which would clearly indicate that the text is dealing with wives. No Greek manuscript supports the inclusion of the pronoun which goes back to at least the KJV which italicized their to indicate that it was not in the original text. The earlier Wycliffe's translation read, "Also it behooveth women to be chaste, not backbiting, sober, faithful in all things"—amazingly similar to the latest revision of the new NIV! Furthermore, the older NIV included the following note: "'way, their wives' — Or way, deaconesses" which is really not that far removed from the revised note.
While it may be possible to read this text as instruction for deacon's wives, that reading raises more questions than it solves. For example, why are there no similar instructions for elder's wives? Why are the instructions in the form of "qualifications" and why do they look so much like the qualifications for elders, deacons, and widows? Why would instructions for wives occur with a list of qualities for elders and deacons--that is, church functionaries?
The ancient Christians disagreed on how to read this text. For example, Chrysostom (in the Greek East) believed the text addressed women deacons, while Ambrosiaster (in the Latin West) claimed that the text was addressed to women in general, but neither thought it applied specifically to deacon's wives! However, Chrysostom is the more reliable guide here: he is not translating the text, he is reading it in his native Greek.
If one reads with Chrysostom that Phoebe was a "deacon," all the interpretive problems raised above disappear. Remember the word deaconess (diakonissa) does not exist in the first century, thus Paul, as we saw earlier, called Phoebe with the masculine term diakonos. Thus, the use of the word "women" is all that is needed to make clear that women deacons are being considered here. 1 Tim reads more consistently as well since all of the qualification lists now deal with those who serve the church in special ways.
However, where a problem really exists is in a Restoration Movement agenda that has no room for female deacons. Yet, as I suspect Tidwell knows—but does not tell his readers—several notable Restoration movement leaders, such as Alexander Campbell and C. R. Nichols, knew the NT allowed for female deacons. (Several of the early restorationist churches even appointed deaconesses). One would be hard pressed to accuse these brothers of a liberal feminist agenda!
For those interested in finding out all there is to know about deacons and deaconesses, I recommend J. Stephen Sandifer, Deacons: Male and Female? A Study for Churches of Christ (Columbus, GA: Brentwood Christian Press, 1989).
Concerning 1 Tim 2.12
Finally, Tidwell addresses the translation of a text that seems iron-clad in its prohibitions regarding the role of women in the church. He writes,
More subtle, but in some ways more dangerous, is the feminist twisting found in 1 Timothy 2:12 where the revised NIV reads: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” All other major versions render the prohibition in some form of “to have authority over a man.” By using the words “assume authority,” the revised NIV is parroting theories advocated by feminist theologians (31-32).Really, Greg, we are going to quibble over the fine nuances of "have" and "assume"? I really fail to see how either translation will satisfy a true feminist. If what Tidwell says here is the real agenda of the new NIV, they could have done a lot better than "she must be quiet." I would have gone with "she must have a quiet disposition."
Both "have" and "assume," as with the KJV's "usurp" are interpretive additions to help with English sense. The Greek only uses one word here: authenteo. The standard lexicon of the Greek New Testament (BDAG) offers this range of meaning: to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to. The more recent work of Louw and Nida offers this: to control in a domineering manner —"to control, to domineer." The older Liddell and Scott lexicon of classical Greek understood the term to mean to have full power over. Even the now much out-of-date Thayer's lexicon understood the word to mean: one who acts on his own authority, autocratic, equivalent to autokrator an absolute master … to govern one, exercise dominion over one. The new NIV, consistent with the lexical data, offers a defensible translation of the Greek text.
The real issue in this text is not about men nor women leading but how they conduct themselves when they do assemble. Men are to pray without disputing; women are to dress with propriety. Part of propriety is that they don't seek to dominate the men.
Conclusion
What Tidwell fears is that the Bible might be read to allow the very things he is convinced that it prohibits. He states,
According to this line of thought, a woman may lead in worship, serve as a deacon, be a preacher or do anything else in the church as long as she is asked to accept this authority and does not “assume” to have this authority on her own (32).Except for those who blindly accept the current practices as the norm, it is clear that women did, in fact, do all of the things Tidwell claims they should not do in the church today.
Based on many NT texts, woman played a more prominent in the church in the first century than often "allowed" today. For example, Lydia was a household leader in the early church; Pheobe was a minister and a patron; Priscilla actively taught along with her husband; Junia was counted as notable among the early apostles; Euodia and Syntyche influenced in the church in Philippi, Philip's daughters were prophetesses, and more. Therefore, a Restoration movement that is not willing to go as far as the NT regarding the role of women may not be as interested in restoring the NT church as they so claim.
While I do not dismiss that feminism has had some influence at all on the scholars who make up the newest NIV translation committee, I don't really think the theory that some feminist agenda was the engine driving their work is sustainable. Contrary to Tidwell's protest, it might be that the NIV translators, as fallible humans as all translators are, were genuinely seeking to translate the Greek text in clear, understandable English and that in so doing they sometimes challenge old interpretations.
While I feel certain there is no liberal feminist conspiracy behind the translation methodology of the revised NIV, I'm now a bit concerned there may be a misogynist agenda about the proper way to read the Bible. ;-)
