The Revised NIV: A Reasoned Response to Gregory Tidwell's Anxiety

In the July 2011 edition of the Gospel Advocate, Gregory Tidwell warns readers:

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. ;-)

Assault against Common Sense: Undue Veneration of the KJV

The 400th anniversary of the King James Version of the Bible is a noteworthy milestone in development of English Bible translation. The role that the KJV has play in Western culture should not be underestimated but neither should its place in the history of English Bible translation be deified.

Even the translators acknowledged their place in history in the 1611 KJV when they wrote, "But … to show in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held in this our perusal and survey of the Bible. Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, … but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark." (Preface to the KJV, 1611; all KJV-only people would benefit from a careful reading of this preface).

Again, this great anniversary gives us pause to appreciate the great gift the KJV has been to many and to honor those whose sacrifices made possible the translation of the Bible into English. Nonetheless, proponents with extreme single-translation fixation will, no doubt, find this an occasion to picket for their cause. One such propoents is Ron Hammon who recently wrote "Assault against the King James Bible in 1881" (http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2011/05/10/faith/doc4dc8cc9d3d539390386756.txt). Since Hammon offer argumentation somewhat typical of KJV-only proponents, I have copied his article below in blue. My comments will follow each of his paragraphs where I think some counterpoint is needed. 

As we said last week, the publication of the King James Bible in 1611 marked the culmination of Protestant Reformation efforts to place the Bible into the hands and language of the English-speaking people.

Culmination may be too strong, unless, of course, Hammon is saying that the Protestant Reformation ended in the seventeenth century. Protestants continue the process of English translation to the present with the NIV (2010) marking the continuing tradition of bringing the Bible to English readers. If what Hammon said about culmination is true then there would have been no need for any revisions of the KJV which took place as early as 1612; in fact, according to Jack P. Lewis (The English Bible: From KJV to NIV), the 1613 edition had 413 changes. Readers might be surprised to know that in 1629, an edition of the KJV was the first to exclude the Apocrypha. Revising the text of the KJV has been an ongoing work since 1611, as the New King James testifies.

While additional Reformation texts can be found in other languages, that the English language would eventually rise to become the trade language of the world in modern time proves the King James Bible to be the greatest gift that the reformers gave to the whole world.

The word "prove" is too strong since the causal relationship between the KJV and the prominence of the English language would be difficult to substantiate and even harder to measure meaningfully. I'm still not sure what these other Reformation texts are. 

It bears repeating that though initially published during the height of the Geneva Bible’s popularity, once established in the hearts of the people, no other English translation was forthcoming for some 270 years. And even at the end of 270 years, what had been commissioned was not a new translation, but a revision of the beloved text. You simply cannot change Greek texts and honestly call it a revision.

Here Hammon simplifies the matter too much. I have already mentioned the various revisions of the KJV in this period but the Geneva Bible continued to be published and used in this period. However, more to the point, Hammon assumes that one should accept the exact textual base (namely, the so called "textus receptus" on which the KJV was based) for any future revision of the KJV.  However, it seems strange that one would want to ignore the vast amount of manuscripts that have become available since 1611.

Two men would rise to the challenge of overthrowing the dominance of the King James Bible, as daunting a task as it has proven to be. Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, both Anglican high churchmen, had been tasked with revising the King James. While there is evidence in their personal writings of Mariolatry, Darwinism and possibly even the paranormal, what is important for us to understand here is their bent against the King James Bible as evidenced by their supplanting of the Reformation Greek text with one which would eventually bear their name, the Wescott and Hort text (also known as The New Testament in the Original Greek).

Now the pastor has stepped into water he little understands. First, the ad hominem smear on Westcott's and Hort's character is immaterial to their ability to work with Greek manuscripts of the NT. And, furthermore, to make such a sweeping generalization should certainly require some bibliographic data.

But more important to the case that Hammon wishes to make: he is correct that W and H wanted to supplant the TR. Their motives were not sadistic or underhanded. Some history will help here. There was (and remains) no "received text" until the publisher Elzevir claimed this for Erasmus' Greek text compiled from a limited number of manuscripts. In 1633, Elzevar wrote, "Textum ergo habes, nunc ab ominus receptum; in quo nihil immutatus aut corruptum damus (What you have here, then, is the text which is now universally recognized; we offer it free of alteration and corruptions)." However, as the Alands (The Text of the New Testament an Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism) note, the editions since 1633 have been far from uniform. Furthermore, Elzevar overstated his case, as book sellers still do: Neither the Roman Catholic or the Orthodox church would have any interest in switching from their revered texts for the TR's Byzantine text.

What W and H actually did in the editing for their Greek NT was to take the evidence as known to them seriously. They were forthright about their methodology which was designed to help scholars sort through the vast array of manuscripts of the NT that had come down to them. While many have criticized W and H, no one to date has put forward a theory of textual transmission that makes more sense than theirs.  

While it is not our purpose here to discuss at length the Textus Receptus, the Greek text underlying the King James Bible, what is necessary to understand is that during the 18th and 19th centuries, German rationalism had crept into Protestantism. By the time Westcott and Hort appeared on the scene, this had manifested itself in the idea that the oldest Greek texts were the best and most reliable — a pretty convenient invention considering Roman Catholicism had been busy burning bibles during the Dark Ages.

Wow! Really? Actually, the role of the TR is central to the reliability of the KJV. It provided the text from which the KJV was translated. If the TR is found lacking, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that any translation based on it will also be lacking. And that is the case. This is not to name a fault as it is to point the obvious reality of Bible translation: When better manuscripts are discovered, faithful Bible translators will want to incorporate anything valuable from them.

In this paragraph, though, Hammon leaves the exact role of German rationalism unclear. So W and H are German liberals?

By the way, W and H did not always think the oldest Greek manuscripts were the best—they actually preferred some early manuscripts over other early ones. So if the oldest manuscripts are not the best, for the sake of argument, how does one weigh which later ones are? No cogent theory of the transmission of any ancient text would argue out of hand that the later manuscripts are the best. Manuscripts must be studied.

Given the anti-Catholicism of Hammon's argument below, Hammon intimates that Catholics were destroying the better manuscripts. Notice that Hammon confuses the destruction of Greek manuscripts (something Catholics would not do) with burning Bibles (which they did do since they believed the new translations were unfaithful to the Catholic tradition).

Regarding manuscripts, the irony is that it is Catholic and Orthodox MONKS who preserve and transmit the Greek text of the NT! Additionally, most of our manuscripts come from Egypt where the Eastern church held sway. 

With the infatuation of ancient manuscripts firmly entrenched in their minds, Wescott and Hort based their Greek text on two such manuscripts, the first known to us today as the Codex Sinaiticus. Found by Constantin von Tischendorf in 1859, what makes this manuscript interesting is that the monks of Saint Catherine’s Monastery had deemed it so poor that they were about ready to burn it. Over the centuries of its existence, it had been erased and overwritten so many times that it was considered unreliable. But for the worship of antiquity, all this was swept away.

While it is true that Tischendorf found Codex Sinaiticus in the trash, the explanation has to be other than Hammon gives. First, monks consider manuscripts as relics; they preserve them as long as they could. Secondly, Hammon revises the tale of Tischendorf's discovery. Tichendorf first discovers part of the codex in 1844 when he notices some parchment about to be thrown in the furnace. Apparently the monks throwing the manuscripts in the trash did do not know what they were throwing away. Hammon should also mention that Codex Sinaiticus is the only complete Greek NT in the old Uncial script that we have. Aside from the relative quality of the manuscripts, this is an important discovery for understanding how the Greek NT was passed down to us.

But also of note is that Saint Catherine’s is a Catholic monastery. Located at the foot of Mount Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula, this monastery has also been known as the Monastery of the Holy Virgin. Add to this that this manuscript is dated back to the fourth century, we can safely conclude this a Roman Catholic manuscript.

Holy Crap! Sorry, I can't think of a better way to say this. Every manuscript of the Greek New Testament will have been at one time or another either a Catholic or an Orthodox manuscript. Remember, monks? And St. Catherine's is an Orthodox monastery.  

Their second manuscript is known to us today as the Codex Vaticanus. Of note with this manuscript is that, as its name implies, this is property of the Vatican Library, being catalogued as early as 1475. Also of note is what is missing from this manuscript: five entire New Testament books.

Many ancient manuscripts have damage. Besides normal wear and tear, manuscripts were sometimes dismantled to sell it in smaller lots to fetch more money. This particular manuscript deserves more description than Hammon gives it. First, it originally contained both the Old and the New Testament. Second, it also contained the Aprocrypha as did the 1611 KJV. And, finally, it is missing more than just the five NT books per Hammon. At the beginning of the codex about forty six chapters of Genesis are missing; some thirty Psalms are gone and the concluding pages past Hebrews 9.14 are missing. So both the front and back pages have been torn away. Among the back pages would have been the Pastorals, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation. Hammon also fails to mention that ancient manuscripts often rearrange the books of the NT in orders different than printed NTs today.

While I cannot suggest a reason as to the exclusion of the tiny epistle of Philemon, it is easy to see that the absence of Paul’s pastoral epistles is in large part due to the conflict between the sacrament of celibacy and Paul’s requirement that a bishop be “the husband of one wife.” With regard to the absence of the book of Revelation, there is no doubt that it fell out of favor in identifying Babylon the Great in chapter 17 as Rome, which not only sits on seven mountains (verse nine), but also was the great city that reigned “over the kings of the earth” in John’s day.

Wow, again! Hello! The Catholics were sure successful in keeping these books secret! Have you ever looked at the Vulgate! These texts are all there and so are the "husband of one wife" (unius uxoris virum) and the seven hills (septem montes) of Revelation are there, too. Maybe the fact the Vulgate was not in English kept Europeans from reading it.

Again, what needs to be understood here is that while the King James Bible represents the culmination of Protestant Reformation efforts, the Greek text of Westcott and Hort and its progeny, the English Revised Version of 1881 represents a bid to undo and reverse Reformation victories.

Really? Evangelical Bible translators are today undermining the gains of the Reformation? No further comment needed here. 

While the English Revised Version, and its American counterpart, were initially vigorously opposed, they really only suffered partial defeat. For though they are not in common usage today, the seeds of their usurpation were sown. Through the multiplicity of versions and the disassociation of Westcott and Hort from the critical texts in use today, most are completely unaware that the Reformation hangs in the balance today. But as the saying goes, “all roads lead to Rome.”

So, in the end, according to Hammon, the modern critical study of the Greek NT is a tool the Catholic church is using to undermine the Protestant Reformation.

I would like to offer an alternative scenario—since I'm among those who collate and index these ancient manuscripts. Is it possible, in light of the new manuscript discoveries since the KJV, that textual critics are more interested in weighing all of the evidence as opposed to accepting a few, not so good, manuscripts that some printer called the "received text"?