A Short Response to Mark L. Strauss' paper, "Examples of Improvement in Accuracy of the TNIV over the NIV: When following the Colorado Springs Guidelines"

by Tim Bayly, Teaching Elder
Church of the Good Shepherd
http://www.keptthefaith.org

(This is a brief response to Strauss' arguments, with refutations listed immediately following each excerpt from Strauss' paper.)

Strauss writes:

Colorado Springs Guideline A.5
This guideline says In many cases, anthropoi refers to people in general, and can be translated "people" rather than "men." The NIV often used the translation "men," even when anthropoi  referred to both men and women.  The TNIV more accurately and precisely translates "people."

The Colorado Springs Guidelines (CSG) do not say translating anthropoi as "people" is better; only that anthropoi "*can* be translated 'people.'" Thus it is misleading for Strauss to write that, in terms of the CSG, the TNIV here improves the NIV. Speaking only for myself, I would not argue in favor of hiding the sex-marking of a Hebrew or Greek word used inclusively by using a non-sex-marked word in the receptor language because I find myself quite attached to the male markings inspired by God. After all, calling people "men," as God does in the Old and New Testaments, reinforces a whole host of biblical doctrines including the Fatherhood of God, the federal headship of Adam, the duty of men to lead and protect their wives and children, etc.

Strauss writes:

Colorado Springs Guideline A.5 (continued)
Guideline A5 continues, The singular anthropos should ordinarily be translated "man" when it refers to a male human being. Poythress and Grudem clarify that the flip side of this guideline is that anthropos is accurately and appropriately translated as "human being" and "person" when the term is meant to include men and women.  This kind of translation, they say,  "was never in dispute, and no one is objecting to it.  One standard translation of anthropos was 'human being' long before this dispute over inclusive language."    They admit that this is a more accurate rendering of anthropos since the usage of "man" and "men" has shifted in meaning.  They write, "In the last few years expressions like 'a man' or 'all men' are more often used when only males are in view.  These points are not in dispute."   What they fail to point out is that the versions which they defend (KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV) almost always use the less accurate "man" instead of the more accurate "person" or "human being."  The TNIV dramatically improves the accuracy of the NIV in this regard:

Again, to say something can or may be done is not to say that it ought to be done. Speaking for myself, I would not argue that translating "anthropos" with words such as "person" or "human being" is categorically an improvement in communication with respect to the modern reader, and this for reasons similar to those mentioned above. And we must assume that Strauss is speaking hyperbolically when he claims such changes are a "dramatic" improvement.

At the bottom of page nine, Strauss writes:

We may add to this large body of evidence those passages which use the phrase pantes anthropoi ("all people").  In the following cases, the NIV mistranslates as "all men," while the TNIV correctly translates, "all people": Luke 6:26; Acts 22:15; Rom. 5:12, Rom. 5:18; 1 Cor. 15:19; 1 Thess. 2:15; 1Tim. 2:4; 1Tim. 4:10; Titus 2:11; Titus 3:2.

Again, Strauss claims that translating pantes anthropoi as "all men" is a mistranslation, but nowhere do the CSG say this. Rather, this is Strauss' own judgement.

But what of his commitment to keep his hand tied behind his back by examining the text of the TNIV according to the CSG alone?

Colorado Springs  Guideline B1
This guideline confirms that the plural adelphoi can be translated "brothers and sisters" where the context makes clear that the author is referring to both men and women. Poythress and Grudem, like other interpreters, recognize that in many contexts the Greek term adelphoi does not mean "brothers," but rather "siblings," or "brothers and sisters."  In fact, we have examples from the ancient world where a man and a woman are called adelphoi.   Since in English we would never say, "my brothers Bob and Kathy," the most accurate translation in such cases is "brothers and sisters."  The TNIV renders the NIV's "brothers" with the more accurate and precise translation "brothers and sisters."
The term adelphoi occurs 145 times in the New Testament, 77 times in the Pauline Epistles alone.  The vast majority of these latter carry the sense "brothers and sisters."  The following list is merely a sampling of these many cases.

Again, what the CSG present as permissible Strauss claims they present as a principle. Not true.

Furthermore, while Strauss claims that English-speakers would never refer to Bob and Kathy as "my brothers Bob and Kathy," he fails to note that many English-speakers would (and have, down through the centuries) referred to a group of Christian men and women as "brothers in Christ." That's the more pertinent construction.

Then too, with adelphoi as with anthropoi, I've not said it's better to hide the sex-marking of a Hebrew or Greek word used inclusively by using a non-sex-marked word in the receptor language. Again, I like the male markings in Hebrew and Greek which God inspired in His Word and calling people, "men," as God does in the Old and New Testaments, reinforces a whole host of biblical doctrines.

Strauss concludes his piece with this:

Conclusion
It should be clear that I am writing this paper - to a certain extent - with my tongue in my cheek, since I consider the Colorado Springs Guidelines to be seriously flawed both linguistically and hermeneutically.  My point is to show that, even using the flawed guidelines established in Colorado Springs, everyone should agree that the TNIV has significantly improved the NIV with reference to many aspects of gender language.
Unfortunately, opponents of the TNIV are unwilling to admit these significant improvements, and are instead painting this issue in absolute terms of right versus wrong, even good versus evil. Traditional versions like the NIV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, RSV are "good" and "accurate," while the TNIV is a "bad" translation which distorts the Word of God.  In fact, this is terribly simplistic and naïve.  These other versions have as many (and I would suggest many more) inaccuracies and ambiguities as the TNIV. Until we rise above such simplistic categories and engage in a serious discussion about the nature of Bible translation and how to accurately communicate God's Word, this issue will continue to create more heat than light, and will only cause disunity and strife in the body of Christ.

At least half of the examples Strauss has cited cannot be defended as the necessary choices under the Colorado Springs Guidelines; rather, they may be considered, at best, permissible choices. Strauss has a tendency to confuse the language of permission with the language of duty.

As for Strauss' accusation that some of us have "painted this issue in absolute terms of right versus wrong, even good versus evil," well yes, I have and I do. To remove many hundreds of the sex markings of Scripture, and to confuse or remove a number of the references to a specific race in the Gospel of John, is bad translation, no matter what one claims one's motives to be. Concerning the sex markings, stop and consider that it was God Himself Who named the human race "adam."

Straus concludes his piece by accusing those opposing the TNIV of being "terribly simplistic and naive."

Here is an excellent response from a rather unlikely source, Emily Nussbaum, in her article "The His and Hers Bible" which appeared in the  "New York Times Magazine" on Sunday, February 10, 2002:

Like any Brown semiotics major, conservative Christians know that symbols matter; they affect the way we view the world. A gender-neutral Bible is one step closer to a gender-neutral society. And while liberals and feminists might support such a goal, they should still join in the fight against degendering the Good Book. For copy-editing the contradictions out of the Bible is not the same thing as resolving them -- it merely papers over the problem, literally. * * * To translate the Bible this way is understandably tempting, but it's also a lie. I'm reminded of a modern Orthodox co-worker I once had, who said, ''Look, being Jewish is a game with a set of rules: go ahead and move the pieces anyplace you want, but don't call it chess.'' A truly gender-neutral interpretation of the Bible would quickly begin to fall apart at the seams -- laws about rape or slavery rising up like invisible ink from ancient parchment. One solution, of course, is to reject the Bible entirely. Another is to regard it merely as a parable whose historical foundation can be ignored. But for anyone who wants to take religion seriously, neither solution truly suits. Instead, it seems necessary to confront the contradictions in the text -- to keep the pronouns as they are and wrestle instead with the messy truth, like, well, manly Jacob with his angel. It's a more difficult task, but it's the only honest way out.

May God lead us to grow in our love of His Words--all of them, precisely as He moved men to record them.