Question about changes to the language in the NIV

[Relztrah]

I have noticed some changes in the language of newer editions of the NIV. For example:

Psalm 103:15

NIV 1995: As for man, his days are like grass, he flourishes like a flower of the field;

NIV 2011: The life of mortals is like grass, they flourish like a flower of the field;

Is this an accommodation to gender neutral language or an attempt at a more precise translation of the Hebrew?

 

[Hamalas]

Gender neutral. The 2011 edition stirred quite a bit of controversy for reworking the entire translation along those lines.

 

[Jack K]

Yes, it is an accommodation to gender-neutral language, and it is found throughout the 2011 revision. The question that matters is why gender-neutral changes were made. The publisher has said quite forcefully that the reason behind the change has NOT been a desire to remove gender from the Bible, but rather a desire to communicate clearly to today's readers who are likely to draw false conclusions where gender-specific terms are retained in the translation. So by that view, it is both an accommodation to today's English usage and an attempt to be more precise in translation in light of that changing English usage.

For example, in the verse you cited, the publisher would likely say the word man was changed to mortals not to make a point about men and women but rather to more clearly communicate the passage's meaning to readers who might otherwise think it seems to be saying women are not included in being like the flowers of the field, since the Hebrew word can apply to both males and females and clearly does in this case.

Their argument is sound enough. Gender usage in English is rapidly changing. Compared to thirty years ago when the older NIV was published, many more readers would be likely to read man in that verse and think it sounds like women are excluded, and avoiding misconceptions is a good translation goal. But plenty of folks also suspect there is a larger agenda at play, and perhaps they are right. The issue is complex, for sure.

 

[Jack K]

One related note, where my work gives me an insider view...

I am told it is now fairly standard practice among the major evangelical publishers, in new books, to discourage the use of man when all of humanity is in mind. I am instructed to edit such uses and make them gender-neutral where possible, and to encourage authors to embrace such edits. This does not feel to me like it is because these publishers have a liberal agenda (they generally seem staunchly conservative), but because they realize the terminology surrounding man, which Bible readers have become accustomed to in times past, often miscommunicates or sounds odd today.

With this bow to current usage being embraced in new books, it means those publishers who have Bible translations are in some passages retaining the word man in their Bibles, in a nod to historical usage, despite the fact that they would not retain it in their other books. With some publishers, their Bibles are actually more traditional in language despite complaints of a liberal agenda.

Not that this settles difficult translation issues. If you retain "blessed is the man" in Psalm 1:1, do you give the impression that godly women are not included? But if you change it to no longer say "man," do you lose the foreshadowing that the psalm is also speaking of a particular man, Christ? It seems today's changes in English usage make it harder, in that particular case, to translate the Hebrew into English and retain all the nuance and ambiguity of the original. But of course, this kind of problem always comes up in translation.

 

[Hamalas]

Thanks for the balance Jack. I wasn't trying to suggest ill motives and I hope my comment didn't mislead.

If you want an evangelical take (in addition to what Jack's said) about this, D.A. Carson addresses some of the challenges here:

 

[Jack K]

Well, Carson would know a LOT more about it than I do!

 

[Pilgrim]

I am told it is now fairly standard practice among the major evangelical publishers, in new books, to discourage the use of man when all of humanity is in mind.

You can see this clearly in even quite conservative authors who decry gender neutral Bible translation. I don't know to what extent that is the editors and to what extent that is what the author originally wrote. But it seems that "gender neutral" language is practically ubiquitous when it comes to things like the singular they. I'm not saying that this invalidates their arguments when it comes to Bible translation, but it does demonstrate the extent to which usage has changed in recent decades.

 

[Jack K]

Most writers have always wanted to be gender-neutral when writing to believers about the Christian life. They wish to speak to men and women alike. The difference is that one of the meanings of man or he used to be a gender-neutral meaning; readers understood that it applied to both men and women. That's what has changed, and finding alternative constructions that don't sound stilted often takes some work.

 

[KMK]

I can't find my copy right now, but I believe The Christian Writer's Manual of Style recommends using gender neutrals because newer audiences are more familiar with them. Through no fault of its own, 'mankind' carries a lot of baggage these days and distracts younger readers.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I can't find my copy right now, but I believe The Christian Writer's Manual of Style recommends using gender neutrals because newer audiences are more familiar with them. Through no fault of its own, 'mankind' carries a lot of baggage these days and distracts younger readers.

To my mind this leads to further questions. Today people do not equate the word God with the Triune God of the Bible. Should we change the word God? It is offensive in the social justice movement to refer to God with a masculine pronoun. Should we change this and use a gender neutral word? Some have suggested we change the word sin because many today do not understand the word. A friend said to me recently we should change the word Marriage because it, unfortunately, has a lot of negative connotations. We could go on. The fact is that many Biblical words carry a lot of baggage.

I agree in one sense Christians need to be sensitive to the growing problem. But on a deeper level I believe Martyn Lloyd-Jones was correct in his lecture "How can we see a return to the Bible" (in his book 'Knowing the Times') that we need to educate the masses up to the level of the Bible, not dumb the Bible down to the people. No doubt this needs to be done with pastoral sensitivity, but I think MLJ was correct.

 

[KMK]

To my mind this leads to further questions. Today people do not equate the word God with the Triune God of the Bible. Should we change the word God? It is offensive in the social justice movement to refer to God with a masculine pronoun. Should we change this and use a gender neutral word? Some have suggested we change the word sin because many today do not understand the word. A friend said to me recently we should change the word Marriage because it, unfortunately, has a lot of negative connotations. We could go on. The fact is that many Biblical words carry a lot of baggage.

I agree in one sense Christians need to be sensitive to the growing problem. But on a deeper level I believe Martyn Lloyd-Jones was correct in his lecture "How can we see a return to the Bible" (in his book 'Knowing the Times') that we need to educate the masses up to the level of the Bible, not dumb the Bible down to the people. No doubt this needs to be done with pastoral sensitivity, but I think MLJ was correct.

I use the KJV, so obviously I am against changes to the Word of God. But, I am open to the opinions of the experts when it comes to my own words.