c. 1999 Religion News Service

UNDATED _ Two years ago, the International Bible Society was swamped in controversy until it canceled plans to publish a”gender-accurate”version of the popular New International Version of the Bible. Now, the Bible society has more quietly announced it has encouraged a Bible translation committee to work on a”gender-accurate”translation that will not be called the NIV.

The late May decision, which has disappointed critics but is drawing far calmer reaction, is the latest chapter in an ongoing debate about gender language and the Bible.”The changes between the 1984 NIV and the text that could be released in a number of years are substantive enough … it would be much more than a revised NIV,”said Steve Johnson, communications director for the society based in Colorado Springs, Colo.”Since we committed to freezing the 1984 text, they’re not working on changes that would ever be incorporated into the NIV.” The focus of the continuing work of the Committee on Bible Translation, which originally translated the NIV, is accuracy, not agendas, said Johnson. It will use NIV as a”building block”for the new translation, which is not likely to be considered for publication until 2003 or 2004, he said.

Among the kinds of changes being considered: Where the current NIV renders 1 Corinthians 11:28 as”A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup,”a possible new translation could begin something like”A believer ought to examine him or herself before”eating the bread or drinking the cup, Johnson said.

However, the IBS’ Web site, on which the change in approach regarding gender language was announced, notes there will be no change in describing God or Jesus Christ in male terminology.

The NIV, a translation particularly popular in evangelical circles, was”frozen”after an agreement was hammered out in 1997 by the society, the holder of the copyright to the NIV; Zondervan Publishing House, the publisher of the NIV; and vocal critics such as James Dobson, president of Focus on the Family, and executives of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

The agreement ended a controversy that began when World magazine, an evangelical newsweekly, published an article harshly criticizing the IBS for what the magazine said were plans for a”unisex”replacement version of the NIV.

But World magazine is not pleased with IBS’ recent decision, according to an article in its June 5 edition.”It’s sad that what appeared to be an agreement is now effectively shredded,”the article says.

R. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary of Louisville, Ky., told Religion News Service he felt”a sense of betrayal”because the 1997 agreement seems to now have”no effect.””It does appear that they’re going to revise the text but they will not call it the NIV, which was not at all what the understanding was in 1997,”said Mohler, a chief supporter of the 1997 decision.”It appears in this case that we have a translation problem of the document two years old much less one of 2,000 years.” But Johnson said the IBS has not changed its plans.”In 1997, IBS said that we would not produce an inclusive edition of the NIV, that the 1984 NIV would stand forever,”he said.”We haven’t wavered from that one iota.” Changes in gender language are only one of the ways the new translation will differ from the 1984 NIV edition, Johnson added. For example, verses about Jews plotting against Jesus would be changed to specify Jewish leaders,”referring back to Pharisees, not the entire Jewish population,”he said.”It’s attempting to increase the accuracy in the English interpretation.” But it is the proposed changes in language referring to gender that are provoking reaction.

Members of the Minneapolis-based Christians for Biblical Equality are rejoicing.”We’re turning cartwheels,”said Catherine Clark Kroeger, president emerita.”We have wanted to make the Bible accessible to women, and we were very upset that the people obstructed access to the spirit of the Bible.” Since the 1997 decision, new scholarship has added to the debate. Two evangelical scholars, D.A. Carson and Mark Strauss, have written books discussing changes in gender language as a linguistic necessity rather than a response to feminist pressure.”The committee recognizes the desperate need for gender accuracy, that really the English language has changed significantly enough that the NIV is becoming rapidly out-of-date,”said Strauss, associate professor of New Testament at Bethel Seminary San Diego in California.”Most every translation that’s been done in the last 10 to 15 years has been gender-inclusive, just as a matter of course,”he said.”The NIV is atypical.” Mohler, while acknowledging”legitimate linguistic issues,”said changes in gender language could prompt confusion. He thinks a new translation could”remove what is in many cases a clear gender reference in the original text.” Mohler cited the example of Psalms 34:20, which reads in the 1984 NIV:”He protects all his bones; not one of them will be broken.” But the British version of the NIV _ the one the IBS rejected for U.S. publication in 1997 _ reads,”He protects all their bones; not one of them will be broken.” Mohler, who views the verse as a reference to Jesus’ Crucifixion and Resurrection, said:”In removing the masculine reference, they just obscured, if not obliterated, the messianic reference in the text. Israel was not looking for a plural messiah but a singular one … and a rather gender-specific one.”DEA END BANKS