Skeptical About BibleGateway.com-Gospel Coalition “Discussion”
OK, you can call me jaded, but I cringed as soon as I saw the announcement that the folk from The Gospel Coalition have worked out a deal to “discuss” the nature of Bible translations on their website as well as the website BibleGateway.com in anticipation of the forthcoming NIV 2011 (see here). Why? Well, if I am not mistaken it was the type (the “type” is an overgeneralization that I should retract) some of the people sympathetic with The Gospel Coalition that politicked the TNIV off the printing press. We know they (“they” was another overgeneralization) many have been watching as the new NIV evolves to make sure it doesn’t use any language that may hint of gender equality (“equality” not the best word choice) based language that tends to be inclusive. While some may see this “discussion” as a good thing (i.e. these particular folk are “open” to “discussing” the form of the new NIV) my problem is that I doubt their intentions are what they say.
I still don’t understand the hissy fit over the TNIV. If you don’t like it don’t read it. There are plenty of version available! But then again I must remind myself of the nature of American Reformed Christianity (I should say “some particular forms” of American Reformed Christianity). If their hand is not in the pot they will force their way into it.
Note: I should qualify that I know not everyone associated with TGC hated the TNIV, but more and more I worry that things like TGC are being used by some as a vehicle for subverting and shrinking the broadness of evangelical views.
Also, I agrees with some of Nick’s criticisms on his blog so I have clarified my language. While I have some people in mind I shouldn’t have labeled everyone with those particular associations as one and the same.
Finally, any weird changes can be attributed to the horrible WordPress app!
D A Carson, one of the two cofounders of The Gospel Coalition (along w/ Tim Keller) was a vocal supporter of the TNIV.
Good! There is some hope, but I still maintain some skepticism.
Brian,
You are bent too on many subjects. We all have our bias, but we must seek to understand our own ideology in our theology. I am a conservative because I feel it is the best disposition in the search for truth. I believe since the Apostle Paul was a Jew and Roman citizen, he was also a natural conservative. This is yes, part of my ideology. Note, Edmund Burke, etc.
Robert,
Of course I am bent. Why else would I have written this post?! I don’t care if someone has a bend. I care about the trend of masking that bend behind some haze of openness to “discussion”.
And I am not sure what Paul has to do with this post.
The issue isn’t “gender equality” but “gender accuracy” and it really does have more to do with competing translation philosophies than it does gender debate ideologies. I know more than a few folks who are all for gender equality yet despise the NIV/TNIV, NLT, and every other translation that follows a more functional equivalency translation philosophy simply because they don’t think that the translator’s job is to communicate the thought or intent but rather the words as close to form as possible.
With that said, I think this forum sounds like it could be beneficial seeing as how it’s supposed to involve scholars and translators who have reviewed a great many translations. And if might take a second to potentially offend, I think you might be trying a bit too hard at being a do-gooder here. You might disagree with folks on certain issues but you’ve accused them of disingenuity at best and dishonesty at worst. Why not wait and see and then express concerns and doubts?
Also, I shouldn’t have to remind you that American Reformed Christianity, for all its problems, has long had a heavy hand in the pot of Bible translation. It should come as no surprise that people, for whom the Bible is the Word of God, would like to discuss Bible translation.
Nick,
No doubt, the forum could be great. I’m not denouncing it outright but I am saying I am skeptical. In other words I will believe it when I see it. If I acted like I wasn’t skeptical I’d be pretending because I am.
That being said, while people should care, I don’t think that is necessary what happened last time. If the TNIV has inherent problems those can be discussed and debated fairly. For the most part it seems like there was an effort to denounce the TNIV for issues other than disagreeing with translation methodology. But there were hard stones thrown in the direction of the TNIV committee that seem to have been rooted in something beyond methodological concerns.
Brian: What other issues? What past methodological concerns? As I understand the debates, they were mostly over gender-accurate/inclusive language, and in most cases it was the belief that such an approach to translation was flawed and deviated from the form and in some cases intention of the original text. A great many of the detractors saw feminism or egalitarianism as a leading cause in the shift toward gender accurate/inclusive translations and it seems a valid concern, even if ultimately wrong.
As a complete outsider (obviously!) all I can say is that I have read in various places that it went from questioning method to questioning persons. People who were part of the TNIV committee were verbally bashed as if they were trying to create some manipulative, heretical translation. In more than one place I have heard that folk like Gordon Fee were hurt by such accusations. It is very similar to the lashing out that was directed at Eugene Peterson over The Message.
While it is altogether possible that this event with TGC will be nothing like this I do worry. It is one thing to critique the methodology, or philosophy of interpretation, it is something altogether different to began taking hacks at the people involved (i.e. like the TNIV translators, like Eugene Peterson).
To credit Collin Hansen in this post he wrote: “Readers are welcome to offer their perspective, too, but comments will be monitored to encourage civility and respect.” If this wasn’t a problem in the past then I don’t think such a qualifier would be necessary. What I am agnostic about is whether or not this panel will be able to avoid the same rhetoric.
Brian,
I was using Paul as an example of what I think we was, a conservative Jewish Hellenistic, who being a Roman citizen, was also Greco-Roman. And as a Jewish Pharisee, he was close to the Hebrew Scriptures. Note believing in the Resurrection.
I understand your skepticism. I’m hoping this could turn out great, that TNIV supporters who run in these circles will speak up. In fact, I’ve been hoping for sometime that we’d see a debate on Bible translation between the likes of D A Carson and an anti-TNIV person (Piper, Grudem, etc). Since Carson is right in the middle of The Gospel Coalition, I can’t help but people will listen.
*he was
Brian,
There are those of us that may like Eugene Peterson personally, but simply don’t like the Message. As Nick has said, the Reformed Tradition has also been serious in the reality of the more literal translation approach. And with this it tends to support the traditional position in the complementarian mode. In the end, this is the difference and not personality. Myself, I don’t look at the people of the egalitarian position either. It is a point of both exegesis and doctrine, which includes church history.
Robert,
Even if this were true (which is hotly debated) how does conservative first century Jew with Roman citizenship equate to conservative modern European or American citizen? Also, what does it have to do with Bible translations. If we were going to go that direction didn’t Paul use the LXX more often than the Hebrew text as far as we can tell. Seems pretty liberal with his biblical sources!
I don’t care if someone like doesn’t like The Message or the TNIV. That isn’t what I am saying. I don’t like the KJV or NKJV. What I am saying is when they go after the translators with personal vendettas.
Brian,
I am talking about an attitude and reverance (revere) toward Scripture.
Brian,
This goes both ways mate! We must try to respect those that we disagree with, and especially when they are “Brethren”!
Robert,
So Peterson and the TNIV committee don’t revere Scripture? I hope that is not what you are saying. It is one thing to disagree with method and therefore disliking certain approaches to translation but something totally different to insinuate that these people don’t revere Scripture.
And as I read Paul’s use of the OT I think he took license in a way many people today would dislike.
Brian,
You are simply “ready” to jump all over this issue, rather than listen and seek real dialogue it seems? I did not say that those who don’t seek a literal approach don’t revere Scripture. But, we cannot play fast and loose with translation either. And Paul’s use of the OT was Jewish, Targums, etc. But Paul did have a conservative mind in my opinion. He was a chosen vessel as he himself knew. And I have spent many years of my life in Pauline studies. Sadly, this issue does not seem to be driven by cool minds and hearts. That is also part of my point.
Brian, I share your concerns.
Brian: My response got too long so I’ve posted it here. (I’m sure the pingback has already been generated).
Robert: I’d add that Reformed Christians have also had their hand in functional equivalency translations as well as formal equivalency translations. Just look at the teams who translated the TNIV or the NLT. Plenty of Reformed folks among those ranks.
Sadly, I will be away from any access to the Internet until Monday other than what I access via my phone. I should have gathered data before running this rant because if people come running her to tell me what a bum I am I’ll be defenseless for a few days. Of course, let me say to any one who comes here from Nick’s post this was a (over) generalization as I said at the bottom of the post I know not all TGC people act this way. I have a few close friends who are affiliated. Likewise, there will be some people affiliated, that are in my circles, that say these things in conversations where I’ve been present and they don’t have anything public for me to provide as an example so there is nothing I can do there.
I want to be wrong about this. I do. So I’d be happy to eat my words if it turns out to be beneficial to all.
Nick,
I was not thinking so much about the modern Reformed. The British Reformed have used also the R.V. and the R.S.V. in the past. Not to mention the old King.
Brian is in a process of growth. Asking questions is not a crime. Seriously, people.
I agree whole-heartedly with Brian in this post. I can’t publish any quotes at the moment but I spent hours discussing this personally with Gordon Fee, Jim Packer and Bruce Waltke. The facts are so much worse than anything that has ever been said online. Brian’s post is mild.
I even had some email exchanges with Grudem, meditated by a CBMW website chap, on certain things said on their site.
I doubt that Bible Crossway forum will discuss accuracy of any kind. Junia will not be revisited and everyone knows the scholarship behind that decision is undefended.
Firstly, this seems like a storm in a teacup to me – and the clouds haven’t even come out. They haven’t even started yet! Have a little faith in your brethren in Christ. We should at least wait and see what becomes of this – and then criticise where necessary.
As I understand it there was some debate over things Grudem said. I don’t think Grudem is part of TGC so I misspoke there. Peter Kirk addressed some of the issues here: http://www.gentlewisdom.org.uk/?p=103
John MacArthur has recently buddied up with the T4G people and he called the TNIV altering of the Word of God:
See here: http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/john-macarthur-charges-the-tniv-with-altering-the-word-of-god/
Another T4G member is Al Mohler whose denomination officially denounced the TNIV: http://www.bible-researcher.com/tniv4.html
So yes, I was wrong to lump TGC in this mix, but there connections to Mohler and MaxArthur still make my concerns valid. If I chase down any more stories I will add them to this comment, but honestly I am not trying to prove this will fail, I am just saying because of examples like the above I am skeptical of the motives.
Brian: Peter’s post had nothing to do, so far as I could tell, with anything Grudem had to say about the TNIV or its translators. In the #3 comment written by Peter he suggests that perhaps Grudem should “avoid words like ‘feminist’ used in a derogatory sense, and words like ‘errors’ and ‘highly suspect and novel’ used of translation choices which have strong exegetical support and in some cases a long history.” But this again highlights my point that the concern was over issues of translation.
MacArthur’s concern was also over translation (you notice that he goes on to spell out quite plainly his preferred translation philosophy) and he saw the root cause of the translation choices as deference to the feminism. Even if we ultimately disagree with his assessment it hardly amounts to a personal attack. Am I personally attacking anyone when I say that the NWT has altered the Word of God to make it compatible to theology of Jehovah’s Witnesses? Hardly.
And I already mentioned entire denominations denouncing the TNIV in the post on my blog. But they didn’t denounce it because egalitarians translated it (they couldn’t since some complementarians helped out as well!); they denounced it because they thought it was an inferior and compromising translation. This is also not a personal attack; it’s a conviction based upon a presupposed understanding of Scripture and translation philosophy.
So I’ll say this: if your suspicions and fears were based on the offered evidence and hearsay about things that have been said but no one can reproduce or talk about because it was said behind closed doors, then I think your suspicions and concerns should be alleviated at this point. Unless, of course, your real concern is that this forum will contain views that don’t align with your own, which honestly seems to be the case. Even in the final sentence of your last comment you profess skepticism about the motives of the people organizing the forum but the only motive that any of us is aware of is the desire to discuss Bible translations. So unless you think they really desire to discuss something else (like Chinese politics or biochemical engineering) and are just luring folks in with the false pretense of a forum on translation then I have to ask why you’d continue to use such language and throw around such accusations.
Sorry for the long comment…
Nick,
I am not sure why I’d be worried that views don’t align with my own. I have spent most of my time in circles where I have taken the minority position on dozens of issues. In my last program in a class of thirty plus students I was the only one to take an egalitarian position. I was fine not only being outnumbered but being totally outnumbered. It didn’t upset me. Then let us add to it that where I work and study there is currently only one egalitarian in the faculty and I still greatly enjoy being here and I don’t waste my energy trying to convert anyone to my views.
If we can call a truce on this matter that is great. You can ask anyone around me–I am not an evangelistic egalitarian. But I do want the right to exists, be considered a Christian, and be able to hold my position without being castigated. In my current environment I have been welcomed in spite of disagreements.
That being said, when I went to a Gospel Coalition meeting in the San Francisco Bay Area a year ago one issue that was being debated was how this issue would be handled. TGC decided to make statements in favor of complementarianism which was disappointing to a person like me who was interested in participating but wanted to see how things unfolded first. “Article 3. Creation of Humanity” in the Foundation Document states:
“Adam and Eve were made to complement each other in a one-flesh union that establishes the only normative pattern of sexual relations for men and women, such that marriage ultimately serves as a type of the union between Christ and his church. In God’s wise purposes, men and women are not simply interchangeable, but rather they complement each other in mutually enriching ways. God ordains that they assume distinctive roles which reflect the loving relationship between Christ and the church, the husband exercising headship in a way that displays the caring, sacrificial love of Christ, and the wife submitting to her husband in a way that models the love of the church for her Lord. In the ministry of the church, both men and women are encouraged to serve Christ and to be developed to their full potential in the manifold ministries of the people of God. The distinctive leadership role within the church given to qualified men is grounded in creation, fall, and redemption and must not be sidelined by appeals to cultural developments.”
As this plays out that last line automatically disqualifies women pastors and such, hence egalitarians. When I realized this is part of what is meant to be unified around the “gospel” I decided to avoid joining in any serious way. I kept close to some of those involved knowing that the overall agenda is great but I think by making this statement it undermines any assertion that the center is really the gospel.
A couple of weeks ago I expressed my concern to a respected evangelical leader that I know who is complementarian, who works closely with TGC, but who has not joined. When I expressed concerns that TGC made this stand he said it was their effort to defend the integrity of Scripture. He mentioned Robert Webb’s “trajectory” model but quickly brushed it aside saying other than that no serious evangelical holds to the egalitarian model (he didn’t know that I was an egalitarian, only that I was concerned that egalitarian-complementarian disagreement not be considered “gospel”). When I appealed to Gordon D. Fee he denounced him because of his charismatic views and said he believes in “progressive revelation” so he couldn’t be considered a serious, conservative evangelical. Again, he did not know my own views so he had no idea how closely I agree with Fee in many areas.
So no, I don’t care if someone is a complementarian. Again, I am greatly outnumbered by complementarians in my academic environment and my local church only has male elders which I did not see as a big enough deal when choosing to make it my home church. But I don’t see how if the subject of gender translation is discussed TGC will move in a direction other than what I have personally experienced when talking about the new NIV, especially if it carries over even a little of the TNIV translation theory. These real, personal experiences can’t be documented by linking to them so you’ll have to take my word when I say I don’t want TGC to be egalitarian, but likewise I don’t think taking an official position of complementarianism was fair to those of us who are egalitarians, who do take Scripture seriously, and who wanted to really, really participate in a fellowship surrounded on the gospel being more than willing to set aside our differences in this area.
Brian: Thanks for the testimony. You’ll notice that I’ve been concerned with issues of translation and the debates that surround translation for the most part and that because of your initial comments concerning the TNIV. Your concerns seem to have been with something else and you used translation as a way of highlighting them. I see that you’ve edited some stuff in the post for clarity’s sake and I’m calling a “truce” at this point.
Nick,
I can accept a truce!
But they didn’t denounce it because egalitarians translated it (they couldn’t since some complementarians helped out as well!); they denounced it because they thought it was an inferior and compromising translation.
Then why did they not denounce Luther’s translation while they were at it? To be consistent they would have to. For Luther, there is no such expression as the “sons of God” but only “children of God.”
But Luther was not an egalitarian so his translation is fine. Calvin translated Tim. 2:12 with the word “assumer” in French and this was translated into English by the word “assume,” but Calvin was not an egalitarian so his translation was considered alright.
The KJV uses the expression “children of God” and that’s okay. Why?
Brian, I do wish there were more evangelistic egalitarians.
I think the post of mine you linked to was not the most relevant. This one is more so, especially where I write:
There is of course plenty of other evidence of how Grudem condemned TNIV, to be found or linked to at cbmw.org if it’s still there.
I looked more closely at the Gospel Coalition site and it really doesn’t look like a militant anti-feminist complementarian group or the sort of people who would burn the TNIV. Yes, some of the people in it are a bit that way (e.g. Mohler and Driscoll) but others certainly are not (e.g. Carson). There is nothing like that in their foundational documents, or on their front page. I think we ought to at least wait and see what happens in this discussion, not write it off in advance.
Yes, some of the people in it are a bit that way (e.g. Mohler and Driscoll) but others certainly are not (e.g. Carson).
If you had listened to Carson on 1 Tim. 2:12, you would know that he is perfectly willing to assert something for which there is absolutely no evidence.
He says, “the verb authenteo in most instances has a neutral or positive overtone. But there is a handful of instances where you can at least make a case that it can have a negative overtone.”
This is simply not true. There are NO cases of authenteo with a positive overtone. None. He must know this, because he must know that he doesn’t know of any. Why do people lie in the interest of keeping women down?
I understand that John Piper is part of the Gospel Coalition. In this video he explicitly rejects the NIV and TNIV because they use the word “now” instead of “for” and “when” instead of “therefore,”in John 4:44 and 45.
John Piper – Get a Bible with all the words
This is nothing but an unscholarly and childish diatribe which completely contradicts the BDAG. In my opinion, if John Piper wants to set himself up above the BDAG and wants to tell people to trash their lexicons, he should do this directly without beating around the bush via the NIV and TNIV.
This is the man who wants women to wait until they have been hit before leaving their husband.