by James T. Bartsch
The New International Version rests on laudable origins. It was published as a contemporary translation for the evangelical community. The New International Version New Testament was published in 1973.The complete Bible, containing both Old and New Testaments, was first published in 1978, and revised in 1984.
In the Preface to the 1978 version, one reads that "the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form." Further, it was stated, "The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers." In its Constitution, Article II, Section 1 reads as follows: "The purpose of the Committee shall be to prepare a contemporary English translation of the Bible as a collegiate endeavor of evangelical scholars, and to pursue matters related thereto."
Article III Section 3 spoke of membership on the translation committee: "Only those shall be eligible for membership on the Committee who endorse the purpose for which the Committee exists, and who are willing to subscribe to the following affirmation of faith: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written, and is therefore inerrant in the autographs”; or to the statements on Scripture in the Westminster Confession, the Belgic Confession, the New Hampshire Confession, or the creedal basis of the National Association of Evangelicals; or to some other comparable statement."
In its Preface to the 1984 edition, this assurance was given: " the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word in written form."
On a personal level, I have enjoyed insights gleaned from reading my personal copy of the 1978 version of the NIV. I have studied Hebrew and Greek, but I do not consider myself an expert in either discipline. Nevertheless, there are times when I work rather closely with the original languages. The NIV is translated from a dynamic equivalence point of view, rather than from a more formal word-for-word correspondence. For that reason, except for a brief time when I resided in Australia between 1978 and 1982, I have not preached from the NIV. There are certain passages in which the NIV is too periphrastic, too interpretive for me. I prefer a translation such as the NASB, which, in my judgment, renders the original languages more precisely. That being said, I have never, until now, actually attempted to dissuade others from using the NIV. What has brought about that change?
The 1984 revision of the NIV did not particularly generate controversy, but with subsequent editions, all bets were off. In fairness to the editors of the NIV, they did not and do not state that they had or have a feminist agenda. Their argument is that language in the Bible must conform to modern usage. But what, I ask, has driven the change in the English language as it relates to masculinity and femininity? It is the political agenda of feminism. Philosophically, the editors of the NIV are committed to the translational philosophy of Dynamic Equivalence. That means they are more committed to the reaction of the receptors of the translation (in this case, the English readers) than they are committed to representing with fidelity the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old and New Testaments. So whether the NIV editors admit it or not, concessions to political feminism became, as codified in 1992, and remain a major goal in their translation work. They have become more concerned about appearing tolerant as defined by the feminist agenda than they are about "the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers." What a tragedy. Let me illustrate with a brief history of the advance of the feminist agenda in the New International Version.