26 Scholars Reject TNIV

Amen,

I hope the selling of this version is a flop. It totally undermines the authority of Scripture.

In Him
Michael

 

Michael, how does using gender-inclusive terms where the Bible clearly intends to speak to men and women in any way undermine the Bible?

Joshua

 

Elizabeth,

I read the article yesterday. Those scholars are only respected in ultra-conservative, evangelical circles. The inclusive-language NRSV has been normative in mainstream seminaries and graduate religion programs since its publication. Since most mainstream scholars aren't particularly interested in the NIV, I can't imagine them spending much time with the TNIV, but I seriously doubt they would reject the use of inclusive language.

Joshua

 

Make that 26 scholars and an aging California blond -- we need to add weight to this thing!

 

The Council on Bibical Manhood and Womanhood's TNIV Resource Center

 

Wan't there already a gender neutral NIV?What happened to it? Why are they retranslating the whole OT so that it won't come out to 2005?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pete Richert:
Wan't there already a gender neutral NIV?What happened to it? Why are they retranslating the whole OT so that it won't come out to 2005?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. The NIVI (I for Inclusive version) is available in the UK.

 

Joshua wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> how does using gender-inclusive terms where the Bible clearly intends to speak to men and women in any way undermine the Bible? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the terms are Biblicaly clear as to speaking to both men and women, fine (ESV uses this). But that is not the stated purpose of TNIV, et.al. They change the pronouns in many documented cases where this is exegetically and lexically not called for. That makes it a bad translation.

 

Here's the list: TNIV Opponents

The only one of these I've ever cited is Mounce (you may remember I recommended his analytical lexicon) and that is only on the issue of Greek Grammar. I'm willing to bet he's letting his ideology trump common linguistic sense here, but I'd be curious to see his actual comments.

I am starting to believe that evangelical Christian scholarship and mainstream (here I mean that scholarship normative at places like Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Emory, Duke, Chicago...) scholarship have almost no overlap at all.

The schools where these folks teach are not mainstream universities. There is not a single Ivy league scholar on the list. There is not a single Methodist, Episcopal, Roman Catholic, or Presbyterian (USA) scholar on the list. This list in no way represents a scholarly consensus, just the unsurprising beliefs of ultra-conservative idealogues.

Joshua

P.S. What is ETS (other than the Educational Testing Service)?

P.P.S. I'll CC this on the "26 scholars thread" if you want to continue there."

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua Villines ]

 

I'm sure that only the "ultra-conservative evangelical" scholars are biased on this issue. Surely no ultra-liberal ecumenical scholars could have any bias.

 

Well, I heard some good news today. My Pastor announced that he was going to quit using the NIV! He's switching to the NAS. When I first heard about the "new" NIV, I was ready to get a new Bible, anyway. Somehow, it just doesn't seem right that that deceptive business practices should mix with God's Word.

Carolyn †

 

Joshua,
Your ignorance of ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) is very telling about your lack of knowledge in this area. It seems as if you reject as scholarly anyone whose opinion is different than your own. If you were well read in theological disciplines, you'd recognize more of the names on the list of TNIV opponents thus far. I'm actually suprised because this isn't like you Joshua, no offense meant. And for the most part, the educational institutions you mentioned openly admit they are no longer part of mainstream Christian thought. Will Willimon even admits this about his own school (Duke) in a recent issue of Modern Reformation.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
Here's the list: TNIV Opponents

There is not a single Ivy league scholar on the list. There is not a single Methodist, Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, or Presbyterian (USA) scholar on the list.

Joshua


"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course not. It's mainly Christians who are put off by rank apostasy.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Joshua,
Your ignorance of ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) is very telling about your lack of knowledge in this area. It seems as if you reject as scholarly anyone whose opinion is different than your own. If you were well read in theological disciplines, you'd recognize more of the names on the list of TNIV opponents thus far. I'm actually suprised because this isn't like you Joshua, no offense meant. And for the most part, the educational institutions you mentioned openly admit they are no longer part of mainstream Christian thought. Will Willimon even admits this about his own school (Duke) in a recent issue of Modern Reformation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom, I'm the first to admit that I'm not as versed on evangelical scholarship as I am on liberal or mainstream scholarship. The only journals I subscribe to are the SBL/AAR ones, Review and Expositor and a couple others from that crowd. I don't read much evangelical scholarship.

I do recognize many of the names on the list, but none of them are people whom I would cite in a serious academic paper. As I said, I'm increasingly realizing that there are two almost completely separate spheres in Christian scholarship; and its possible to spend a lifetime in one without even being aware of the other. I'm aware of that other sphere, but have not read widely in it.

As for the ETS, I've never known a colleague or professor who was a member, and had never heard of them before now. In all seriousness, would I find any of their members at the schools I named? Those are the places (along with their contemporaries) where I know faculty or where much of the scholarly writing I read is done.

I would argue that I don't reject the scholarship of a person just because I disagree with their conclusions. I do, sometimes, reject their work (not the level of scholarship, just the product) because I disagree with their foundational assumptions.

I'd like to read that Willimon quote by the way.

Joshua