Today's New International Version is a major and substantive revision of the NIV. Though this is not the first time the NIV has been revised—a small number of unannounced changes were incorporated over the years, and an inclusive-language edition appeared in Britain in 1995 (of which only bootleg copies ever circulated in the colonies)—the TNIV is the first large-scale revision of the NIV to be published in the United States. It is also an unusual revision, in that it will not replace the NIV, which will continue to be published.

Earlier this year, the first part of this version, the complete New Testament, was released. According to information supplied by the publisher, Zondervan, about 93 percent of the TNIV New Testament is unchanged from the NIV. Of the changes, about 20 percent affect headings and footnotes, while the remaining 80 percent—about 5.6 percent of the NIV text—involve revision of the translation itself. These revisions fall into several categories.

In some instances, the revisions reflect a change of opinion regarding the wording of the Greek text underlying the translation. At Mark 1:41 the NIV ("filled with compassion") reflects the reading (splagxnistheis) of most manuscripts of the text; the TNIV's "was indignant" apparently reflects the revision committee's decision to adopt the reading (orgistheis) of a significant minority of manuscripts. More noticeable are changes in the treatment of Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53- 8:11, which are now set off in smaller italic type to signal more clearly that they are later, secondary additions to the text.

In other instances, changes in the translation reflect a difference in judgment regarding how to punctuate the Greek text. In John 1:18 (monogenes theos) both the 1973 ("God the only Son") and 1984 ("God the One and Only") versions of the NIV understand monogenes ("only" or "unique") as an adjective modifying the noun theos. The TNIV places a comma between the two terms (understanding monogenes as an adjective functioning as a noun, with theos in apposition with it): "the one and only Son, who is himself God."

The majority of the revisions in the TNIV, however, appear to be attributable to (1) an attempt to achieve greater accuracy and clarity, and/or (2) an effort to reduce the possibility of misinterpretation.

A striking example of the latter is provided by the treatment of some occurrences of hoi Ioudaioi in the Gospel of John. The traditional translation, "the Jews," is not inaccurate in some contexts (e.g., 6:41, 8:22, 8:31, 10:19). But in other instances, such as 7:11-13, the phrase clearly designates a subset within Judaism, specifically a group of Jewish leaders. In these cases, the traditional rendering is not only misleading but also has been misused in support of anti-Semitic attitudes. To avoid this, the TNIV in some contexts renders hoi Ioudaioi variously as "the Jewish leaders" (e.g., 1:19; 5:10, 15, 16; 7:1, 11; 9:22; 18:14; etc.—but why not 10:24?), "the leaders" (7:13), or simply "they" (e.g., 5:18, 18:31; also 9:18—but here, problematically, the antecedent in the TNIV is "the Pharisees").

Changes large and small in the interest of greater accuracy or clarity are evident on every page. Matthew 1:1, "A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ" (NIV), now reads "This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah" (the replacement of "Christ" by "Messiah" occurs throughout Matthew's gospel—except, inexplicably, in 1:18). In Matthew 3:2 and 4:17, the "kingdom of heaven has come near" replaces the ambiguous NIV "is near." John 1:16 now reads "Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given" (for NIV "From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another"). In Acts 11:18, NIV "repentance unto life" is now "repentance that leads to life." At Romans 16:1, Phoebe is no longer a "servant" who has been "a great help" (NIV) but rather a "deacon" who has been "the benefactor" of many people, and in 16:7 "Junia" (a widely attested woman's name) replaces "Junias" (a masculine name for which there is no contemporary evidence). An identical phrase in Romans 1:5 and 16:26, for which the NIV gave two renderings ("for obedience to the faith" vs. "for the obedience of faith"), is the same in both instances in the TNIV: "to faith and obedience."

A comparison of 1 Corinthians 7:1-4 provides a more comprehensive view of the differences between the two versions (italics added):

NIV: Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

TNIV: Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." 2But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

Here both the attempt to achieve greater accuracy and clarity and the effort to reduce the possibility of misinterpretation (by, for example, the use of quotation marks in verse 1) are evident.

Sometimes, however, in the course of pursuing greater clarity other kinds of information are lost. In Romans, the NIV rendered the phrase (hoi) agioi, for example, as "(the) saints" in seven of its eight occurrences (in 12:13, it is "God's people"). In the TNIV the same phrase is translated "saints" (1:7), "God's people" (8:27, 12:13), "Lord's people" (15:25), "saints" (15:26), "believers" (15:31), "God's people" (16:2), and "believers" (16:15). In the absence of any evident contextual reasons for it—indeed, the references in 15:25, 26, and 31 are all to the same group of believers—this kind of variation is puzzling, even idiosyncratic.

And for all the revisions, there remain instances where one is disappointed to learn that the TNIV has not revised its predecessor. The NIV/TNIV rendering of John 11:6, "yet when he heard" (cf. nasb, "when therefore he heard") remains without a linguistic basis. More disconcerting is the continued presence of a generalizing comma at the end of 1 Thessalonians 2:14, which turns a precise historical reference to a specific group ("the Jews 15who killed the Lord Jesus") into a misleading generalization (NIV/TNIV "the Jews, 15who killed the Lord Jesus").

Finally, there are the revisions (involving less than a quarter of the total) that provoked a roiling storm of controversy within 24 hours of the first TNIV press release: those involving the elimination of grammatically masculine terms as generic references to human beings. Indeed, to judge from the attacks on the TNIV (and its revisers and publisher), one would scarcely know that the TNIV included revisions of any other sort.

In its handling of generic references to human beings, the TNIV does not appear to have broken new ground. In translating, for example, the Greek term huioi as "children" rather than "sons" (NIV), the TNIV follows the lead of the King James translation (cf. Matt. 5:9, 5:45, 8:12, 9:15, 12:27, 13:38, etc.). Whereas the NIV translated the plural term adelphoi rather mechanically as "brothers," regardless of context, the TNIV renders it as "brothers and sisters" when the context makes it clear that the term is being used generically to refer to both men and women (e.g., Phil. 4:1-2; 1 Thess. 1:4, 2:1)—essentially the same move Paul makes in 2 Corinthians 6:18 when quoting 2 Samuel 7:14.

Another frequent stratagem is the use of "they" or "them" following a singular antecedent (as in Rev. 3:20, "If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me")—a change that not only reflects current usage among large segments of the American population, but also has a long and distinguished pedigree among English writers of note.

In many respects this storm over the use of "gender neutral" or "gender accurate" terminology by the TNIV (which, incidentally, leaves untouched all terminology for God) is a bit puzzling. The New Living Translation, which dealt with this issue in much the same manner as does the TNIV, was published in 1996 with scarcely a ripple of controversy, and both it and the TNIV are merely following a path already established by respected translations such as the New Revised Standard Version, the Revised English Bible, and the Contemporary English Version. That the TNIV has been caught up in controversy over this issue probably reveals more about the critics' ideology in conjunction with a particular (and, in my estimation, flawed) view of how language works—and more about the high visibility of the NIV—than it does about the accuracy, suitability, or wisdom of the changes themselves.

Overall, the TNIV is an accurate, suitable, and wise revision of the NIV. On the spectrum of translation theories ranging from the extremely "formal" (translations such as the New American Standard) to the consistently "dynamic" (translations such as the CEV), the NIV occupies a place very much in the middle, whereas the TNIV, in its (largely successful) pursuit of greater clarity, stakes out a position closer to the dynamic end of the spectrum.

One consequence is a reduced reliance on Christian jargon and "Biblish" ("Bible English"), which means that the TNIV is more reflective than the NIV of the English language as spoken outside of evangelical or even religious circles. Indeed, this may be a source of some of the controversy attending the TNIV, inasmuch as attempts by translations to make sense to non-Christians are not always well received by traditionalist evangelical believers. In any case, in view of the high quality of the TNIV New Testament, one awaits with considerable anticipation the revision of the Old Testament (projected for 2005).

Michael W. Holmes is professor of biblical studies and early Christianity and chair, Department of Biblical and Theological Studies, at Bethel College in Saint Paul, Minnesota.

Copyright © 2002 by the author or Christianity Today/Books & Culture magazine.
Click here for reprint information on Books & Culture.