With the release of Today's New International Version (TNIV), the long-awaited update to the NIV, the debate about inclusive translations begins anew. However, with all the arguments, and in some cases rhetoric, flying back and forth between the two camps, the inclusiveness of the TNIV is nothing compared to an inclusive version that was released in 1995, The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version.

For those who haven't kept up with the debate, there are some within evangelical circles who want to make certain words in the Bible inclusive. That is, they want to take certain texts that apply to all people, male and female, and use non-masculine terms. Where the NIV read in Gen 1:26, "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image... ,'" the TNIV reads "The God said, 'Let us make human beings in our image.'" Some object to the TNIV's translation because they want to hold to masculine forms that represent all of humanity. Another often cited example is Rev 3:20. In the NIV, it reads "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me." But notice the changes in the TNIV: "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me" [emphasis added]. I don't want to get involved with the debate at this time--I'll save that for a later blog. However, if the TNIV rendering of Rev 3:20 were written by one of my students on a paper I was grading, I would mark it as an error in agreement. "Anyone" is singular, while "them" and "they" are plural. But undoubtedly, the translators are among those who want to use "they" as an acceptable inclusive pronoun instead of the often more awkward used "he or she."

With all the attention the TNIV is getting, you'd think that it was the first inclusive version of the BIble released. However, that's not so. A number of translations are already inclusive such as The New Living Translation (NLT), The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and the Message. When the New International Readers Version (NIrV) was first released around 1996, it was inclusive; but when one of its major promoters, Focus on the Family, discovered this, they pressured the translators to change it. To my knowledge, the NIrV is the only translation I know of to be un-inclusive-ized (I think I've coined a word).

All of these inclusive versions agree in method that they only make references to humans inclusive, not references to God. The Creator is referred to as Father, and the pronoun "he" is maintained.

However, this was not the case with the release of the New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version. I don't know of any standard abbreviation for this Bible, but from this point on I'll just use ILV, based on my correspondence below with one of the editors who referred to it as the Inclusive Language Version. In the ILV, even God was made gender-neutral. So, for instance, The Lord's Prayer in Matt 6:9ff begins,

Our Father-Mother in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your dominion come...

Not only is God referred to as "Father-Mother" instead of Father (the Greek is simply pater which is undeniably masculine in meaning as opposed to mater which would have meant "mother"), but the editors can't even use "kingdom" in the third line because "king" is masculine (as opposed to "queen") and therefore considered sexist.

The ILV was basically the NRSV text with any language that might be deemed sexist or offensive removed. Thus, it received the nickname, "The Politically Correct Bible."

Not only were gender-neutral titles used for God, but they were used even for the pre-existent Jesus and the post-crucifixion Jesus with the reasoning, "If God the 'Father' does not have a sex, then neither does the 'Son'" (p. xi). The traditional messianic designation "Son of Man" referring to Jesus is changed to "The Human One." Thus Mark 10:45 reads, "For the Human One came not to be served to but serve, and give up life as a ransom for many." Note the awkwardness of the last phrase because the editors did not want to use "his life."

Other changes include
- "Sovereign" or "Ruler" in place of "King" as a metaphor for God.
- Satan, angels, and demons are all represented gender-neutral (at least they were consistent).
- The metaphor of darkness for sin or a lack of the presence of the Gospel has been removed so as not to offend people with dark skin. So now, John 1:5 which traditionally reads: "And the light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not overcome it" is made to read "The light shines in the deepest night, and the night did not overcome it." I guess no one told them that it gets dark at night.
- In the genealogies, when known, wives' names have been added to their husbands. So, now where Matt 1:2 originally read "Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers," it now reads "Abraham and Sarah were the parents of Isaac, and Isaac and Rebekah the parents of Jacob, and Jacob and Leah the parents of Judah and his brothers... ." Whoops, shouldn't the last phrase have included "and sister, Dinah"? And what about Jacob's other wife Rachel, and his wives two concubines? I mean, if we adding, let's add everybody!
-References to Jesus as "Master" in Luke's Gospel are deemed too harsh, so the less offensive "Teacher" is used.
- "Slaves" are now "enslaved people."
- Since John's Gospel is often criticized as being anti-semitic (in spite of the fact that the writer was almost undisputedly Jewish himself), references to "the Jews" become "the religious authorities" in the Fourth Gospel.
- No longer is Jesus the "Son of God," but now is the "Child of God."
- "Your right hand upholds me" in Ps 63:8 becomes "Your strong hand upholds me" lest any left-handed readers be offended by this oft-used biblical metaphor.

When the ILV was released in 1995, I was working at the Baptist Bookstore (now Lifeway) on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary campus. This was only one of two BIble translations we were not allowed to carry (we could sell it if special ordered, but we couldn't carry it). Of course, I don't blame them at all for this decision. I would have done the same thing.

As many of you know, I have approximately 80 distinct English translations of the Bible in my possession for a hobby that goes back a couple of decades. Out of all these translations, I would really only count two as Bibles that I wouldn't use for devotional purposes under any circumstances. The ILV is one of them. Many translations carry with them a certain theological perspective. The Worrell New Testament reflects the Assembly of God background of its translator. I've heard that the God's Word translation carries a bit of a Lutheran flavor. Perhaps a case could be made that the Holman Christian Standard Bible reflects its Baptist heritage. But the ILV is an example of an editorial board's theology and ideology at a dangerous extreme. Here the culture (perhaps subculture considering the ILV's very limited audience who accepted it) was evidently more of a focus than the audience of the original text. Good translation does include bridging the gap between an ancient audience and a modern audience, but translators have to be careful not to create a a different document altogether.

Usually, when a New Testament and Psalms is released, there are often plans for an entire Bible to be translated. I wondered what had become of the ILV since 1995. I noted that on Amazon.com, it seemed to be out of print, and I could no longer find it in the Oxford Press catalog. The first name on the list of editors in the back flap was Victor Roland Gold who taught at Pacific Lutheran Seminary (though I believe he has now retired as he is no longer listed among their current faculty). I wrote to Professor Gold asking him about the status of the ILV. Here is the response I got back in an email:

Mr. Mansfield: thank you for your inquiry concerning the inclusive language Bible project supported by Oxford University Press. It was the plan to publish the entire Bible in the Inclusive Language Version. However, the response to the publication of the New Testament and Psalms, an Inclusive Language Version, was so negatively received in this country and especially in England, the "home" of Oxford University Press, that it was decided to suspend the project. Since then, there has been no indication of further work on the project, so I expect that that project has been effectively discontinued. Again, thank you very much for your inquiry, and your interest in the Inclusive Language Version Bible project --- Prof. Victor Roland Gold.

Deep down, I have to admit I'm pleased about this Bible's status--out of print, and dead. Of course, I would never be in favor of censoring any book or any translation, but I believe that in this case, the market bore out the value for this publication. As an offering to the church and general public, it was rejected. Therefore it is no longer in print and the project will not be continued. I also find Prof. Gold's comment interesting that the Bible was received even more negatively in England than in the US. I would have predicted the opposite would have been true.

It's one thing to have freedom in translation to try to creatively and accurately get across the message of the biblical texts, but it's another thing entirely to completely change the meaning of the texts.

I have to wonder if the editors of the ILV cringed at all when they translated the final chapter of Revelation? Here it is in their own words:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book; if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away that person's share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Rev 22:18-19, ILV)