Hopefully, this will be my last post on the TNIV for a little while. There are better things to blog about.
As for a gender-accurate (gender-inclusive) translation, I will be going with the NRSV as my main translation of choice; second will be the NLT. I may be in the minority camp here but I am not alone. I believe this camp will grow in the future. There are also a few others who will be leaving the TNIV as their mediating translation of choice. Sue at Suzanne’s Bookshelf mentioned there are a few who will be going with the NRSV as their main translation, “now that the NIV/TNIV is in limbo”. [added: Rick at This Lamp will also no longer be recommending the TNIV as a primary bible.] I’ve been reading a lot of other blogs lately about this issue of the death of the TNIV in the past few days. I know most of my biblioblogger friends out there are going to stick with reading the TNIV, but I will not, based on Zondervan’s business ethics (i.e., $$$$).
If the new NIV in 2011 tones down its gender-inclusive language (either by 5%, 10% or 15%), then it’ll not be much different from the inconsistent ESV. Even if 95% of the TNIV will be preserved, you can bet that some of the gender-inclusive language will be reversed to a masculine language. So why would TNIV supporters (who support gender-inclusive language) want to be a fan of an inconsistent translation in the future? I predict that some current TNIV-supporters may come to see it this way a few years down the road when they see the light. They will realize that Zondervan has betrayed the pro-TNIV supporters.
If the new NIV of 2011 tones down the gender language, the likes of Grudem and the anti-TNIV and ESV-only crowds have won. Personally, I still refer to the ESV in my study. I’m one of those funny ones who support the TNIV and the ESV even though I have nothing to do with the ESV-only crowd. Though I think the ESV is inconsistent in its use of gender-inclusive language, I still have more respect for the ESV and Crossway than for Zondervan. Crossway has backed up its translation and has done an amazing marketing job on the ESV. Zondervan has not. It has treated it disgracefully. Dan Philips calls the TNIV a misbegotten version (but he takes an anti-TNIV position). I call it a product of ‘Hagar’ but I take a pro-TNIV position).
Furthermore, I will not be stocking up on more TNIVs (like Rick advised TNIV-over at This Lamp) because, as I’ve said before, if it’s not good enough for CBT, Biblica and Zondervan, then it’s not good enough for me. Why should I read from a translation they do not intend to support? A dying translation is as good as a dead translation. I will not invest my time and effort to read, teach or preach from a dead translation, which is why I don’t read the NEB, REB (or maybe even the NASB…sorry ElShaddai and Gary Z.).
Even though I have lost some respect for the three parties who are involved with TNIV’s death, my love for the TNIV translation is still alive. Ironically, I still encourage TNIV-supporters to read the TNIV. Until I see what happens in 2011, I don’t think I’ll even touch the TNIV for a while, at least for a while until my head cools down a little and my ill-feelings toward Zondervan, Biblica and CBT subsides. If there truly is a resurrection of the TNIV and its gender-inclusive language is preserved, I may return to the new NIV, but for the time being, I will hold off from it because I have my doubts about CBT, and Zondervan’s intentions (which I believe are not good, of which I may express more in a future post).