Are nuances of gender and/or number frequently muted or altered in the text?

Gender-neutral (also called gender-inclusive) translation is a complicated issue but generally comes from a perceived change in English usage. In Hebrew, Greek, and traditional English, it is common to use the masculine gender to represent both masculine and feminine. This is most easily seen in the "generic he," as in The one who loves his life will lose it. This usage developed because of the lack of a singular personal pronoun with no gender. Advocates of gender-neutral translation contend that today's English-speakers prefer more inclusive language, and may be confused so as to think women excluded from "generic he" statements. Some advocates have even taken to referring to the new technique as "gender-accurate". (No one would want a gender-inaccurate version, would they?)

No major translation makes a concerted effort to change singulars to plurals, or plurals to singulars in the Bible. This is usually a byproduct either of paraphrase (as occasionally in the LB and frequently in the MSG) or of gender-neutral translation techniques. Changing from singular to plural (he to them) is a common way in writing to remove perceived gender bias.

Two things make gender-neutral translation controversial. The first is that it is associated with liberal theological movements. The practice began with less conservative translations (NJB, NAB, REB, NRSV, CEV, GNT, INC) and was commended by feminist theologians. Now that conservative translations, such as the NIrV, NLT, NCV, and TNIV, are employing gender-neutral methods, conservative readers are wondering whether such methods are trustworthy. (The NET crosses into the gender-neutral category only slightly.)

A second concern is that gender is a component of meaning and not merely a grammatical structure. The biblical author chose to use masculine language and male examples where neutral or balanced language was available. Writers are free to write as they please, and be sensitive to gender issues if they like, but muting or rewriting another author's choices may be counter-productive to the translator's task of conveying authorial intent. Critics of gender-neutral translation often cite examples where changing the gender has unintended consequences for totally unrelated theological issues.

This controversy was at its height in 1997, when World Magazine discovered plans to revise the NIV as gender-neutral; it was and is the best-selling Bible among evangelicals. Earlier, in 1995, Zondervan had published the children's NIrV, which was mostly gender-neutral, and Hodder had published the NIVI (the NIV Inclusive) in Britain. (The British NIrV would not be ready until 1996.) World believed the American NIV was soon to be replaced with a gender-neutral Bible. As the controversy gained momentum, Zondervan and the NIV's copyright holder, the International Bible Society (IBS), announced that they would continue selling the original NIV alongside the revision (which is now the TNIV), but critics were not satisfied. IBS and the NIV's Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) were defended in the controversy by Zondervan, Christianity Today, and Christians for Biblical Equality, as well as a number of translation authorities. Their critics included Jerry Falwell, Focus on the Family, and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). That summer, three of the largest evangelical denominations–Southern Baptist, Presbyterian (PCA), and Congregationalist–made resolutions against gender-neutral translating. The SBC even threatened to pull the NIV from use in its Sunday School material and bookstores. In the end, James Dobson convened a meeting in Colorado Springs, where figures from both sides of the issue established a set of translation guidelines, setting forth what was and was not appropriate in translating gender.

In 1998, the NIrV was re-released with its gender-neutral changes reduced by about half, but there was a renewed mention of a gender-neutral NIV revision. The mention passed quietly, but the SBC's Bible publishing house, Holman, had already begun work on its own translation, the HCSB, in case the NIV became unusable in the future. The announced release of the TNIV in 2002 added new fuel to the smoldering debate: the CBT did not believe itself held to the Colorado Springs Guidelines (CSG), since the CBT members who signed in affirmation were not designated representatives and thus were speaking for themselves, not the Committee. But the CBMW and other supporters of the CSG were under the impression that the guidelines were being followed, and the TNIV announcement caught them by surprise. A large portion of the evangelical community was critical of the revision and the way it was produced and released. Conservative denominations have again denounced the translation, but have taken no action against other popular versions that are equally gender-neutral.

This debate is difficult because of accusations of dishonesty on both sides, insinuations of linguistic ignorance and theological agendas, and the fact that the two sides tend to talk past each other. I recommend two resources for those who wish to explore the debate further. Both are evangelical and well-written. Supporting gender-neutrality is D. A. Carson's The Inclusive Language Debate by Baker and IVP. Against gender-neutrality is a book by Wayne Grudem and Vern Poythress, The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy by Broadman. Grudem and Poythress were present at the crucial meeting where the Colorado Springs Guidelines were produced.

• I had previously spoken of Zondervan as a decision maker in the gender-neutral controversy. I wish to clarify that the Committee on Bible Translation is highly insistent on its autonomy, and that the copyrights for the NIV, NIrV, NIVI, and TNIV are owned by the International Bible Society. While Zondervan has close ties with IBS and is outspoken in its defense of the TNIV and related versions, it is not the source of the movement toward gender-neutral translation.
• At the Colorado Springs meeting, those affirming the guidelines were Focus on the Family's James Dobson and Charles Jarvis; CBMW members Timothy Bayly, Wayne Grudem, Vern Poythress, and John Piper; CBT members Ken Barker and Ron Youngblood; scholar R. C. Sproul; and World Magazine's Joel Belz. Zondervan president Bruce Ryskamp also participated in the meeting but only signed as a witness to the document. I have yet to determine the intent behind IBS president Lars Dunberg's signature; however, it is clear that neither IBS nor Zondervan currently have any qualms about producing or publishing gender-neutral versions of the Bible.
• Because of linguistic and theological differences between American and British evangelicals, gender-neutrality is not much of an issue in the UK, even in circles where the place of women in ministry is hotly debated. This is largely an American debate.

The primary gender-neutral translations are the NAB, NRSV, GNT, INC, NLT1, NIrV, TNIV, and NLT2. The NJB, REB, NCV, GW, ISV, and MSG are only partially gender-neutral. In the following examples, other translations have made the same decisions due to paraphrase, but the changes are occasional, not systematic or out of an intent to use neutral gender. The changes that take place in gender-neutral translation are in five major areas.

1. The Hebrew word 'adam and the Greek word anthropos are commonly translated man and are masculine in gender, but often have the more general meaning person. This is a case in which gender-neutral translation is not in question. However, the Hebrew 'ish and Greek aner always designate a male, as indicated by their secondary meaning of husband. Four examples of aner in the New Testament illustrate its place in the controversy.
   • In Acts 17:22, Paul addresses the council of the Areopagus as Men of Athens. Here the Greek is aner. In those days, the council was composed entirely of men, and women were not to be present at public addresses. There are even stories of women disguising themselves as men to hear certain eloquent speakers. Yet the Darby, NAB, NRSV, CEV, GNT, INC, TNIV, and MSG change the expression to Athenians, People of Athens, or Citizens of Athens.
   • When Paul addresses the Ephesian church leaders in Acts 20:30, he warns them that not only in the church, but even from their own circle men will arise to corrupt the people. Again, he uses aner. But the LB, NRSV, CEV, INC, NLT1, and TNIV simply say that some will arise. The relatively older MLB translation likewise has persons here, probably to convey formality. What is lost here is the original implication that all the Ephesian elders were male–an important fact in light of the current controversy over women in authoritative ministry positions.
   • In 1 Corinthians 13:11, Paul speaks of his ways as a child, but when I became a man childish ways became a thing of the past. Since Paul uses aner, and was himself obviously a man, it is almost amusing that the NEB, NJB, NRSV, GNT, INC, GW, NLT1, NET, MSG, CW, and NLT2 change the text to when I became an adult or when I grew up (similar CEV). The REB, which in its introduction declares an intent toward gender-neutral translation where it can be done responsibly, actually corrects the NEB to retain the masculine reference here. (The TNIV has man here, despite its usual tendencies.)
   • James 1:12 contains a blessed man saying–Blessed is the man who endures temptation. With 'ish or aner, this depiction of the prototypical blessed man is sometimes seen as a type of Christ; i.e., Jesus is the true blessed man. The William, NCV, and ISV retain the generic he that comes later in the sentence but change man to person or whoever. Likewise, the NJB, NRSV, NET, and MSG have the one or anyone, and the GNT, INC, GW, NLT1, TNIV, and NLT2 pluralize the blessing (e.g., blessed are those who...), and CEV changes to the second person (God will bless you).
2. Gender-neutral translators also have neutral ways of referring to mankind–humankind, human beings, mortals, or people–but never man.
   • Genesis 1:27 and 5:2 are important in determining the Bible's attitudes toward gender. Both these verses state that man and woman alike are created in God's image. They also stand together in letting man represent both before the Lord, at least linguistically. In 5:2, we read, God created them...blessed them, and named them Man. The Hebrew is 'adam, and the KJV, Darby, ASV, AMP, KJ21, and LITV are not far off by translating Adam here. But the NRSV, NCV, GNT, GW, NLT, and MSG rename the race humankind or the human race, effectively obliterating the theological intent of 'adam. (NET has mankind with a footnote giving the literal rendering, and MLB understands the word to mean human as opposed to the animals.) The NRSV, REB, NCV, GNT, GW, NLT, MSG, and CW also have gender-neutral references in 1:27.
   • The segue from the cleansing of the temple to Jesus' talk with Nicodemus is contained in John 2:24-3:1. The link is the word man: Jesus did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man. Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus... (NASB). We are to conclude from this that Jesus "knew" Nicodemus before the conversation even started. The link is perceptible in KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, NWT, AMP, RSV, TBV, NKJV, NIV, KJ21, LITV, NASB, ESV, and HCSB. But man of the Pharisees is so easily condensed to Pharisee that the connection is lost in Weymouth, Montgomery, JB, LB, and NEB. The William, MLB, CEV, NCV, TNIV, MSG, and NLT2 retain man in 3:1 but not in 2:25. Changing both references are Moffatt, PME, CW, and the standard gender-neutral versions: NJB, NAB, NRSV, REB, GNT, INC, GW, NLT1, NIrV. They will not speak of the obviously male Nicodemus as a man, and thus miss one of John's clever word plays. (The ISV goes gender-neutral but retains the link, using person in both 2:25 and 3:1. NET bizarrely has man in 2:25 and 3:1 but people in 2:24)
   • It is also worth noting that MSG has Peace to all men and women instead of Peace on earth to men in Luke 2:14.
   • Other examples of these changes occur in Psalm 90:3 (NJB, NAB, NRSV, REB, NCV, GNT, GW, NLT1, NIrV, NET, MSG), Luke 4:4 (NJB, NAB, NRSV, CEV, NCV, GNT, INC, GW, NLT1, ISV, TNIV, MSG, NLT2), Luke 9:44 (CPV, NRSV, CEV, GNT, INC, GW, ISV, TNIV; paraphrased out in LB, NLT1, MSG, NLT2), and John 1:4 (NAB, NRSV, CEV, NCV, GNT, INC, GW, NLT1, NIrV, ISV, NET, TNIV, MSG, NLT2).
3. Fathers, sons, and brothers often become parents, children, and "brothers and sisters" in gender-neutral translations.
   • Ironically, the word father most often disappears when the reference is to specific male progenitors, namely the patriarchs. Genesis 48:21 and Romans 9:5 both refer to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob's sons as the fathers. Yet NJB, NRSV, GNT, and NLT1 ambiguously read ancestors in Genesis, even though Jacob is speaking of his own father and grandfather. In Romans 9:5, the translation Patriarchs is certainly appropriate, and appears in Weymouth, Moffatt, Montgomery, William, Lamsa, PME, JB, AMP, RSV, NEB, NIV, NAB, GNC, NRSV, REB, ISV, NET, ESV, and TNIV. Yet the fact that the reference is to these men and not to others is lost in GW (ancestors), NCV (great ancestors), CEV (famous ancestors), GNT (famous Hebrew ancestors), and NLT1 (their ancestors were great people of God, sim. NLT2). INC's the ancestry is quite weird. The NIrV's the founders of our nation is better but still questionable and verbose, and MSG's family misses the point. Likewise, David is called father in Mark 11:10 and elsewhere, but ancestor in NRSV, CEV, INC, GW, NLT1, and NLT2. This is awkward English since we Americans may speak of George Washington as the "father of our country" but never as our ancestor, which implies common descent.
   • Translating sons as children is sometimes appropriate due to the Hebrew idiom sons of x as a gentilic; i.e., a phrase designating persons of a certain race or sharing a common characteristic. Thus, sons of Israel may be translated children of Israel or better, Israelites, without any consequent loss of meaning (as Exod. 19:6, KJV, RV, Darby, ASV, AMP, MLB, RSV, NEB, NKJV, NIV, NJB, NASB, NRSV, REB, NCV, GNT, GW, NLT, NIrV, NET, ESV, CW, HCSB, and MSG similar). It is also true that the KJV sometimes translated the Greek word for children (tekna) as if it read sons, as in John 1:13 and 1 John 3:1. But in the biblical context, sons and daughters were treated differently, just as fathers and mothers had different roles. This creates problems in verses such as Galatians 4:7, in which we are no longer servants but sons, and therefore heirs of God. NAB, NRSV, CEV, NCV, GNT, GW, NLT1, NIrV, ISV, TNIV, and MSG have child here. CW has sons and daughters, and INC gives a reverse emphasis by saying daughters and sons. But daughters were not normally heirs, and special legislation had to exist in the Mosaic law for a man with only daughters to leave an inheritance (Num. 27). Similarly, the father-son relationship between God and His people becomes a parent-child relationship in Hebrews 12:7 (NRSV, CEV, INC, GW, NIrV, TNIV, MSG), where the issue is discipline, but fathers were the primary disciplinarians. (GNT, NLT1, and NLT2 also change son to child here but leave father alone.)
   • In plural address brothers can often mean brothers and sisters–though only in the plural–and brother was sometimes a generic reference to a member of the church. But in Luke 17:3, it is probably anachronistic to translate if your brother sins... as if another disciple sins (NRSV, similar CEV) or if a believer sins (GW, NLT1, NLT2). The INC's sister or brother is unwarranted (similar TNIV); MSG's friend is certainly original but lacks any filial component. A striking error appears in Hebrews 2:17, where Jesus' function as a priest required that He be incarnated and experience temptation; that He be made like His brothers in every way. Here, NRSV, INC, GW, NLT1, NET, TNIV, and NLT2 make the drastic mistake of saying made like His brothers and sisters in every way! (Similarly, GNT has like His people and CEV like one of us, omitting the Jewish context. Jesus did have to come as a Jew. MSG paraphrases took on flesh and blood, leaving out the reference to similarity.) This is a case of the translators failing to think through the implications of their choices.
4. The generic he, mentioned earlier, appears to be the primary linguistic concern of the gender-neutral translators, and the most difficult to translate out without causing other problems. The simplest solution is making the reference plural, which may result in the loss of individuality with reference to repentance, communion with God, etc., and certainly changes the imagery from a single example to a group. An alternative is changing from third-person to second-person, since you has no gender in English. The difficulty here is a restriction of the reference to the immediate audience rather than a general reference, especially since generic you was never used by the biblical writers. Related is a double standard in which short parables referring to The man who... are made gender neutral, but in those referring to women, the gender is retained.

   Pluralizing or the "singular they" appear in the six test verses in these versions: Matt. 16:24 (NRSV, GW, TNIV), John 14:23 (LB, NRSV, CEV, GNT, INC, GW, NLT1, TNIV, NLT2), Jam. 5:14 (NRSV, GNT, INC, NLT1), Rev. 3:20 (GNT, INC, TNIV, MSG), and Rev. 22:19 (GNT). Changing to you is also common: Matt. 16:24 (CEV, GNT, INC, NLT1, NLT2), Gal. 6:7 (NRSV, CEV, GNT, INC, GW, NLT1, NLT2), Jam. 5:14 (CEV, GW, NIrV, TNIV, MSG, CW, NLT2), Rev. 3:20 (NRSV, CEV, NLT1, NIrV, NLT2), and Rev. 22:19 (NIrV, TNIV, MSG). Occasionally the pronoun is simply dropped: Rev. 3:20 (GW). In each of these six cases, the change results in a loss of meaning that the reader cannot recover without reference to the original Greek or to another translation.

5. Whether it is deliberate or a side effect of the other changes, there is a marked de-emphasis on the masculinity of Jesus in gender-neutral translations. This is seen most clearly in 1 Corinthians 15:21 and 1 Timothy 2:5, both of which call Jesus a man in the Greek, but in the NJB, NAB, NRSV, CEV, INC, TNIV, He is only called human. (The GW, ISV, and MSG remove man in 1 Tim. 2:5 also.) The primary "son of man" passages relevant to Jesus' own favorite title Son of Man are Psalm 8:4 (see Heb. 2:6-9) and Daniel 7:13 (see Matt. 26:64). But since the phrase was a Hebrew idiom for a human as opposed to a divine being or an animal, gender-neutral versions have human or mortal for the first passage (LB, NEB, NJB, NAB, NLT1, MSG) or both (NRSV, REB, NCV, GNT, NET). The LB, NEB, and NLT needlessly replace son of man in Daniel 7:13 with man, and the TNIV removes the phrase in Hebrews 2:6-9. The INC deletes Son of Man from the New Testament altogether, replacing it with Promised One. It should be mentioned that most of these versions at least give the literal translation in a footnote. Also relevant to this category is Psalm 34:20 (He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken), which is applied to Christ's crucifixion in John 19:36. Since this blessed man passage is pluralized, only their bones appears in NJB, NAB, NRSV, NCV, GNT, and NLT, destroying the Messianic reference. The LB keeps the gender but also loses the prophetic import with its unpoetic paraphrase, God even protects him from accidents, and the MSG similarly says Not even a finger gets broken.

Are passages rewritten to support a particular ideology or doctrine?

The version most known for its freedom in deliberately altering the text is the NWT, which alters references to Jesus' deity and occasions in which He is worshiped, in accord with the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses. Also, the Holy Spirit's name is not capitalized and does not receive personal pronouns. While it is otherwise a very good translation, such liberties make it difficult for the reader to trust other doctrinal passages. Christians adept with the Scriptures may still be able to refute JW doctrines from the NWT by showing how passages about Jehovah in the Old Testament are applied to Christ in the New. A more recent JW project, the 2001 Translation, goes even further in distoriting the biblical text by using clever paraphrases. The SDA's Clear Word paraphrase does similarly with verses about predestination, hell, and the Sabbath. As an "expanded paraphrase" it also inserts explanatory clauses and sentences with unorthodox implications. Unlike the Amplified Bible (which is based on linguistic studies), the CW derives its expansions from devotional insights and Adventist pastoral experience

More common among mainstream Christians (particularly among British Catholics) is the Inclusive New Testament (INC), produced by Priests for Equality. It goes beyond the standard gender-neutral changes to "re-image" Scripture. Passages such as Ephesians 5:21-6:4 and Titus 2:1-8 are adjusted to eliminate distinctions between male and female roles in the church and family. References to female prostitutes and adulteresses are removed. The top priority stated in the introduction is removing masculine language for God. Thus, Father becomes Abba, Son becomes Only Begotten or God's Own, and the Spirit always takes the pronoun she. Aside from the feminine Sophia-Spirit, God is never referenced with a pronoun. Jesus' titles are also altered. Lord becomes Savior or Sovereign, Son of Man is Promised One, and Son of David is now Heir of David. Some texts are left alone, having been deemed irredeemably sexist, but the translators sought to "keep such offensive passages to an absolute minimum."

The Message contains a considerable amount of recasting, but this is done to capture the original "look and feel" rather than for any theological purpose–although there is some evidence of bias. For example, an apparent amillennial slant appears in the paraphrasing of many "kingdom of God" passages. Some might also question the MSG's consistent rendering of euangellion (gospel) as the Message. What reaction would there be if the NIV were to read, How beautiful are the feet of those who proclaim the New International Version? Finally, MSG gives decidedly egalitarian renderings of several passages on the family. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord becomes Wives, understand and support your husbands in ways that show your support for Christ (Eph. 5:22). And whereas the Greek of 1 Peter 3:6 has Sarah obeying Abraham and calling him lord, the MSG paraphrase has her taking care of Abraham and addressing him as my dear husband. Other problematic gender-related rewrites appear in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15. The TNIV also has a noticeable shift toward egalitarian translation choices, along with its publicly defiant determination for gender neutrality; but it does not go quite so far as the MSG and usually avoids outright alteration of the text.

Translators' footnotes are seldom read but often give insights into their biases. This is particularly the case where an unlikely or even impossible translation is listed in the margin as a possible alternative to the more traditional rendering in the text. For example, at Luke 23:43, Lamsa (who believes in soul sleep) says that Jesus' promise to the thief on the cross, Truly I say to you, today you will be with Me in paradise, could just as easily be read, Truly I say to you today, you will be with Me in paradise. Notice also the GNT's note at 2 Timothy 3:16 that gives Every scripture inspired by God is also useful as a valid translation (and one that implies that not all scripture is inspired).

How does the translator treat texts relevant to the identity of Christ?

The deity of Christ is one of the central doctrines of Christianity, and if Jesus is the chief message of the Scriptures, it is crucial that translations deal carefully with texts that indicate who He is.

• Ten times in the Bible Jesus is described as theos, the Greek word for God. Unitarians and other critics have questioned the meaning of these texts, but their objections are refuted easily enough. For an in-depth examination of the textual and translational issues involved, see Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God (Baker, 1992). The critical verses are these (author's translation):
  • Psalm 45:6: Your throne, O God, [is] forever and ever.... (lit. forever and again)
    • Other translators have your divine throne, God is your throne, your throne is from God, etc. (RSV, NEB, NJB, REB, GNT, NIrV, MSG)
  • John 1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    • Moffatt has the Logos was divine, AAT has the Word was divine, and NWT has the Word was a god.
  • John 1:18: No one has ever seen God. The only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed [Him].
    • Non-Alexandrian manuscripts read the only begotten Son. (Tyndale, GEN, KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, Weymouth, AAT, William, Norlie, JB, MLB, RSV, LB, NEB, TBV, NKJV, NJB, GNC, REB, INC, KJ21, LITV, GW, HCSB, similar CW). Although this is a textual difference, many versions are choosing the Byzantine reading here against their usual pattern. Lamsa has the firstborn of God, and MSG reads This one-of-a-kind God-Expression.
  • John 20:28: Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and My God!'
  • Acts 20:28: to shepherd the church of God, which He bought with His own blood.
    • Other translators have the blood of His own [Son] (Darby, NWT, TBV, NJB, GNC, NRSV, CEV, GNT, NET). MSG paraphrase refers to God dying, and the CW changes God to Lord.
  • Romans 9:5: ...from whom, according to the flesh, [is] Christ, who is over all as God blessed forever, Amen!
    • Other translators have Christ, who is over all. May God be blessed forever, Amen! (or similar, Moffatt, AAT, NWT, RSV, LB, NEB, TBV, NAB, REB, GNT, INC, CW)
  • Titus 2:13: as we wait for the blessed hope, even the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
    • Other translators have the great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ (Tyndale, GEN, KJV, ASV, Moffatt, Lamsa, PME, NWT, TBV, NAB, CEV, INC, KJ21, CW)
  • Hebrews 1:8: Your throne, O God, [is] forever and ever.... (quoting Psalm 45)
    • Moffatt, AAT, NWT, and GNC have God is your throne
  • 2 Peter 1:1: ...by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
    • Other translators have our God and the Savior Jesus Christ. (KJV, ASV, Weymouth, PME, NWT, TBV, INC, KJ21, LITV, CW.) Lamsa has our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, following the Syriac Peshitta. Unfortunately, the KJV did not follow Tyndale's or GEN's superior renderings of this verse.
  • 1 John 5:20: ...in His Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true God, and eternal life.

   

  Whether the reference in 1 John 5:20 is to the Father or the Son is ambiguous in almost any translation (except GW and MSG) and should probably be left to the interpreter. Of the remaining nine verses, the following versions relate theos to Jesus in every case, or else all but one: RV, Young, Montgomery, William, Norlie, AMP, JB, NKJV, NIV, NRSV, NCV, NASB, GW, NLT1, NIrV, ISV, NET, ESV, TNIV, HCSB, and NLT2. Two of the verses are missed by Tyndale, GEN, Darby, Weymouth, LB, NAB, CEV, LITV, and MSG. The remaining versions give relatively weak support to the deity of Christ from these passages. Only six verses are correct in KJV, ASV, Lamsa, RSV, NEB, NJB, REB, GNT, and KJ21. AAT, PME, GNC, and CW have five, Moffatt four, and the TBV and INC only three. The NWT, as one might expect, avoids asserting Christ's deity every time, employing god with a lower-case g when necessary (John 1:1; 1:18). A more recent Jehovah's Witnesses' version, called the 2001 Translation, uses paraphrase to get past these passages, such as rendering the last part of John 1:1 the Word was powerful. It is noteworthy that the weaker translations are uniformly more liberal in origin–with the exceptions of GEN, KJV, and KJ21, whose older translation methods have since been refined. In defense of the otherwise conservative LB and TBV, it may be said that translators are not always conscious of the doctrinal implications of their renderings, and that both these versions are heavily dependent on the ASV. But even the liberal versions that usually translate well here (e.g., NAB, CEV) often give the alternative translations in footnotes without regard for their illegitimacy, as if to let the reader off the hook.

• A second issue related to the identity of Christ is His place in Old Testament prophecy. References to the Messianic kings (David and his descendants) are fulfilled most truly in Christ, as the New Testament reveals. It is in this sense that the king could be called God's son or His chosen one, and even represent God (as Psa. 45:6-7). The rendering of these verses may reveal the translators' opinions about Messianic prophecy.
  • The word Messiah, or Anointed One, appears in Psalm 2:2 and is capitalized in Young, AMP, JB, LB, NKJV, NIV, NASB, KJ21, GW, MSG, CW, and HCSB, suggesting a definite application to Jesus. The GEN actually translates the word as Christ. The connection is most obscured in the renderings his anointed king (NEB, REB, NCV, NIrV) and the king he chose (GNT, sim. NET).
  • Psalm 2:12 begins with the instruction, kiss the Son, though higher-critical scholars reject this reading and propose various, unsupported changes. Thus JB, RSV, NJB, and NRSV have kiss his feet, NEB and REB have pay glad homage to the king (sim. NET), and NAB and GNT have bow down. AAT's kiss the chosen one appears to be a deliberate paraphrase to avoid reference to the Son.
  • In Psalm 110:1, the prophecy most cited in the New Testament, David begins, Yahweh said to my Lord, which as Jesus pointed out (Matt. 22:45), must refer to someone greater than David and not merely a descendant king. Most versions (even NWT!) therefore capitalize Lord. Those that do not are the more liberal AAT, RSV, NEB, NAB, NRSV, REB, and GNT, plus the usually conservative RV, NCV, KJ21, and NET.
• Jesus is given worship (proskuneo) several times: Matt. 2:11; 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; Heb. 1:6; possibly others. The etymology of the word implies bending the knee to someone. While worship is the normal translation of this word when applied to the Father, a number of translations avoid the word, as revealed by checking Matt. 28:9 and John 9:38. Young, Darby, Montgomery, and probably Weymouth do so out of their commitment to literal translation. Those avoiding worship for doctrinal reasons include AAT, NAB (Matt. only), GNT (John only), NEB, and REB. The ASV contains a footnote in John 9:38, probably written by the Unitarian on the committee, that suggests the healed man's worship of Jesus is an example of legitimate worship being given to a "mere creature."
• A final test for doctrinal commitments on Christ's identity is Philippians 2:6. Jesus was in the form of God. Some versions make this an explicit statement of Jesus' nature as God (Weymouth, Montgomery, William, PME, Norlie, AMP, LB, NIV, GNC, CEV, NCV, GNT, GW, NLT1, NIrV, TNIV, CW, and NLT2). The rendering of the next line is even more telling. Did Jesus rightly share equality with God (as Montgomery, PME, MLB, GNC, ISV, MSG, CW), or did he deny or lay no claim to equality with God (as REB, similar Moffatt, AAT, NEB)?

How does the translator treat texts relevant to the truthfulness of the Bible?

References to the perfection, divine origin, and eternal relevance of the Bible are so numerous and so clear that no translation could obscure them all. Verses such as Psalm 19:7 and Matthew 5:18 uphold the truth of Scripture in every version. But the meaning of two key texts is in dispute.

• Psalm 12:6 is clear enough when translated literally: The utterances of Yahweh are pure utterances, or, The words of the LORD are pure words. Yet the RSV, LB, NJB, NAB, NRSV, GNT, and NLT1 restrict the meaning of words to promises. It is surprising to find the LB and NLT1 here amid the more liberal versions.
• 2 Timothy 3:16 is the most cited verse in the debate over biblical inspiration. Few translators dare to translate otherwise than that every scripture [is] inspired by God (or God-breathed) and profitable.... Only Lamsa, NEB, and REB supply is later, so as to read, Every inspired scripture [is] also profitable.... The NIrV's paraphrase God has breathed life into all of Scripture follows the conservative rendering but is ambiguous, and GW's every Scripture passage is inspired... raises the question of whether the words themselves are inspired. Versions such as RSV, NAB, NRSV, and GNT give the more liberal translation in a footnote as a viable alternative. But separating inspired from profitable when they are joined by and is implausible and would only be done to reverse the implications of the verse. Thus other versions such as the NET have a footnote that explicitly rules out the liberal rendering.

How does the translator treat texts relevant to the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament?

Much of our understanding of the Trinity comes from the New Testament, particularly the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. Liberal scholars generally hold that the Holy Spirit was not understood as a person, or as deity, in the time of the Old Testament, and would therefore not be inclined to capitalize Spirit in Old Testament passages. Good test cases for how versions handle this are Psalm 51:11 (do not take Your Holy Spirit from me), Isaiah 61:1 (the Spirit of the Lord is upon me), and Isaiah 63:10 (they grieved His Holy Spirit). The liberal AAT, the Jehovah's Witnesses' NWT, the Catholic NAB, and the ecumencial NRSV have spirit in lower case in all three examples; and the JB, NJB. and GNT capitalize only one out of three times. It is surprising that the KJV and Darby versions fail to capitalize holy spirit in Psalm 51:11 (as does Lamsa). All other versions reviewed consistently capitalize the name, either as holy Spirit (GEN, ASV, RSV, occasionally NET), or more commonly as Holy Spirit (Young, AMP, MLB, LB, NKJV, NIV, NCV, LITV, NASB, NLT1, NIrV, ESV, CW, HCSB). (I have yet to review the RV, NEB, REB, KJ21, and GW on this question.) All versions I have seen capitalize references to the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, with the exception of the NWT.

How does the translator treat texts relevant to salvation?

As with the Bible, the primary doctrines relating to salvation are fairly clear in the Bible. A few texts, however, lend themselves to interpretation as they are translated, or have been altered in some versions.

• On occasion, doctrinal biases or a desire for novelty have led to mistranslation of theological terms. The word hilasmon and related terms are traditionally (and correctly) translated propitiation (KJV, RV, ASV, Lamsa, PME, NWT, NKJV, KJ21, LITV, NASB, ESV, HCSB), as in Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; and 1 John 4:10. This word indicates the nature of Christ's atonement: that His death paid the penalty for our sins by pacifying God's wrath. This is called penal substitutionary atonement, a doctrine that has fallen out of favor outside conservative evangelical circles. Thus many translations translate the word more generally as atonement or sacrifice. The GEN's rendering reconciliation (cf. Tyndale) was adequate at the time but is insufficient today because of changes in our use of the word. Particularly bland are versions that simply refer to forgiveness or taking care of sin (CEV, MSG). Moffatt, RSV, NEB, NJB, NAB, GNC, and REB use the word expiation, which says merely that Jesus' death (or life) covers over sins so that they are not punished, a concept more in keeping with mainline and Catholic theology.
• Matthew 25:46 says that those who are not saved will ultimately go off to everlasting punishment. The NWT mistranslates the phrase as everlasting cutting-off to support the idea that the wicked are simply annihilated, and the same may be inferred from the MSG's eternal doom. Most emphatic is Tyndale and GEN's translation euerlaƒting paine. On the other side, Weymouth, whose views on eternity were also unorthodox, routinely translates everlasting as of the ages, and CW has God compelled to annihilate the wicked: I have no choice but to end your lives.
• In John 3:36, those who apeitho the Son will not see eternal life. The meaning of apeitho has been debated. It refers to unbelief in Tyndale, KJV, Young, William, PME, Norlie, JB, NKJV, NJB, GNC, KJ21, MSG, CW, and HCSB. But most versions translate it more accurately as disobedience: GEN, RV, Darby, ASV, Weymouth, Moffatt, Montgomery, AAT, Lamsa, NWT, MLB, RSV, NEB, TBV, NAB, NRSV, REB, NCV, GNT, LITV, NASB, NLT1, ISV, ESV, NLT2. The AMP and LB translate both ways, and the meaning is ambiguous in NIV, CEV, INC, GW, NIrV, NET, and TNIV.
• Translators reveal their attitude toward the Law and its relationship to salvation in Galatians 3:23-24. About half the versions has a positive view toward the law as preparatory and instructive: Tyndale, GEN, KJV, RV, Young, AAT, Lamsa, Norlie, NWT, AMP, JB, LB, TBV, NKJV, KJ21, NASB, NLT1, ISV, MSG, CW, and NLT2. A slight majority, however, have Paul present the law as a prison warden from whom Christ has set us free: Weymouth, Moffatt, Montgomery, William, PME, RSV, NEB, NIV, NJB, NAB, GNC, NRSV, REB, CEV, NCV, GNT, GW, INC, LITV, NIrV, NET, ESV, TNIV, and HCSB. The MLB is unique in providing a negative-leaning translation with a positive-leaning footnote. Both are syntactically possible, but the context suggests the minority's positive rendering is correct.
• Ephesians 1:11-12 says that God works all things according to the counsel of His will, as is clear in all versions except the NEB, REB, CEV, MSG, and CW. How does this relate to salvation? The most direct references to predestination have given some translators problems. Acts 13:48 reports the response to Paul's sermon by saying that those who were appointed for eternal life believed. Words such as ordained, appointed, or destined appear in most versions, but a few reverse the clear meaning of the text. NWT and TBV have disposed to eternal life, and LB has as many as wanted eternal life. The CW has the most blatant reversal: When they realized that they could have eternal life, they also believed. NEB and REB's marked out for and GW's prepared can be argued both ways. The NCV is also ambiguous as to the order of events when it says they were the ones chosen.
• The most difficult, even for some Calvinists, are the suggestions of negative predestination–i.e., that certain unbelievers are destined not to be saved. The verses in question are Romans 9:22 and 1 Peter 2:8. Most versions leave the text as it is regardless of the translators' commitments, but the meaning of Romans is altered in Weymouth, Moffatt, AAT, William, Lamsa, PME, Norlie, AMP, JB, NEB, GNC, REB, CEV, NCV, INC, GW, CW, and HCSB. (Tyndale has an especially strong rendering here: ordained to damnation; see also NLT2's made for destruction.) Only the Lamsa, PME, JB, LB, NJB, GW, MSG, and CW change 1 Peter 2:8. Lamsa, in fact, reverses the meaning of the verse and suggests that the false teachers were appointed for the salvation they ultimately rejected.

How does the translator treat other frequently debated texts?

The task of translation calls for discernment as to whether the meaning of certain verses is debatable enough to be left ambiguous or is clear enough to be interpreted for the reader. The issues of cut off versus emasculated in Galatians 5:12 and of unrighteous mammon in Luke 16:9 are examples. The following is only a sampling of many verses where translational decisions have a bearing on doctrinal issues.

• Throughout church history scholars have debated whether the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 are men or fallen angels. Most translations leave the text undecided as sons of God, but LB reads beings from the spirit world, and GNT has heavenly beings. Liberal scholars see the passage as a holdover from ancient, polytheistic myths, and so AAT, NEB, and REB read sons of the gods, and the NAB says sons of heaven, with a footnote that these are "the celestial beings of mythology." Alone with the other major interpretation is the CW, which has sons of the godly.
• Exodus 21:22 prescribes a fine as a penalty if someone accidentally causes an unborn child to come out of a pregnant woman. "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life" applies if there is further injury. If a miscarriage is in view, the "further injury" is to the mother, but if the expression refers only to a premature birth, then causing a miscarriage would carry the death penalty under Old Testament law. While the KJV, RV, Young, ASV, NWT, KJ21, and LITV remain ambiguous, it seems clear from other occurrences that the expression refers to a miscarriage, as in AAT, Lamsa, AMP, MLB, RSV, LB, NEB, NAB, NRSV, REB, GNT, and MSG. The premature birth reading is followed in Darby, JB, NKJV, NIV, NJB, NCV, NASB, GW, NLT1, NIrV, NET, CW, and HCSB, though most of these admit the possibility of the other interpretation.
• In Malachi 2:16, God declares, "I hate divorce." Or does He? The Hebrew text can be read two ways:
  1. Yahweh the God of Israel says that He [i.e., God] hates divorcing, and the one who covers his garment with violence."
  2. Yahweh the God of Israel says, "He [i.e., the faithless husband] hates so as to divorce, and he covers his garment with violence."
  Only the NEB, REB, original ESV, and HCSB take the second reading, though the syntax would seem to indicate it as more likely. Both readings express God's contempt for divorce. The GEN takes a route that would be scandalous today: if thou hatest her, put her away–a reading perhaps influenced by the then-recent behavior of Henry VIII. The word for divorce does not appear at all in Lamsa's version.
• Who sought to take hold of Jesus and claimed He had gone crazy? The Greek term in Mark 3:21 is hoi par' autou, which most authorities say refers primarily to close family members but possibly intimate friends. Since Jesus' mother and brothers show up a few verses later, they are likely referred to here. However, this raises concern with some people because of its possible negative implications for Mary. The KJV, RV, Young, ASV, RSV, LB, TBV, NKJV, KJ21, NASB, LITV, and MSG use friends or other non-familial word. Tyndale's they that longed unto him is straightly literal but has family overtones. The distant term relatives appears in Darby, Weymouth, Montgomery, AAT, Lamsa, PME, Norlie, NWT, JB, MLB, NJB, NAB, INC, and CW (sim. GNC), while William and AMP use kinsmen. (GEN has kinƒfolkes.) Using family are Moffatt, NEB, NIV, NRSV, REB, CEV, NCV, GNT, GW, NLT1, NIrV, ISV, NET, ESV, TNIV, HCSB, and NLT2.
• The Philippian jailer's conversion resulted in the baptism of the whole household, but did they all convert at that time? Supporters of infant baptism argue that young children must have been present who were baptized then but only later believed. In the Greek text of Acts 16:34, the adjective whole-housedly could refer either to celebration or to belief. The family celebrates over the jailer's conversion alone in Young, Weymouth, Moffatt, NWT, AMP, CPV, RSV, NEB, GNC, NRSV, REB, LITV, and ESV. The whole family explicitly believes in Tyndale, GEN, KJV, Montgomery, AAT, William, Lamsa, PME, Norlie, JB, MLB, LB, NKJV, NIV, NJB, CEV, NCV, GNT, INC, KJ21, NASB, GW, NLT1, NIrV, ISV, NET, TNIV, MSG, CW, HCSB, and NLT2. The RV, Darby, ASV, TBV, and NAB manage to remain ambiguous here.
• In Acts 19:2, Paul tests the genuineness of some disciples' conversion by asking whether they had received the Holy Spirit. While most versions render the participle accurately–Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?–Tyndale, GEN, KJV, and Lamsa have since you believed, which opens up the possibility that the Spirit normally comes some time after salvation. (The NIV/TNIV footnote suggesting after you believed is grammatically unwarranted.) The MSG adds the sentences Did you take God into your mind only, or did you also embrace him with your heart? Did he get inside you?, which is an entirely separate issue.
• 1 Corinthians 14 opens a discussion on one who speaks in a tongue (14:2) in worship. Is this ecstatic utterance or the speaking of other (human) languages? Almost half the translations stay literal without deciding the question for the reader: Tyndale, RV, Darby, ASV, Moffatt, Montgomery, PME, NWT, MLB, RSV, NKJV, NIV, NJB, NAB, NRSV, LITV, NASB, ISV, NET, ESV, TNIV. A few go one step further by saying in tongues: JB, REB, INC, NLT1, and NLT2. Those supporting ecstatic utterance are AAT, William, NEB, GNC, GNT, MSG, and (as generally understood), GEN, KJV, Young, Weymouth, Lamsa, Norlie, AMP, and KJ21. Those supporting foreign languages are LB, TBV, NCV, GW, NIrV, CW, and HCSB.
• 1 Corinthians 14:2 also refers to this speaking as either by the Spirit or in his spirit; the Greek is ambiguous, and versions are almost evenly divided here. Spirit is capitalized in Weymouth, Moffatt, Montgomery, AAT, William, Lamsa, PME, Norlie, AMP, MLB, RSV, LB, TBV, NRSV, REB, CEV, NCV, GNT, NLT1, ISV, NET, ESV, TNIV, and HCSB. It is not capitalized in GEN, KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, PME, NKJV, NIV, NAB, LITV, NASB, GW, and NIrV. (Tyndale rarely capitalized father, son, or spirit.) The NEB paraphrases boldly by saying he is no doubt inspired., MSG paraphrases with the word private, and the relevant portion of the verse is unrecognizable in CW.
• Romans 16 mentions two women who are important in the ongoing discussion of what ministry positions are open to women. In verse 1, Phoebe is said to be a diakonon, a word that generally means minister and as a technical term means deacon. Those taking Phoebe as a deacon or deaconess are Moffatt, William, Lamsa, PME, Norlie, AMP, JB, MLB, RSV, NJB, GNC, NRSV, INC, GW, NLT1, ISV, TNIV, and NLT2. She is more generally a servant or minister in most versions: Tyndale, GEN, KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, Weymouth, Montgomery, AAT, NWT, LB, TBV, NKJV, NIV, NAB, REB, GNT, NCV, KJ21, LITV, NASB, NIrV, NET, ESV, HCSB. The NEB has the deliberately ambiguous paraphrase that Phoebe holds office in the church, and MSG says she is a key representative. CEV is strongest, making her a leader, while in CW she is only a member. The second woman is Junia, in verse 7, but some manuscripts read the male name Junias. Textual critics prefer Junia, but the versions are split (Junia: Tyndale, GEN, KJV, Weymouth, Montgomery, Lamsa, NKJV, NAB, NRSV, REB, GNT, INC, KJ21, GW, NLT1, NET, ESV, TNIV, MSG, HCSB, NLT2; Junias: RV, Young, Darby, ASV, Moffatt, AAT, William, PME, NWT, MLB, AMP, JB, RSV, LB, NEB, TBV, NIV, NJB, CEV, NCV, LITV, NASB, NIrV, ISV, CW; Norlie and GNC have Junias with Junia in parentheses or a footnote). What Paul says of her and Andronicus could mean that they are respected apostles, or that they are respected by the apostles. They are apostles in RV, Montgomery, JB, MLB, NEB, NIV, NJB, NAB, GNC, NRSV, REB, INC, NASB, GW, NIrV, ISV, and HCSB; not apostles in Tyndale, GEN, William, Lamsa, LB, CEV, NCV, GNT, NET, ESV, and CW. AAT, PME, and Norlie understand the Greek apostoloi to be used in its non-technical sense (missionaries), and MSG calls them outstanding leaders. Other versions maintain the ambiguity of the Greek text. What is significant in all this is that a woman is a full-fledged apostle in Montgomery, NAB, NRSV, GNC, REB, INC, GW, and HCSB.
• One other verse pertaining to women in the ministry is 1 Timothy 3:11, which gives the qualifications for women–either the wives of the deacons just discussed, or for women deacons. They are wives in GEN, KJV, Moffatt, AAT, Lamsa, PME, Norlie, LB, NEB, NKJV, NIV, GNT, KJ21, LITV, GW, NLT1, NIrV, ISV, NET, ESV, and NLT2. Only Weymouth, Montgomery, William, TNIV, and CW say deacon/deaconess here, and MSG likewise designates that women deacons are intended. Most of the rest retain the word women, but INC uses spouses as part of its policy of egalitarian renderings.
• Dispensationalists believe that national Israel remains a people of God even apart from the church, whereas other evangelicals identify the church as the true Israel. Galatians 6:16 is a key text that can be translated one of two ways:
  • And to as many as order their lives by this principle, peace and mercy [be] on them, and on the Israel of God.
  • And to as many as order their lives by this principle, peace and mercy [be] on them; that is, on the Israel of God.
  Grammatically and syntactically, either is possible; the decision must be made on the basis of Paul's attitude toward Israel in other passages. Those for whom the church is equal to the Israel of God (the non-dispensationalist leaning) are Moffatt, William, PME, NWT, AMP, JB, MLB, RSV, LB, NIV, GNC, REB, CEV, NCV, GW, NLT1, TNIV, MSG, and NLT2. (CEV and NLT2 omit reference to Israel, reading instead God's true people and the new people of God, respectively. CW does something similar.) Other versions have the first reading, with the GEN explicitly indicating the Jews in a marginal note.
• A second verse important to dispensationalists is Ephesians 3:5. In some versions, the uniting of Jews and Gentiles into one church was unknown to previous generations–one of dispensationalism's central beliefs (PME, JB, LB, NEB, REB, CEV, NCV, GNT, INC, NLT1, NIrV, MSG, CW, NLT2). But most translations say it was not known as fully as it has been now–meaning there may have been some hint of it in the Old Testament (Tyndale, GEN, KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, Weymouth, Moffatt, Montgomery, AAT, William, Lamsa, Norlie, NWT, AMP, MLB, RSV, TBV, NKJV, NIV, NJB, NAB, GNC, NRSV, KJ21, LITV, NASB, GW, ISV, NET, ESV, TNIV, HCSB). Here, the majority have it correct, since as is in the Greek text, and even Darby, the founder of dispensationalism, chose the latter rendering. The difference in how each version handles this and the previous example demonstrates that very few translations have a deliberate bias here.
• When the NIV was released, some amillennialists criticized its translation of Revelation 20:4, which says that the souls of the martyrs came to life. The Greek, they argue, could simply mean they lived, but the NIV's reading necessarily places the millennium after the resurrection. But the vast majority of versions read with the NIV here: Weymouth, Moffatt, AAT, PME, Norlie, NWT, AMP, JB, MLB, RSV, LB, NEB, NIV, NJB, NAB, GNC, NRSV, REB, NCV, GNT, INC, NASB, NLT1, NIrV, ISV, NET, ESV, TNIV, HCSB, and NLT2. CEV even has they will come to life, ensuring a millennial interpretation. Those reading lived are mostly Tyndale/KJV-dependent: Tyndale, GEN, KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, Montgomery, William, Lamsa, TBV, NKJV, KJ21, LITV, GW, MSG, and CW.

Grades (this category only)

Top 5: ESV (highest), Tyndale, NASB, NIV, NKJV

A: HCSB, GEN, LITV, KJV, RV, AMP, ISV, TBV, Montgomery, Young, CPV, NET, KJ21, Darby, William, Norlie, MLB, GNC, NIrV, NCV, LB

B: NLT2, NLT1, GW, ASV, Weymouth

C: TNIV, CEV, PME

D: MSG, RSV, JB, AAT, NAB, NJB, NEB

F: REB, GNT, NRSV

Bottom 5: Lamsa, Moffatt, CW, NWT, INC (lowest)