N-E-W for the NIV? Twenty-five years after its blockbuster release, the New International Version is in for an update. The most popular version of the world’s most popular book — embraced by millions as the very word of God, well, you can imagine that reworking it is no small thing. Folks are already weighing in. (See blogs on Beliefnet , USAToday and Christian Science Monitor , e.g.) You can post your own remarks directly. Perhaps the most sticky sticking point in this go-round (and which derailed an earlier effort) has to do with gendered language — for God, as well as for human beings (or “man,” as some would have it).
That there’s a debate at all should signal that the original language and sense is not clear cut. Take the word translated “man,” for example. In Hebrew adam can indeed mean “man” as in a male human being; but it can also (indeed) mean “man” — the whole human race. For that matter, as you might guess from this transliterated spelling, adam, it can also refer to one particular guy, Adam — with a capital “A.” Tricky. Of course, adding to the challenge is our own, English language. A living thing, it evolves. As it changes, words that used to mean one thing may come to mean something else. The word “man” is undecided at the moment: some say that it is now limited only to male human beings; others use it of the whole human race. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
