To be honest, I was hoping that the upated NIV Bible would adopt the TNIV’s rendering at 1 Timothy 2:12. Well, it did.
However, this brought some criticism from Denny Burk of Southern Seminary. Mr. Burk begins his post:
“One cannot underestimate the importance of 1 Timothy 2:12 in the intra-evangelical debate over gender roles and women in ministry.”
Then follows up with:
“Sadly, the NIV 2011 reflects the latter approach [only a certain kind of teaching is prohibited] in its rendering, “assume authority.”
At any rate, Douglas Moo took the time to respond, citing a noted complementarian’s commentary as the source of “assume authority”:
As one of the NIV translators, let me just make four comments. First, as another post indicates, there is so much uncertainty about this key word that the accusation of “mistranslation” is simply not fair. Second, the rendering “assume authority” was actually taken from Bill Mounce’s commentary on the Pastorals; and Bill, as you will know, is a complementarian. Third, the footnotes were dropped in the updated NIV simply because the translators believed that “assume authority” could be taken in either direction. We often use this phrase in a neutral way (e.g., “When will the new President assume authority”?). Four, it is our intent to provide a translation that is faithful to the text, bowing to no particular theological agenda (in this case, neither “egalatarian” or “complementarian”). Our rendering of 1 Tim. 2:12 was sincerely intended as our best effort at rendering this very obscure word in a way that would not be driven by either theological agenda. (post & comments here, bold added)
Yeah, I too think this debate should be settled with this latest comment from Douglas Moo, especially when a complementarian’s rendering is the winner here.
And forget about Denny Burk’s: “There is a reason why countless articles and even an entire book have been written on the interpretation of this single verse.”
I say it’s time to move on…