While some would say religion and politics do not mix, it is clear that they have not been paying attention to what goes on in the Evangelical and broader Protestant world when it comes to a new English translation of the Bible. But it has always been thus. Willliam Tyndale, when he published his translation lost his life in the process precisely because of political decisions. The 1611 so-called King James Bible (better known as the Authorized Version in the U.K.) was absolutely the result of a political process, and was an attempt to standardize and control the English Bible (see e.g. Alistair McGrath's fine history of the King James Version).
And so it is not a surprise that there is now announced (as of Sept. 1, 2009) both a discontinuation of the TNIV and a new edition of the NIV as of 2011. The concern about the TNIV has been that: 1) the decisions made about the use of inclusive language were not consistently applied throughout the Biblical text and 2) therefore for this and other reasons this translation did not unite the Evangelical world, rather it was divisive perhaps to a degree or in a way that went well beyond the ripple caused by the NIV when it first came out (of which some 300 million copies have been sold making it one of the most important and biggest selling translations ever). It is no accident at all that the new NIV 2011 will come out exactly 400 years after the original KJV. It hopes to be the same sort of landmark publication.
Stan Gundry of Zondervan has kindly provided to me a link to a webcast about the 2011 NIV which clarifies these matters to a significant degree-- http://www.nivbible2011.com/
What I gather from this webcast is: 1) that inclusive language will likely be used in this new NIV where appropriate; 2) like the 1984 NIV (the date of the last significant edition and revision) the new 2011 NIV translation team is multi-denominational and involving both men and women but is also entirely Evangelical in its composition. It also has a concern that the NIV 2011 represent the world community of English-speakers, including of course places like India where the NIV has been enormously popular and influential. Tacitly what is being admitted is that freezing the revision process of the NIV was a mistake, as was the TNIV, at least in some regards.
What I am prepared to say is that Doug Moo, who is the chair of the translation committee is a thoroughly trustworthy and fine Evangelical scholar, and I am sure his committee will do due diligence as they produce this new translation. He is absolutely right that we need it not least because English is a living and rapidly changing language, thanks in no small part to English being the primary language of the Internet.
It also true as well that since 1984 Biblical scholarship when it comes to translation of particular texts has made some advances in our understanding of the original language text, which means that updates are needed for that reason as well. The real strength of the original NIV is that it successfully avoided denominational and theological bias (as did the TNIV, I would suggest), which is more than can be said for some recent popular translations.
Every translation of the Bible is of course already an interpretation of the Bible, however literally it may be rendered. On this and related matters please see my study The Living Word of God (Baylor). There are no infalllible English translations because there are no infallible English translators and there never have been. The inspiration came at the point of the revelation to the originally inspired authors who wrote in the Biblical languages not in a language that did not exist yet--- the King's English and its successors. Translators, alas, are lesser lights and are far from perfect. Hence the cry of the Reformation 'Semper Reformanda'-- always reforming does and should apply to translations as well as other things. God's blessings on Dr. Moo and his team. May the outcome be as postive and blessed as the original NIV.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
The "New" "New International Version"??? Curious that. So much for the dictum that not a jot nor a tittle shall (can?) be changed, eh?
Why do we 'need' so many versions at all? Which one is the right one? So confusing to an outsider.
James, I would say that an appeal to a single authority, even one who's work is to be greatly admired, is not the best way to approach such an issue. While William Tyndale certainly made a valid choice, and one that you particularly care for, that does not invalidate all other choices.
I DON’T APPEAL TO A SINGLE AUTHORITY (I’D APPEAL NOT JUST TO TYNDALE, BUT ALSO LANCELOT ANDREWES’ AND THE OTHER KING JAMES VERSION MEN, AND, THOUGH AT SOME POLITICAL COST, TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE RSV TRANSLATORS. I DON’T CONEND THAT AUTHORITY AND TRADITION ARE DECISIVE FACTORS, BUT ONLY THAT THEY DO WEIGHT THE SCALES A LITTLE (CREATE A PRESUMPTION), AND THAT IN THIS INSTANCE THEY’RE RIGHT.
"ESV which demotes Junia, in my opinion for reprehensible reasons"
Can you elaborate on that? I'm unfamiliar.
I THINK THE ESV AND A COUPLE OF OTHER TRANSLATIONS ARE INCORRECT--GET THE GREEK WRONG FOR UNPERSUASIVE REASONS--AND ARE MOTIVATED TO DO SO BY THE INCONVENIENCE OF (A) WISHING TO KEEP WOMEN FROM POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY IN TODAY’S CHURCH AND (B) RECOGNIZING THAT PAUL ACCEPTED WOMEN IN POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY.
As for the Jews and Kinsman issue, it occurs to me that you're now hitting from both sides of the translation problem and difficulty. On the one hand, you want morphe to take the more commonly literal meaning of the word. On the other, you want a common literal translation of a word to be replaced by a different word that you (almost certainly rightly) think it signifies, in this case Jew for Kinsman. It is important to note, there is a word to specifically signify Jew that Paul commonly uses.
TRANSLATION IS HARD. SOMETIMES LITERAL TRANSLATIONS ARE BEST ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, SOMETIMES NOT.
In both cases, you seem to have a strong desire to remove ambiguity, which I certainly sympathize with. The question is whether that desire should override other translation concerns. One translation concern is actually directly against it: to preserve ambiguity where ambiguity is present in the original language.
TO ME IT SEEMS THAT “NATURE” RESOLVES AMBIGUITY AND “MORPHE” RETAINS IT. THE NEW TESTAMENT CONTAINS THE MATERIALS TO SET THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE IN MOTION. I DON’T THINK IT ITSELF IS TRINITARIAN. I’D EVEN SAY THAT PAUL IS MORE PREACHER THAN HE IS AN EXPOUNDER OF DOCTRINE.
THE UNDERLYING CONSEQUENTIAL DISAGREEMENT HERE GOES TO THE ISSUE OF THE IMMINENCE OF THE PAROUSIA. IF JESUS IS COMING SOON, THE FINE POINTS OF HIS STANDING IN RELATION TO FATHER AND SPIRIT DON’T MUCH MATTER, AND PAUL WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN MUCH CONCERNED ABOUT THEM, THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN HIM WILL SOON SEE HIM AT WORK IN THEIR MIDST, AND KNOW HIS STATUS BY WHAT HE DOES.
When that is done properly, it preserves what the original language "says" and allows us to robustly discuss what it "means". Now obviously some translation commities fall further to one side or another between them, but to say that any translation which isn't clear and unambiguous in english is a bad one, ignores both that there is a legitimate continuum on which tranlators work, and that the original language itself was ambiguous.
THE REASON TO RETAIN ‘FORM’ AND REJECT ‘NATURE’ HAS LESS TO DO WITH AMBIGUITY THAN IT DOES WITH THE ABSENCE OF GOOD REASON TO GO BEYOND THE LITERAL.

My goodness, I've been using the TNIV and the NLT for several years now. What next?...the 2012 updated NCV?...oops, we won't be around after 12/12/12 to need another translation. :)
Always loved the NIV, but it's gotten a little long in the tooth for me, in trying to relate it for my kids. I've tried some of the "modern" translations, but for scripture memorization, I'd really like a longer-term version. A revised NIV, something that updates th '84 edition without significant revision, would be welcome. Did not like the N-NIV. Nice to see someone working on getting back to the NIV's roots.
Sorry -- this is purely from a pragmatist perspective. I'm no Bible scholar like some of the respondents here.
When will they finally update the NKJV if any translation needs an update that's the one!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.