Translators who render “morphe” as “nature” are likely to fall short of KJV standards.

Of course ‘morphe’ in the Greek doesn’t mean a mere outward form of something, which is what the word form connotes in English (think ‘form’ as opposed to ‘content’). Paul is not saying God’s Son merely appeared in the outward form of a human being, he is saying the Son of God took on a human nature having already had a divine nature. And this is where translating the meaning of the Greek, rather than merely its literal form, is so much better for our understanding.
BW3

BW3,
This was great. I’m sure the 2011 NIV will be excellent.

i’m 2 weeks into a course in Attic Greek here at ASU, because i feel called to the ministry and want to be a competent exegete, and i’m already seeing the difficulties of doing direct translation into english.
but i suppose at my level, where i’m translating “Homer sends his brother to the market in the island” and “homer teaches the men in the house by means of word and deed,” that might be expected. but still, the fact that there are many words that simply don’t have equivalents, (and many of those that do have significant nuance that can’t be captured in english) is showing me just how monumental the competent translation of even book is!
on a side note, how far do you think i should go into attic greek before moving on to koine greek?

Leo I would not spend too long in Attic Greek, but if you can get some Hellenistic Greek that would be useful. You are quite right about the difficulties of translation. Many words and idioms have no direct equivalence in English.
Blessings,
BW3

Thanks for the post Dr Witherington. I did find it odd that the CBT claims that this is the first revision of the TNIV and yet in the intro to my TNIV Reference edition the note from the CBT states that the TNIV is a revision of the NIV! That aside I think this is great news. The TNIV introduced me to the NIV family of Bibles and is a great translation. I just wish they wouldn’t dump the tNIV all together.

I was discipled in, and have been in a Southern Baptist environment since 1973. I switched from KJV to NIV sometime in 1980 (’78 Edition) and updated to the ’84 Edition, then updated to the TNIV and loved it. Fresh, accurate (at least…more so) and honest(er).
I’m hoping for a TNIV with an NIV cover and title page. Maybe some few updates that would have been made to the TNIV anyway, correction of any typos and no gender language changes not mandated by the Hebrew/Greek text and modern mainstream American English.
If they “blow it” my only remaining options at the moment: are the NET and maybe the NRSV. (If the NLT 2nd Edition makes another major change – jumping to a Type 2 open resemblant translation from its current Type 3 close interpretive translation…I might consider it as well.)
As it is, I’ve ordered a “backup” TNIV Study Bible under an initial plan to stay with it until something really better comes along and I’m convinced.
Thanks, and have a great day!

Hi Darryl: I think you can be well content with what they will do. In the first place Doug Moo is well pleased with most of the TNIV, as am I, and in one conversation he suggested the new NIV will look like 95% of the TNIV. The TNIV was updated in small ways several times, and in fact the original NIV-I which was published only in the U.K. was only the first revision with the use of inclusive language. It was never meant to be published like that in the first place, but Hodder insisted.
BW3

thanks Ben.
i’m afraid i my have misunderstood you or you may have meant something else. this link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_dialects doesn’t mention hellenistic greek. isn’t that phrase kind of redundant? wasn’t the NT written in Koine greek?

Koine Greek is not Hellenistic Greek. You can see the differences from the koine already with Xenephon, and it becomes more pronounced in texts like 1-2 Maccabees.
Blessings,
BW3

I really like the TNIV and am afraid that the new version will “chicken out” on inclusive language because of the controversy and unfair attacks. Ben, you seem assured that that will not be the case. I hope so, but if there is any inclusive language I’m sure the same crowd from before will put pressure on stores not to carry it. Unless you think that most of those people (Dobson, etc.) realized that they overreacted and won’t jump on the bandwagon this time? Oh that Ephesians 4:3 were heeded more often…
God bless you,
Chuck Conti
Ps. I just picked up Henry Rack’s biography of Wesley. As someone whose first words reportedly were “John Wesley,” have you read it and would you recommend it?

Hi Chuck
Rack’s biography is not an encomium, but there is lots of good info in it, but I would say that it would be good to compare it to Skevington-Wood’s classic study, The Burning Heart, which is very moving. Look at the work of Ken Collins when it comes to Wesley’s thought.
BW3
P.S. I am sure the new NIV will do the right thing when the text warrants inclusive language (e.g. anthropos will not be translated ‘man’ when what is meant is both male and female human beings.

Yuckabuck,
I don’t know if your characterization of Dobson and those who carried out “unfair attacks” is intentionally misleading, or accidentally so… The Inclusive Language issue as it relates to the NIV-I and the TNIV simply isn’t that one dimensional. There are forms of “inclusive language” that Dobson and those that spoke against the TNIV support. Look up the Colorado Springs Guidelines for a taste.
Much of the primary impotus of objection to those translations was in lack of trust based on either careless communication or flat out dishonesty (depending on which story you find more plausible).
For a well rounded look at this, I could recommend three easy to read books (which I think will leave you with the same position on language inclusiveness, but prevent sweeping and misleading statements about the whole NIVI/TNIV opponent position):
Mark L. Strauss, Distorting Scripture?: The Challenge of Bible Translation & Gender Accuracy
Fee, Gordon How to Choose a Bible Translation for All Its Worth
D.A. Carson The Inclusive-Language Debate: A Plea for Realism
I really think that a careful and honest presentation of what is being disagreed upon, and focusing on the issue at hand rather than presenting charicature and strawman is best for any side of any debate, not least this one.

Thanks for these thoughts Dr. Witherington. Many of us devoted TNIV users are feeling pretty betrayed right now, but I hope we can hold out the same hope you have that in fact the 2011 NIV will indeed be 95% like the TNIV and that Zondervan won’t overule the decisions of the CBT for political expediency or financial gain.
How do you think the folks on the CBT may be feeling about this? Is this not a vote of no confidence against their work – or is it purely a financial issue on the part of Zondervan and not necessarily a slap in the face to the CBT scholars?
Also, would you mind sharing your thoughts about how the CBT chose to translate “sarx” in Gal 5 and other places as “sinful nature.” Many see this as problematic – if it is, what would be a good way for the CBT to improve this part of the translation?
Grace and Peace.
Brian Fulthorp

Here (Phil. 2:6) the literal translation is surely accurate. The “true meaning” of the Greek is in dispute. Why then should translators presume to go beyond plain accuracy to surely contentious and arguably tendentious interpretation?
The same word is used in 2:7, to say that Jesus took on the morphe of a servant. That a Jesus to whom an elevated, God-like status is being attributed would have the nature of servant would seem to present difficulties.
What I take to be a fairly standard lexicon defines morphe as “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision” and “external appearance.” Morphe seems to quite distinct from, even contrasting with, “nature.” One with the form and nature of God could easily take on the form of a servant. But how might one with the nature of God become one with the nature of a servant? In later centuries, Trinitarians regularly dealt such questions, to the satisfaction of many. That Paul, or those who conceived a hymn before him, had ever framed such a thought is open to question, and hardly settled by reaching for nature when only form is on offer.
Paul knew how to say “nature’ when he meant to. “We who are Jews by nature—physis…” Gal. 2:16
The Septuagint uses morphe in Jud. 8:18 to convey a notion of a man’s presenting the outward form, not the essential nature, of a king’s son. Is. 44:13 a carpenter makes on an idol in the morphe, the outward appearance, of a human being—but not the nature of a human being. Dan. 3:19 the king’s morphe, appearance, changed when he got angry—but not his essential nature.
English “nature” precludes the reader from seeing the possibility that Jesus is similar to Adam, who is also made in the form of God. It precludes her from seeing (as Paul arguably meant her to see) that Jesus chose a servant-like attitude and accordingly chose to die on the cross, an example to his followers. He may not merely have chosen to come to earth rather than stayed in heaven.
The ESV and the KJV, as well as the RSV, stick with the obvious, literal, “form.” That’s not just hefty tradition and authority, that’s leaving open hermeneutic possibilities the translators of the NIV presume to foreclose because they know what Paul meant despite what he said.

Do we know yet if they will continue to render sarks as “sinful nature” rather than flesh. That’s been my biggest gripe with the NIV for a long time. I’ve recently switched from the NASB to the ESV, and have been pleased with both the translation. The notes are good too, though I must admit that they lean too far towards Calvinistic and pre-millennial positions on key texts. As a member of the church of Christ, I’m always curious how new updates of popular Evangelical translations render Acts 2:38.

(not the same James, I swear, no schizophrenia)
“The “true meaning” of the Greek is in dispute”
Maybe a fairer way to say that would be that the word has a broad semantic range and context is critically important.
Generally I agree that a word that is vague or displays double (triple) – entendres in the original language should try to retain that in English. Sometimes that’s easier said than done.
What’s ‘logikos’ milk for example?
That’s where stated translation philosophy comes to play. That’s why having a robust translation commitee is so important. Iron sharpens iron. Most modern translations do a really good job of footnoting this type of issue, too. I really don’t see that a clear bright line between translation and interpretation is always possible.

You said: “P.S. I am sure the new NIV will do the right thing when the text warrants inclusive language (e.g. anthropos will not be translated ‘man’ when what is meant is both male and female human beings.”
Oh that this will be true!
Thanks again, Ben, for bringing balance and scholarship to the circus of ideas in the blogosphere.

Wow! Yet Another translation is on the way. Quoting and memorizing Scripture is becoming less likely by the day. The King James version is looking even more precious to me than ever before. What is the chaff to the wheat? Praise God for His awesome work! “Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.” Psalm 119:140

James, (the first one)
I have read Fee, Carson, and the Colorado Springs Guidelines (but not Strauss yet). Just because a person writes concisely does not mean that their understanding is “one-dimensional.” I did not say that Dobson was against all forms of inclusive language, or that others in the group were unaware of the nuances of the debate, so the charge of constructing a straw man is itself a straw man. I said the attacks were “unfair.”
It is a fact that some other recent (dynamic equivalent) translations have leaned towards inclusive language translations in various places, including the Good News Bible and the New Living Translation (eg. Romans 1:13), though I can’t say for sure that any of them go as far as the TNIV. However, it is safe to say that none of them have had the amount of negative publicity aimed at it as the TNIV had. I had a subscription to Christianity Today at the time of the TNIV’s publication, and it was a pretty big deal there. I don’t recall any other recent translation having had to declare a freeze on revision besides the NIV, and the CBT’s decision to do that came out of the attacks over inclusive language in the TNIV. (The firestorm sure wasn’t over the NIV’s translation of “sarx” or “morphe”)
When one translation is strongly attacked (such that some stores would not even carry it!), while others with similar translational choices are not, I call that a Webster’s style case of unfair:
“unfair”
Adjective
1. unequal or unjust
So, I don’t believe my characterization of the attacks on the TNIV was misleading in any way. Indeed, it was charitable. A truly heinous formulation would have sounded like, “Dobson, deceived by the enemy,” or “Piper, blinded by his sexism.” (Which are charges that I do not believe, by the way.) Or even, “Grudem’s one dimensional attack on the TNIV…” I do not claim to know the inner thoughts of TNIV opponents or what it is that motivates them. But in an objective analysis, comparing reactions to different translations leads to the conclusion that the attacks on the TNIV were “unequal,” and therefore “unfair.”
As you can see from several of the comments here, fans of the TNIV are concerned that another round of “unfair” attacks could derail something we enjoy and thank God for. Especially since Zondervan/ CBT seemed to cave last time when they froze the NIV. Despite Ben’s assurances, it is hard for us to know whether this “mea culpa” press release is acknowledging that freezing the NIV was a mistake- or that releasing the TNIV was the mistake. I hope Ben is right that it is the former.
God bless you,
Chuck Conti

Dr Witherington -
Thanks for discussing this issue. I am a pastor that switched a while ago to the TNIV from the NRSV because I felt that it finally closed some gender issues I always had with the NIV. I hope that it’s true that it’ll be 95% like the TNIV, and I hope they stick with the TNIV on issues like Romans 16. I do hope the committee understands that many of us evangelicals are concerned about certain gender-inclusive issues and they will not be swayed by the voices that are against gender inclusivity.
On a personal note, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your work. That’s hard to say: I am a NC State and Duke grad!

Great response Chuck, and thank you for the clarification.
All the same, I will circle back to my original statement.
” I do not claim to know the inner thoughts of TNIV opponents or what it is that motivates them”
That is why your claim of “unfairness” is flat. They have *stated* thier reasons. Strauss does a good job of laying out a timeline. The problems with the TNIV (and as it relates to the NIV-I) are specific to those translations, the publisher, the methodology, and the results.
Your refusal to examine the other sides substantive arguments and instead to make an “on the face of things” argument has truly led you to straw man. Truly.
I’m a BIG fan of inclusive language. I think CSG is a fairly good standard, but quite frankly, I am willing to swing all the way to the most extreme forms of gender inclusiveness (those that replace every male pronoun, with warrant or not), if that will allow someone with baggage and roadblocks to pick up the Word of God and know Him. (I’m also thoroughly convinced that by growth in the spirit and Christlikeness, such barriers will break down, and more mainstream bibles could be adopted by said people.)
Again, I think that Christian charity demands that we be fair and honest, and seek the truth on such matters. Fee and Carson lay out and argument that supports the side that you and I both agree with. Read Strauss. It will be illuminating.

James,
“Your refusal to examine the other sides substantive arguments.”
I did not make an appraisal of their particular arguments anywhere. What supernatural knowledge are you privy to showed that I had refused to ever consider the other sides arguments? I said that their attack on the TNIV was disproportionate to their response to other translations, and was therefore “unfair.” A “straw man” is one that does not match up to the actual “man” being critiqued. As you say, it is not good form to criticize someone without paying attention to their actual argument. I agree, and ask for same consideration.
I have read arguments on both sides, and followed all the press releases through Christianity Today at the time of the controversy. Let’s look as them, shall we?
First, the CBMW did not agree with the translation philosophy of the TNIV regarding inclusive language. That is the main issue of the “Statement of Concern of Evangelical Leaders,” as quoted here:
“We cannot endorse the TNIV as sufficiently trustworthy to commend to the church. We do not believe it is a translation suitable for use as a normal preaching and teaching text of the church.”
Fine. The CSG were drafted in response to the TNIV, among other things. You think the CSG are good. I do not. However, for a group to protest the TNIV over this issue alone more vehemently then it protested other versions would be unequal and therefore, by definition, unfair.
However, we are told that are extenuating circumstances with the TNIV. That Zondervan, the IBS, or the CBT engaged in “deceptive practices” regarding their intentions to revise the NIV. Ligon Duncan of the CBMW recently wrote this:
“The TNIV received significant criticism from the larger evangelical community both because of the way in which it was introduced to the Christian public (there was a widespread perception of lack of integrity in the process), and because of numerous controversial aspects to the translation itself.”
What would be a proportionate response to a group that you believe has published a book in a deceptive manner or at least in a way that is not entirely forthcoming? Demand an apology? State that you will not purchase said book? These are fair. How about organize a boycott? Accuse the other side of caving in to feminism? Put pressure on stores to not even sell it? The SBC considered rejecting the NIV because of their distaste with the TNIV, even though the NIV was fine before that. It is one thing to be upset with the publishers statements. It is another to take pains to try to prevent me from buying the TNIV itself. That is disproportionate, which is, by definition, unfair.
If we are on the playground and I think you have wronged me, I can seek an apology. But it is excessive for me to demand that no other kid on the playground can play with your ball. There are other kids on the playground that I do not agree totally with either, but I am not stopping others from playing with their ball. That would be, well, unfair.
You said, “Again, I think that Christian charity demands that we be fair.” I agree. And if it is uncharitable for me to call the TNIV protest unfair because it was disproportionate, then how is it o.k. for you to imply that I have been unfair when I purposely restrained my criticism to the word “unfair?” As I said, I could have instead ramped up accusations against the protesters such as that they were deceived by Satan or some other such nonsense that 1 Corinthians 13:5-7 precludes me from saying. That would have been unfair as well as un-Christlike on my part.
I am not quite clear how someone can say “I’m a BIG fan of inclusive language,” and also say, “I think CSG is a fairly good standard.” Someone who thought CSG were “fairly good” would probably think inclusive language might be “fairly good,” but I do not see how they (oops, I mean “he”) could be a “BIG fan.” Can you clear this up for me in a clear and non-patronizing way?
Thanks,
Chuck Conti

Sure thing Chuck, but first this:
” What supernatural knowledge are you privy to showed that I had refused to ever consider the other sides arguments? ”
I don’t need supernatural powers. I quoted you. I based what I said on that quote. The one where you said you have not examined what is open for examination.
You begin now, to get into what bothered people most about the publisher and the process, but it’s really just a scratch on the surface. I think you would agree that if someone does something wrong, and they apologize, then all parties should move on, but if that same party does the same thing, and in a way such that a reasonable person might extrapolate that they had deceptive intent with the first apology, then a second apology doesn’t carry as much weight, right? Whether you agree with that being the case or not, understanding it goes a long way towards understanding where the directed anger towards the TNIV (and NIV-I, it’s integral to the argument) publication as differentiated from other gender inclusive lanuages comes to play.
I believe I’ve given you a great resource to get primary sourced information on something you have clearly indicated is a blindspot. Beyond that, I feel that I can do no more.
As for CSG and my fanship of Gender Inclusiveness, I’m happy to answer that. Those guidelines affirm that original language instances where the original language is gender inclusive in meaning, and distorted to be gender specific in english may be (and I would say should be) translated into a gender neutral form. Tis and Adelphoi are good examples. The guidelines also affirm that there are specific male terms that have no gender neutral options in the original text, should retain their maleness (same for female, although that’s not really contentious, right?). Where the original language does not allow for gender inclusiveness, I think we get on shakey ground of inserting meaning that was never possibly there to begin with.
Guidelines A1 and B1 which have to do with maintaining the singularity of singular pronouns, I agree with, but preclude using “he or she” or “one” where context is ambiguous or even clearly allows this, I disagree with because it doesn’t not allow context to rule. I know that it’s awkard english, which is the main argument around those points, but I don’t really care too much.
As for being a BIG fan of gender inclusiveness along side of that… The average person, with some basis of knowledge on the context in which the scriptures were written, and a healthy respect for retaining language’s meaning and working with it as it is, then the above guidelines won’t wrinkle the forehead. There are a sizeable number of people who, for good reason or bad, are very sensitive to gender language. So, if printing a bible that obliterates the secondary (tertiary? further out than that?) issue of pronoun gender or explicit inclusion of sisters will help someone encounter the real and living God in the way that He has revealed Himself through scripture, then Amen and Amen! Shakey ground? If it really comes to it, we should be on not only shaking ground, but marching to the very gates of Hell to proclaim Christ and Him crucified. There is a lot of luxury shoulds and woulds that I will abandon so that people may know God unto the salvation of their eternal souls. I believe that the Word of God does not return void. I believe that God uses the reading and study of scripture to draw us close to Him. I believe that God can and will use that to heal the hurts that make gender issues so painful, making it a non-issue to those who are in Him.
I hope that answers it clearly and unpatronizingly. I can do little more than assure you that I have not intentionally inserted anything into this post (or a former one) that was intended to convey that. I hope you will take that at face value.

The other James this time, the one all hot and bothered about Philippians 2:6 and thereabouts.
This time, the underlying inclusiveness issue.
Paul worked with women well, greeted them and treated them respectfully. Possibly some of the “harder sayings” attributed to him aren’t really his.
Nevertheless, his preferred term for his colleagues and converts to Christ was “brothers.” Greek “adelphos.” Masculine.
It may be that some potential converts will be turned off by gender exclusive language.
And maybe Paul the converter, the all things to all people guy, would be glad to see himself rewritten.
But that’s what it is–a rewrite. It’s not a translation. Paul said “brothers,” period, and that’s what those who attach a special validity to this scripture are stuck with. A re-write can’t very well disguise the reality.
What’s more insulting? To translate what Paul said as accurately as possible? Or to suppose that those who read or hear his words can’t allow for when they were written, just as they allow for “Negro” or “man” said or written in 1963?

To James the First
“I believe I’ve given you a great resource to get primary sourced information on something you have clearly indicated is a blindspot.”
That is what I mean by patronizing.
And I am done with this conversation. It doesn’t matter what I say, you will believe that it is because of some deficiency in reading. I have read adequately, thank you kind sir. You have still not addressed my original argument and are on some kind of crusade to win a blog war. Have a nice day!
Once again, Dr. Ben, it is a privilege to interact with others on your website, and I thank you for the opportunity as well as the encouragement re the new NIV.
God bless you!
Chuck Conti

I said:
” I can do little more than assure you that I have not intentionally inserted anything into this post (or a former one) that was intended to convey that. I hope you will take that at face value.
”
And I guess the answer was, “not.”
I simply don’t understand how quoting someone, and directly responding to the clear meaning of that quote, is patronizing. I know Chuck is done with this post, but if someone else can explain it to me, I’d appreciate it. I guess I’m most shocked that I took a lot of time to reply thoughtfully to a direct question, and get a “thank you kind sir,” where the rest of the context just doesn’t support those words to be taken at face value.
I guess this is what really makes me so bothered by the way these discussions go. So many people are so hotly emotional and simply refuse to try to understand why the other side disagrees.
James The Second:
Here’s where you’ve got to be careful and distinct… Adelphos “means” brother. (I put “means” in quotations, because applying it’s not a technical term with precisely the exact same meaning every time it is used.) That is the singular form.
Adelphoi, can in fact “mean” brothers and sisters. No alteration from the original meaning at all. It’s present to the original hearers.
So then a whole lot of other questions come to play, which are neither here nor there, because you’re essentially right. Adelphos is a masculine form, and there’s a feminine singular word for sister available that is not employed. And I think you’re right in saying (if you don’t mind my paraphrase), that there’s an inherent problem with disguising that there is even a question of what the word at play is. “Translating” it as brother and sister involves certain elements of interpretation. And there’s a lot more that can be said about how do deal with that as well, but again, I think you’re essentially right. Obscuring is a problem that shouldn’t be ignored. But even if its not ignored… is it worth it?
Here’s the deal breaker for me: is that worth giving up, or obscuring in some way, in order that someone with a very unreasonble objection might read the unfolding revelation of God’s plan of salvation and ultimate revelation in the person Jesus who is the Christ?
(btw: I wanted to answer more specifically about the text you mentioned, but I believe that’s dealing with the morphe/form/nature problem. 2:25 refers to Epaphroditus as brother, but I don’t think that’s a verse of contention, at least I hope not!)

Ah, to my btw above. I see that you were trying to raise that back up to the top of dicussion, not insert that into the gender issue. My bad!
Hopefully someone can offer a solid commentary or two or three that brings that discussion into robust examination. I’m not really up on it, as I haven’t been forced to deal with that one.
I’ll try to remember to look into my TDNT when I get home, as that is where I often hit pay dirt on such issues of “can this word mean X and Y or just X?”

Well, with the information layed out in the TDNT for morphe, especially that related to Christ and morphe theou of Philippeans 2:6, I gotta say, that it’s not as clear cut as one would like.
There’s precident all the way back to Aristotle to conflate form and nature. That sort of usage falls out of popularity pretty quickly, but the LXX held onto it strongly, in that when the appearance of God is discussed, that’s the word used, but both Jewish tradition and scripture itself makes plain that God doesn’t have a physical form or appearance.
Here’s a good chunk of the TDNT entry:
“The wealth of the christological content of Phil. 2:6 f. rests on the fact that Paul does not regard the incomparable measure of the self-denial displayed by the pre-existent Christ in His incarnation merely as the opposite of the egotistic exploitation of what He possessed (→ I, 474) or as the surrender of His own will,55 nor is he concerned merely to emphasise the contrast between His eternal and temporal existence, His deity and humanity, but he brings out in clear-cut contrast the absolute distinction between the modes of being. Christ came down from the height of power and splendour to the abyss of weakness and lowliness proper to a slave, and herein is revealed for the apostle the inner nature of the Redeemer who is both above history and yet also in history. He did not consider Himself; He set before the eyes of those who believe in Him the example of forgetfulness of His own ego.
It may thus be seen that there is no trace of a Hellenistic philosophical understanding of ‘morphe’ in this passage,56 and certainly not of any supposed popular philosophical concept of ‘morphe theou’ == ‘ousia’ or ‘fusis’57 (→ 745). Similarly, what Paul understands by ‘morphe theou’and ‘morphe doulou’ is remote from the epiphany ideas of myth or legend. Christ did not play the role of a god in human form.58 Again, there can be no thought of a metamorphosis (→ 756) in the sense of Hellenistic belief or superstition. Paul does not speak of the exchanging of one’s own form for another; in 1 C. 2:8 the man Jesus is the ‘kurios teys doxais’. Materially, if not linguistically, the apostle’s paradoxical phrase ‘morphe theou’ is wholly in the sphere of the biblical view of God. ‘Eikon teh theou’ cannot be equated with ‘morphe theou’ (2 C. 4:4; Col. 1:15; → II, 395 f.).59 The image of God is Christ, while the ‘morphe theou’ is the garment by which His divine nature may be known.”
Kittel, Gerhard (Hrsg.) ; Bromiley, Geoffrey William (Hrsg.) ; Friedrich, Gerhard (Hrsg.): Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. electronic ed. Grand Rapids, MI : Eerdmans, 1964-c1976, S. 4:752
(I didn’t think the greek words would survive a copy/paste from TDNT, so I transliterated myself. I’m not accustomed to doing so, so my apologies if it’s a bit pedestrian. Hopefully it’s clear enough)
So, from my small bit of research, it appears there’s warrant to translate it either way, and it’s entirely possible that Paul had a double entendre with this. That’s surely makes for tough translation.

Will they continue to translate ‘alma’ as ‘virgin’ in Isaiah 7:4 to cover for Matthew?

Perhaps the most skilled and percipient (and surely the bravest and most heroic) of translators was William Tyndale.
Here’s his rendering:
Which beynge in the shape of god and thought it not robbery to be equall with god.
7 Neverthelesse he made him silfe of no reputacion and toke on him the shape of a servaunte and became lyke vnto men
8 and was founde in his aparell as a man.
Does it not seem that the weight of authority–of considered and informed judgment worthy of presumptive respect and deference– lies against “nature”?

Sorry, left out a 1. Meant to type: Isaiah 7:14

Having reprobated the TNIV for a non-literral translation that’s off the mark, I came on another that also differs from the competition but is to be commended. I’m thinking of Romans 16:7, in the TNIV, “7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.” First and in passing I’d commend the TNIV for standing firm in ranking Junia among the apostles, unlike the ESV which demotes Junia, in my opinion for reprehensible reasons. But to the point, where the TNIV stands apart is with “Jews” instead “relatives” or “kinsmen.” Jews is clearly what Paul means, and the TNIV conveys that meaning to today’s reader’s, whereas the other translations, though literally correct, are likely to leave them baffled. (Did Paul hae a distant cousin or something like that?)
Huzzah for the non-literal that conveys what’s (non-contentiously) meant!

Wayne:
No one is covering for Matthew. He is following the LXX at this point which indeed has parthenos at Is. 7.14 which most certainly can be translated virgin. In any case the word almah in an honor and shame culture implies the virginity of the nubile woman of marriageable age anyway. This is much ado about not very much.
BW3

(Other James)
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.
“ESV which demotes Junia, in my opinion for reprehensible reasons”
Can you elaborate on that? I’m unfamiliar.
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.
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.
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 “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!

God is NOT the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33). By having even 2 translations of the Bible in the same language says that God is the author of confusion, and His Word clearly states that He is NOT! You cannot serve two masters – you either serve the money-making publishers who produce copyrighted translation after translation, or you serve God. The NIV is full of errors, omissions, lies, removes the blood of Christ, the diety of Christ, the worship of Christ, and much more. This NEW 2011 version is Satan’s way of trying to kick the KJV (the true English Word of God) in the teeth. Are YOU as a follower of Christ going to accept yet another perversion of His perserved Word? Are YOU as a Christian, going to buy a Bible that removes Jesus’ diety and worship. God is NOT the author of confusion. Why oh why people, are new versions of His Word coming out all the time?? Why? These companies make MONEY from them. YOU give them MONEY for taking away the Words of God, YOU give them money for denying Christ. My friends, God has preserved ONE version of His Word in the English language, and that is the KJV 1611 version. Modern translations come and go, always being updated, new versions popping up and disappearing, but the KJV 1611 has been used for 400 years WITHOUT ANY CHANGE. It has brought millions and millions of people to Christ. If you have properly repented and accepted Christ’s finished work on the cross as the ONLY WAY you can be saved and receive eternal life now and in Heaven, then you do NOT need to have a version that’s “easier to read” or “reads the way I want it to read”. NO! The Holy Spirit is the author and resides inside you. He is the One who will open the Scriptures to you. We don’t need sinful man to do it for us. Please, please, please my friends, open your eyes to the TRUTH, and don’t buy into these lies that modern translators tell you. God bless you.

Tom, dear brother its sad to see that you are caught up in the kjv only movement .that scripture you quoted has another part to it “God is not the author of confusion but of Peace!.
let me make an emphasis on peace as running aroung with some dogmatic view of kjv olyism gives the devil pleasure to see , the kjv bible was and is not the purest form of the word of God Jesus is and anything that detracts from that is idle worship! stop exalting the kjv and go witness to someone in need what a waste of space this is dont you see the devil at work? while i like a majority text , over the textus receptus of the kjv and more than any of most of the mainstream bibles that use the alexandrian type text, it does not matter!!!!!!>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>in the light of eternity poor brother. lets look at the scripture:
>
King James Bible
1 In the beginning was the “Word”, and the “Word” was with God, and the Word was God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
the word is JESUS!!! stop touting this KJVonly nonsence and idolising the kjv!!! is has mistakes too! easter for example? in stead of passover? and im sure many others mistakes, if you preffer it fine but saving souls is what should be foremost on your heart after the LOrd himself should it not? because its the word of God but not THE WORD!!! which is JESUS who is able to enlighten the simplest souls is he not? he it is who that gives life to men JESUS so go preach to someone about the saviour and dont waste any more breath on this devil pleasing ,christian dividing, kjvonisms.
i love you but you need a smack.lol(relax its just humour)
Godbless Chris.

Tom, the KJV was revised 1n 1613 (400 changes), 1615, 1629, 1638, and 1762. the 1762 edition is the same text as the KJV printed today, and it is that edition, and not 1611, that you likely have in your possesion. Check the history of your favorite translation, sir.

Hi Tom
Did GOD tell you that the KJV bible is the most accurate and the only bible???
NIV is a modern and accurate translation. We live in a modern society now. You have to understand the english bibles are translated from Hebrew and Greek language.
God bless you

Politically correct commentary should be kept in the margins or study helps, not added to the text. The NIV changes are typical of man’s arrogance. By their own admission the gender-neutral changes are found
no where in the Gk. It bombed in 2005 under another name but they are determined to push it through. They say no version should be “culture specific” but they are now guilty of the very thing they claim they are trying to remedy, because we are supposedly in a gender-neutral culture. “Up-dating” language is one thing. Knowingly changing it is another. May God help you.

The KJV takes real work to fully understand God’s Word, but it is still my favorite. This KJV ONLY cause and the anger that always seems to go with it is a SICKNESS, created by the Devil and funneled through ignorant pastors and their ignorant flocks.
I like having other contemporary versions available to compare English translations because, YES, my precious KJV does contain some errors.
HOWEVER, having said all of the above. I WILL NOT be using the NIV 2011 IF they employ ANY gender-inclusive language. The NRSV was ruined for this very reason and so was the TNIV and the NIVI. Unless it’s some idiom that is totally foreign to English and our understanding, I want to read the REAL WORDS — no excuses or politically correct notions. This whole “PC” movement may claim good intentions, but it warps the truth in our world, attempts to control our thinking and our personal use of language and is in the end A SICKNESS ALSO.

Thank you so much for this. I’m looking forward to the new NIV. About a year ago I switched from the NIV to the ESV which I thought was “the wave of the future”. Instead I’ve come to the conclusion it has a definite political bias especially in the area of gender (and I don’t consider myself a “dyed in the wool” feminist. What do you think of the ESV?
You probably don’t remember me but you once upon a time endured my masters thesis so that I could complete my studies at Ashland Seminary.

Dear Ben,
In the above post you state…
“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.”
Can you elaborate? Which translations do you feel include denominational/theological bias and where could I read more about that?
Thanks.