man! I’ve kinda grown attached to my TNIV… What’s the problem with it?

Bummer, I’ll continue to stick with my NRSV, but I appreciated the tenure?albeit brief?of the TNIV.
Wes

Wes, brother, I think this can be looked at from several angles: economics (sales), theology (not worth fighting the inclusive debate in one translation), competition (ESV is doing well), and internal shifts (desire to streamline the NIV and TNIV process, bringing those readers together).
The comment by Doug Moo in the CT post is enlightening.

I believe this is the issue of “cozying up” to any particular translation or version of Scripture. This, I’m afraid, is another level of idolatry. Translation decisions are inevitable. That’s what study notes/footnotes are for. Weighing each of these difficult decisions is the job of the translator. The relative success with which the translator succeeds varies from era to era, from community to community. To eschew an entire translation and consider it a failure and the fact that it divided evangelical Christianity (I think I missed that entire debate) is troubling to me. May we humbly read the Scriptures knowing that our translations represent the best efforts of faithful people striving to understand the Word. And may we hold loosely to the translated Word and consider the text broadly so that we may receive some sense of the Word of God in Scripture.

Unbelievable! I was an avid defender of the TNIV for over four years. I guess I’ll be switching to the NRSV. I am deeply upset.

I have enjoyed the TNIV , but I use the NASB for study (specifically my Greek and Hebrew study). I heard very little as well about the divide in the Christian community over the NIV/TNIV translations. Curious, what translation do you most often use Scot?

Interesting, and Moo’s comment as well.

Maybe I should pick up a TNIV while I still can. I get a discount, so might as well.

I was an avid fan of the RSV, esp. in its faithfulness to the greek and hebrew texts, moved grudgingly to the NRSV (though I have since changed my opinion of it), find the TNIV a decent translation when I need to use scripture in a public setting, such as a sermon, etc.; sick of the NIV (esp. the culture wars being fought by Dobson, et. al.), and find the ESV too inconsistent to be used as a regular study bible.
I will have to withhold judgment on a revised NIV. I find the french translations (TOV, de Semeur) very good and wonder why the English translations don’t seem to work as well?

Wally, I use the TNIV.

This sounds alright to me. And I agree at least with what I think I understand with regard to the three mistakes the Zondervan official said that were made.
I’ll probably simply continue to use the TNIV until the NIV (2011) comes out. Then I’ll switch to it with no problem.

Scot, I thought you said at the NYWC that you primarily read from the Greek?

Since we are discussing John Walton’s book, I wonder if they will fix places in early Genesis where, as I understand it, iffy translations were used to maintain scientific concordism to match their idea of what Scripture is supposed to be like.
I’m thinking particularly of “expanse” rather than a word like “dome” for the solid firmament in Gen. 1:6, and “had formed” in Gen. 2:19 when I am told the “had” is an NIV insertion that would not be there except that leaving it out would make the order of material creation in Genesis 2 disagree with Genesis 1.

I think the TNIV was a mistake ? not the translation, but the name and the marketing. I think the TNIV should have just been the NIV (whatever-th edition). Of course, the treatment of gender was too much of a controversy for that to happen. Sales of the NIV would have plummeted after Dobson and Co warned their audiences away.
When the 2011 NIV is published, my guess is that it will have the TNIV’s corrected translations, but with the NIV’s gender treatment (no more “brothers and sisters,” etc.).

Joey, well, that’s true, but he asked which translation I use. I take the TNIV to class. I preach from the TNIV.

FWIW, I found a leather bound copy of the TNIV study bible on a clearance for $9 recently (and promptly bought it). I’ve noticed it slowly disappearing from the shelves of some of the christian book stores I occasionally peruse.

Scot – do you think the NIV 2011 will or will not include gender inclusive language? A new translation is all good, what is the slap in the face is the seeming backpedaling over the gender issue. Using marketing as an excuse doesn’t really solve that issue.

I assigned the TNIV for my first year Bible class until my department collectively moved to the NLT (which I really love for the course in question). If this move had not already been made, I would move my classes from the TNIV to the NRSV or the NLT. I simply would not assign a Bible that doesn’t use gender-inclusive language for people (where the original languages warrant this) and would not move to the 2011 edition of the NIV.

Forgive my pessimism but I too have wondered if they are bowing to the strong armed Evangelical community (i.e. Dobson) or is it simply a profitable marking move. Zondervan made a bazillion $ off the NIV, a good chunk of change from the TNIV and now a “compromise” to keep everyone happy?

I can tell you what this is… it is the Coke – New Coke mess all over again. Coke wanted to update Coke. So they did and called it New Coke.
People who were fans of Coke got upset. So Coke kept the Orginal Coke but called it Coke Classic. What happened to New Coke? People were not buying it even though it tasted good. So… now Coke Classic is not just Coke. Because of the STINK of some about the TNIV which I preach from and love, Zondervan focused on the NIV and didn’t do much with TNIV. So, IBS, knowing that the TNIV was not goint to take off because of the bad press is killing off TNIV and is going to make NIV an combo of NIV and TNIV. However which way are they going to go? Who knows?

@Carl #4
Amen!

I guess I’ll just keep using the NRSV.

I have heard no clear language from Zondervan or elsewhere whether or not this new NIV will include *any* gender-inclusive language. Is it truly a “compromise” as some are saying, or are they simply taking the updated scholarship from the TNIV and taking out the gender-inclusive language?
I really hate the idea of pandering to the conservative community on this one. Either the inclusive language is true to the original text or it is not…I think rationalizing the move based on divisiveness is weak.

I understand the original text contains both inclusive and exclusive language. There have been big ‘stinks’ raised from both sides. This seems to be true with everything I’ve seen from the ‘church’ people (and non-church) lately. Some demonize James Dobson et al. as evil while others see anything not KJV blasphemy from the pits of Hell. I think both are just a little too self-absorbed.
When are we going to figure it out?

It’s hard to believe this decision is about scholarship and not about concessions to cultural conservatives who fail to see the need for inclusivity in how we communicate the Gospel and the Word of God while remaining true to authorial intent.

It seems to me that the decision regarding the fate of the TNIV is analagous to what is happening in the present health care debate,dsad to say.Overall, the TNIV represents the best scholarship an evangelical translation has produced to date.
I use the RSV/NRSV, which I think is the best all-purpose English bible on the market in the so-called formal equivalence mode.For those who favor something more akin to the NIV in terms of translation philosophy,the forthcoming Common English Bible (CEB) may be an option.
http://www.ournewbible.com

Made Yahoo news…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090901/ap_on_re/us_rel_bible_translation

I don’t know much about the orginal Biblical languages, so when I was was looking at the TNIV I depended upon the reviews of the scholars who seemed to heap high praise for the TNIV. I started out with a basic version but the more I liked it I had bought more expensive versions and reckon that I must have spent the guts of ?70 (I’m from the UK) over the last 4 years. Now I don’t want to use a translation that the translators are now saying is not worth producing anymore. Note to scholars: be careful what you endorse!

Scot,
With reference to your addition – I have no doubt that the revised NIV will be an excellent translation. As I generally use the NASB “gender inclusive language” is not high on my radar screen as important and never has been (despite being female and egalitarian).
But can there be any doubt that the new revision will backpedal on this issue? It will be watched and compared closely by all those who “care” – all those who made a fuss about TNIV. Every instance will be noted.
I wonder what will happen with Romans 16:7? I am sure it will use Junia as all scholarship seems to require this – but will it then feel compelled to call her “well known to the apostles” as the ESV does, to make it clear that she could not be an apostle? The way this verse is translated is far more telling in my book.
And then we have the instances that AHH noted in Genesis as well – will the translation obscure the ANE cosmology in the text? Totally different issue of course. But both of these examples highlight the need to always be aware of translation bias.

The unheard complaint here is against CT. Doesn’t anyone think Ted Olsen overplayed the difference or magnified the “mistake” comment? When I read what Doug Moo says in the complete article, I have to wonder if the CT openning isn’t sensationalized. Moo clearly says it will be about 95% TNIV. That doesn’t seem worthy of any sensation.
If it’s 95% the same as the TNIV, I’m hunkering down on the idea that this will retain the gender-inclusive element of the TNIV.
So, TNIV folks like me, we just need to wait this one out. We got a very special uniqueness when Zondervan went from NIV to TNIV and it appears now they want to see the TNIV as what it really was: an NIV Bible. Slight revisions of the TNIV and calling the new version the NIV 2011 keeps them in a straighter line.

29,RJS,
In your opinion what is the correct translation of Romans 16:7? we named our daughter Junia and I’ve nicknamed her the Apostle.

Scot, I don’t know if you saw the CT Blog post a couple weeks ago about healthcare, but the original title of the post was “Mandating Euthanasia”. It was a sick bold faced lie about the proposed healthcare bill. After numerous complaints they changed it to “Will it hasten patients death?”, but then deleted critical (but appropriate) comments from the comboxes.
I’ve been brutally disappointed by CT this summer, and the spin they’ve put on the NIV/TNIV thing continues in that vein.

keith – I think that the text should read Junia – and outstanding or well known “among the apostles” and let the ambiguity stand as to whether this means the was an apostle or was only well known to the apostles. The need to remove the ambiguity present in the Greek text for theological reasons (because a woman cannot be an apostle) disturbs me.

What really troubles me is that this signals to the anti-TNIV folks that they “won.” And maybe they have, but it hasn’t been because of the quality of their arguments, but only because a small anti-female (and, perhaps, anti-change in general?) minority of Christians wield a lot of power, and know how to use that power rather destructively. I’m very disappointed.

My comment doesn’t seem to be showing up on your follow-up post, so I’ll post it here. If it ends up appearing there as well, I apologize for the double comment.
* * *
Scot:
My post was not sensational at all. It was a report on the news.
Yesterday’s news really was Biblica, Zondervan, and CBT saying they made mistakes in releasing the TNIV (and the NIVi). This news was a much bigger deal than saying “we’re going to update the NIV/TNIV.”
Bible updates happen all the time (though as I reference in my post, I do think an update to the NIV is more significant than the updates that have happened lately to the NLT, ESV, etc.) But you’ll remember during the1997-2002 debates that Zondervan, CBT, and IBS-SBL were adamant not just about the translation decisions that were made, but also the way in which the TNIV was brought to market.
In fact, the initial critique wasn’t just about gender. It was also about process. Remember World’s cover copy? Stealth Bible. For Zondervan/CBT/Biblica to now say they were not transparent and made a mistake in the way they released the TNIV is a significant admission. (Of course, the leaders of those groups are not the same as they were during the earlier debate, so it?s less personal that it might have been in earlier years.)
I would also say that the degree to which Biblica and CBT called the NIVi a mistake and a bad translation (“I don’t think any member [of CBT] would stand by the NIVi today,” Moo said. He also told me that the translation was rushed to publication without proper vetting.) Let’s remember that these groups had no less than John Stott brought out to defend the NIVi.
The NIV team has done a remarkable job in the last 24 hours of making an announcement that pleases both CBMW leaders and TNIV supporters. Kudos to them. But for me, as a journalist, my job is to explain to people the significance and context of the announcement.
Since we don’t yet know what will be in the 2011 version, the news for now is that Zondervan/Biblica/CBT are admitting mistakes that they have long claimed they did not make.
If you still disagree or think that I sensationalized the news, I’m eager to hear why.
Ted Olsen
Managing Editor, News & Online Journalism
Christianity Today

Yes, CT slightly sensationalized the story. Yes, Zondervan seems to be retrenching. We’ll have to wait for the NIV 2011 or further clarification to know how to respond to the new version. I admire them for going ahead with the TNIV. I regret the state of internal evangelical politics that has shaped so much of this story. I’ll resist the urge to rant and ask an immediately pressing question for me. I am in the midst of writing the volume on Hosea-Obadiah for the Brazos Theological Commentary series. Authors are free to choose their own translation. I have been using TNIV. Should I switch to NRSV? What about other projects similar to mine?

@Jonathan Wilson:
I think you should use the ESV, which is based on the NRSV, but moved closer to the source. I think a lot of Christian studies should use the ESV.

#37,
That’s a matter of opinion. A lot of those behind the TNIV would argue exactly on the point of whether the ESV is closer the original intentions of the biblical authors. I personally think the TNIV more accurately conveys those intentions to a modern audience, but we could go around the bend on this question and never come any closer to agreement, I expect.

Just a minor point: I read Leland Ryken’s book on the ESV “Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation” and gave it a real shot from 2003 up to now in 2009. I found that I more often referred to the New American Standard ’95 Update instead. The church I go to is basically an NIV church, so the TNIV was very welcome when I got my copy and I’ve been using it ever since…finally retiring my ’84 NIV. If the ESV hadn’t been a worse read than the NASB it might have stood a chance at replacing my NIV…a job which fell to the TNIV in the end.
Thanks, and make it a great day!

Hi. I’m just wondering, since I just invested in an expensive, TNIV study Bible, will there be any compensation from Zondervan. Or could I trade it in for the new NIV 2011? In a few years I’ll be the only one around with my discontinued TNIV!