Who's Telling the Old, Old Story?: Women in the Story of Redemption

Our sense of the biblical story is shaped by who has told us the story. Our narrators have lingered over particular details. They've skipped over others. We see what they tell us to see. As a consequence, sometimes the truth is right under our noses, but we've missed it entirely.

I know this because my students tell me so. Last night at an event on campus, a few of my students told me what a huge difference it makes to have a Bible class with a woman. They are hearing different things. The text is framed in fresh ways. 

It's the same text, of course. The truth is still the truth. I bring nothing new to the Bible except a new set of questions to investigate what has always been there. The text yields different answers when we ask different questions. 

Is the Bible good for women? Whose has power in this story? Who is doing the telling? Where are the women?

I have not always asked these questions. I was already in my 40s the first time someone asked me to read the Bible as a woman. I'm not new to biblical studies. I attended a private, Christian school with regular Bible classes from Kindergarten through high school graduation. Then I headed to Bible college for four years of robust training in engaging the biblical text, followed by five years (part-time) in seminary and five more years (full-time) in graduate school, where I earned a PhD in Biblical Theology with a concentration in Old Testament. I had a grand total of one female instructor for a Bible class, a grad student who worked under the male professor of record (both of whom were wonderful). I was blessed to have two female Bible scholars on my dissertation committee, but I never had a class with either of them. I have never studied theology with a woman professor. Only once in all these years of school (that I can recall) did a Bible or theology professor ask me to read a book written by a woman. 

Then suddenly at 43 years of age in the space of a few weeks not one but two Christian publishers asked me to contribute textual notes for women's study Bibles. I have never read a woman's study Bible. I wondered whether women even need their own Bibles. But as I prayerfully considered these opportunities, I felt the Spirit of God nudge me to say "yes" to both projects. I'm so very glad I did.

Both projects -- one for Tyndale House and one for Lifeway -- envisioned a Bible that would meet women where they are, addressing their questions and concerns and helping them encounter God in a fresh way. It was a powerful experience for me to return to the pages of Scripture with this goal in mind. What will women wonder when they read this text? What will bother them? What will encourage them? How do women contribute to the storyline of the Bible? How does this text call women in particular to respond faithfully?

I have always held a high view of Scripture. I believe it is the word of God for the people of God. I believe it is inspired and authoritative. I believe the Spirit of God works through Scripture as we read and helps us to respond to it. I even believe that the meaning of the Bible is tethered to the author's intent. However, as I read Genesis and Exodus with these new questions in mind, I noticed things I had never seen before. I encountered God in powerful ways. I wrestled more deeply, and as a result I came away with a deep conviction that the Bible is good for women. When we only ever hear the Bible taught by men, whose questions and contexts are in some ways different than those of women, we risk not seeing the whole picture.

Intentionally reading the Bible as a woman and for women felt like finally slipping into an outfit that fit after a lifetime of hand-me-downs that were too tight in some places and baggy in others and which didn't quite match the rest of my outfit. I began to wonder if I needed to write a whole book about the experience. After all, since most pastors are men and most sermons are by men and most Bible teachers are men, a lot of other women (and men!!) might be missing out on these insights, too. 

About that time, I sat down to read Kat Armas' book Abuelita Faith: What Women on the Margins Teach Us About Wisdom, Persistence, and Strength. I read it because not only do we have a lot to learn from women, we have a lot to learn from the global church. 

As her website explains, 

"Kat Armas, a second-generation Cuban American, grew up on the outskirts of Miami's famed Little Havana neighborhood. Her earliest theological formation came from her grandmother, her abuelita, who fled Cuba during the height of political unrest and raised three children alone after her husband passed away. Combining personal storytelling with biblical reflection, Armas shows us how voices on the margins--those often dismissed, isolated, and oppressed because of their race, gender, socioeconomic status, or lack of education--have more to teach us about following God than we realize."

Writing as a Cuban-American woman prompts Kat to ask a different set of questions of the biblical text. She invites us to listen in and pay attention to a broader range of voices and experiences in the biblical text. Her book is magnificent. I closed it and said, "I don't need to write the book. Kat has already done it!"

Armas amasses mountains of evidence that God calls and equips women. God honors women. God commissions women to participate in kingdom work. For Armas, the biblical narrative disrupts the status quo and points to women on the margins as a source of wisdom, persistence, and strength. Not only does Kat write beautifully, she exegetes Scripture faithfully and calls the church boldly to turn our gaze outward and learn from new voices. I'm so grateful for her work and  I'm excited to share it with my students. 

The Bible is good for women. I'm finally learning to articulate how and why.

 

Mary Comforts Eve,
by Elizabeth Rubio (prints available
by contacting the artist directly)

I'll leave you with an image painted by one of my Latina colleagues. Elizabeth Rubio reinvisioned the famous painting by Sister Grace Remington. She was selling prints at the event yesterday evening on campus, an event to celebrate Women's History Month. How appropriate!

Women are an integral part of the story of redemption. Eve's partnership with Adam in tending the garden of Eden illustrates one of the roles to which women are called. Eve's subsequent rebellion, for which she was personally held accountable, affirms the agency of women and underscores that our choices matter. Mary's willing submission to God's work suggests that women have not been written out of the story. God chose a woman to birth and nurture the Savior. From the cradle to the cross and from the ascension to the pouring out of the Spirit, Mary stands as a model for all believers, inviting us as participants in the kingdom of God.* 

Gender isn't everything, but it's something. We can rush past these women and many more, but if we do, we're missing out on part of God's beautiful story of redemption. Let's listen to new retellings of the old, old story and see what we might have missed.

*For more on Mary from an Evangelical perspective, see Amy Beverage Peeler's impressive new book, Women and the Gender of God (Eerdmans, Fall 2022).

Best Books on Historical and Cultural Backgrounds of the Bible

Although I had already been through four years of Bible College, in seminary a whole new world opened up to me. As an undergrad I developed a deep committment to reading the Bible as literature and on its own terms, without the potential distortion of outside sources. This was a wonderful season of training for me as I became sensitive to the literary contours of biblical stories.

In seminary, under the guidance of different professors, I discovered the value of studying the historical and cultural backgrounds of the Bible. Here's why: the Bible did not drop from the sky, leather bound, with our names embossed on the cover. Reading the Bible is a cross-cultural experience. We are guests in an ancient context, where people speak other languages, where people's hopes and dreams are profoundly shaped by their own contexts, and where society as a whole operates under different values and assumptions. 

In order to be competent readers of Scripture, we must attend to the contexts in which is was written. Every passage has a literary context, a historical context, and a theological context. Neglect of any of these dimensions results in a "flat" reading. In particular, if we ignore the historical context of a passage we run the risk of distorting it. Without interrogating our own cultural lenses, we are likely to impose modern values and assumptions on the text. I see this happen all the time in class, as students encounter stories that strike them as strange.

This is why I'm particularly passionate about training students to attend to both the literary and historical dimensions of the text. We practice developing skills in narrative and poetry analysis and we also consider the historical and cultural contexts of the Bible. We live in a wonderful era in which resources are more readily available than ever before! 

Here are five resources that I find myself repeatedly recommending:

The Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible - Available in the NIV, NRSV, and NKJV translations, this full-color study Bible includes a wealth of information at your fingertips, right where you need it when reading the Bible. It is not designed as a devotionally inspiring study Bible, but a reference tool to help readers understand the cultural context of Scripture. I require it for my Bible classes so that students have a solid resource for a lifetime of study.

The Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary - This is a more extensive (and of course, more expensive) resource than the study Bible above, with full-color photographs, charts, and insightful notes on every book of the Bible. Every church library should have this resource on hand for Bible studies and sermon prep.

The Dictionary of Daily Life - This gem is a more recent addition to my library that I've already used many times. It contains an alphabetized collection of articles on aspects of daily life in ancient Israel (and the Greco-Roman world). For example, if you're studying Exodus 2, you could read articles on Bathing, Midwifery, Infanticide, and Adoption. The articles are well researched and written.

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery - This tool is more on the literary side of things (rather than historical/cultural), but it helps with precisely those images that are unfamiliar to modern readers. For example, if you're reading along in Daniel and want to know the significance of the beasts with horns, you could read the article on "horns" in the Bible. Each article traces the use and development of a particular image across the biblical canon, with sensitivity to cultural context.

Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament - I read this book in graduate school while taking a class on ancient Near Eastern Backgrounds with John Walton. It was immensely helpful in reshaping my imagination so that I could see what ancient people cared about. It's written for graduate students read, but even if you're not in school, if you're serious about understanding Bible backgrounds, it is well-worth your time.

If this list is two long for you, then I'd recommend this dynamic duo which should prove helpful no matter what part of the Bible you are studying: The Dictionary of Daily Life and The Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible. Both are well worth the sticker price, and both are currently on sale.

does the new NIV distort the Scriptures? - part 7

In a time where questions of gender, identity, and sexual orientation are at the forefront of public policy and public discourse, it's understandable that gendered language would be a sore spot for Evangelicals. In this last post of the series, I'd like to share the two reasons why I applaud the NIV translation committee for their decision about gender inclusive language. Both are a matter of mission.

(1) One principle that guided the CBT (for the NIV) in their revisions is the international nature of the English language. It is no longer adequate to consider only patterns of English language usage here in the United States when deciding what best communicates the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek. People all over the world are speaking English and will be using our best-selling translation. Therefore it is imperative that we consider international patterns of English use when translating the Word of God. Some of the changes in the new NIV were made in this spirit.  

While the average American over the age of 40 might be comfortable with masculine pronouns in gender neutral situations, this is not the case worldwide, as people’s first languages exhibit a variety of grammatical norms. We dare not put stumbling blocks in the way of those around the world who are encountering Christianity for the first time. If a passage is directed to everybody, not just men, then it is increasingly important that we make that clear in our translation using gender neutral pronouns.

(2) The second factor to consider is (for me) closer to home. I am raising three children in a country where it has become bad taste to use masculine pronouns to address mixed groups. In most academic institutions, Wheaton College included, the use of masculine pronouns in written assignments to refer to humankind or a person in general is actually against school policy. People are certainly entitled to their own opinions about whether this is a good thing. Every generation brings changes to the English language that grammatical sticklers will not appreciate. But the point is that this is the reality in which we live. Our children are being educated in a context where they are not hearing masculine pronouns used generically. As a result, it does not sound natural to them—instead the Bible sounds archaic or misleading. Do we want to persist in using Bible translations that are confusing to them? We are losing young people in droves because they perceive that the church is out of touch. This is one simple adjustment we can make for the sake of mission.

If I thought that the Committee on Bible Translation had sold the farm, I would not embrace the new NIV. If I thought that they had capitulated to a liberal agenda, I would not encourage individuals and churches to "upgrade" their pew Bibles. That is not the case here.

Several years ago Wheaton College created a policy on gender inclusive language. It reads,

"For academic discourse, spoken and written, the faculty expects students to use gender inclusive language for human beings."

School administrators go on to explain the missional motivation for this policy:

"The college seeks to equip students for service in the world for Christ. Students need to be ready to communicate in that world. We want our students to succeed in graduate school, in the corporate world, and in public communication, all settings in which gender inclusive language for human beings is expected and where the inability to use such language may well be harmful to the Christian witness."

For me that's the bottom line. A good English translation of the Bible must be based on solid biblical scholarship and able to communicate that biblical truth effectively to the wider culture. In my opinion, the new NIV fits the bill.

does the new NIV distort the Scriptures? - part 6

Are you with me so far? I've attempted to answer a number of objections to the new edition of the NIV by explaining why scholars felt the translation needed updating. I've given some examples of how these principles have worked out in practice. I hope that it has been helpful.

Now we have come to the real rub: pronouns. In reality most of the other concerns raised about the NIV would apply equally to the 1984 version as to the 2011 version. The greatest controversy with the new NIV has revolved around gender-inclusive language. The outcry is actually a holdover from the Committee on Bible Translation's 2005 release, known as "Today's New International Version," which met with so much opposition it was pulled from the shelves. For the new NIV, the committee thoroughly reevaluated every verse affected by questions of gendered language, taking a more moderate approach.

I need to make one thing clear from the get-go: the NIV has not changed pronouns referring to God. As the Committee on Bible Translation explains,

"Nowhere in the updated NIV (nor in the TNIV, nor in any of the committee discussions leading up to either version) is there even the remotest hint of any inclusive language for God. The revisions solely surround inclusive language for mankind." (from "Updating the New International Version of the Bible: Notes from the Committee on Bible Translation," page 4, emphasis theirs)

However, in many places they have changed pronouns (and even nouns) that refer to people. "Forefathers" has usually been replaced by "ancestors." "Brothers and sisters" often appears where the text used to read only "brothers." The committee based their decision to do this on twin considerations:

1. Concern for Accuracy. The translators wanted to be sure that when the original languages were intended to refer to anyone, regardless of gender, that sense was clearly conveyed in English.
2. Concern for Communication. The committee asked Collins Dictionaries to undertake an extensive, independent study of recent publications (including sermons) in English in order to track patterns of language use over a 20-year span. They wanted to ensure that the finished translation would clearly communicate using current English idiom to avoid misunderstanding.

Here’s a simple example:

“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matthew 16:24; KJV).

Is Jesus speaking only to men? Is following Jesus something that only men are qualified to do by virtue of their gender? The KJV gives this impression to those who are not accustomed to generic use of masculine pronouns. As a result it miscommunicates the meaning of Scripture. The Greek does not use the word “man.” It simply has a generic pronoun (τις) that happens to be masculine in gender because first-century Greek was a gendered language where masculine pronouns were used in mixed gender situations.

The previous edition of the NIV recognized that this was misleading, and translated it according to the conventions of the English language in 1984:

“If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” (NIV 1984)

The new NIV, based on the Collins' research project, uses gender-neutral plural pronouns with a generic, singular subject. Grammatical constructions such as this one occur three times more often in current English discourse then the masculine singular forms once advocated by our middle school English teachers. Here's how it sounds in Matthew 16:24:

"Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me." (NIV 2011)

Is this changing the Word of God? Is this twisting the Scriptures? Or is it ensuring that the current generation will be able to understand the Word as it was intended? I vote for the latter option.

I've tried to give you a sense for the considerations that motivated the translation committee. In my last post of this series, I'll tell you why I think this is critically important. Stay tuned!

does the new NIV distort the Scriptures? - part 5

Today I'm tackling the second part of an accusation against the NIV translation of the Bible. The first (which was part 4 of this series) addressed the issue of single words being changed, such as "Jehovah." What's more, some Christians are deeply concerned that the new NIV has removed entire verses from the Bible.

In a way, they are right. If you compare the KJV to the NIV, you'll discover that some verses have dropped out. But the important question is WHY?

Is this an attempt to take out statements that are uncomfortable or to water down the message of Scripture?

In a word, no.

Those who translated the Bible into English in the early 1600s did the best they could with what they had, but since then hundreds of other ancient manuscripts of the Bible have come to light, including those known as the "Dead Sea Scrolls." These manuscripts are much older than those available to the translators of the King James Version, sometimes by a thousand years, and in many cases they preserve a more accurate biblical text.

"The Shrine of the Book" at the Israel Museum,
where some of the Dead Sea Scrolls are housed
Photo: D. Camfferman

The process of discerning which manuscript is better is called "textual criticism" (not because it's "critical" of the text, but because it's trying to determine the "critical" text). The goal of most textual critics is to reconstruct the oldest and most accurate text possible by identifying and removing any mistakes or later additions.

Those responsible for the translation of the NIV (the Committee on Bible Translation) want you to be confident that you hold in your hands the Word of God, not a text filled with well-intentioned additions— however "true" they may be. In some cases, a word, a verse, or even a whole paragraph was added to the text at some point in history in order to clarify the meaning or harmonize a text with a similar passage in another book. This is especially common in the Gospels, where multiple books recount the same event. Either by accident or on purpose, scribes would fill out the shorter text with details from the longer text.

The NIV translators carefully examined the manuscript evidence. In cases where a new (older) manuscript suggested that a verse was a later addition to the biblical text, they chose to eliminate it.

Here's an example:

Matthew 18:11 (NIV) - Photo: C. Imes

In the KJV, Matthew 18:11 says, "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."
In the NIV, there is no verse 11. Instead, a footnote reads, "Some manuscripts include here the words of Luke 19:10."
Sure enough, Luke 19:10 reads, "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."

Luke 19:10 (NIV) - Photo: C. Imes

In other words, even without this statement in Matthew 18:11, no theology has been lost. The truth that Jesus looks for and saves sinners is still in the New Testament. In the cases where a verse does not appear elsewhere, it was never supposed to be there in the first place. Thankfully, no doctrines of consequence rest on those verses.

Ironically, as with this example, many of the "missing" verses listed by concerned readers are found elsewhere in the Bible. Think with me here. If the NIV translators were trying to change the Bible, they didn't do a very thorough job.

For Zondervan's answer to this question (a shorter version of what I've said above), click here.

I've saved the most controversial objection to the NIV for last. Stay tuned!

does the new NIV distort the Scriptures? - part 4

A few minutes trolling around online will produce dozens of websites warning you about the dangers of the NIV.

Here's a quote from one of my "favorites":

"Did you know that it was written by Zondervan and they are OWNED by Harper Collins, who also publish The Satanic Bible, and the Joy of Gay Sex. NIV has removed 64,575 words from the Bible including Jehovah, Calvary, Holy Ghost and omnipotent to name but a few . . . NIV has also removed 45 complete verses."

In my next post I will respond to the more serious charge, that the NIV "removed" verses from the Bible. But first let me set the record straight:

Zondervan chooses the binding and
style of the NIV Bibles they print,
but they are not involved in the
translation (Photo: C. Imes)

1. Zondervan is a reputable Christian publishing house, fully staffed by evangelical believers, and it continues to produce some of the finest resources available for Christian Bible study today. Yes, it was bought by HarperCollins, a secular publishing house, but Zondervan retains full control of the editing process and employs believing scholars to do this work. The content of books published by the parent company in no way affects the quality or accuracy of Zondervan's publications. 
2. Even so, Zondervan did NOT "write" the NIV, nor did they translate it. The work was done by a team of Christian scholars (the Committee on Bible Translation, or CBT) working under Biblica according to the wishes of the original translation team. Zondervan simply makes the CBT's translation available to the wider world, choosing the binding, the size and color of the font, and the formats in which it will be printed.
3. If a word appears to be "missing" from the NIV, it has disappeared for one of two reasons. Either the translators felt that a different word would more accurately convey the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic text, or the translators determined that a word or words did not belong in the translation because the best ancient manuscripts did not include it. 

The word "Jehovah" is a good example. No such word exists in Hebrew. God revealed his personal name to Moses in Exodus 3:14. We can be confident that the consonants of that name are YHWH. (This is sometimes called the "Tetragrammaton," because it is made up of just four letters). However, scholars are not exactly sure which vowels were used to pronounce his name. Ancient Hebrew was written for centuries with only consonants. [Ths snds crzy bt w cn rd wtht vwls n nglsh s wll]. By the time helpful scribes decided to add dots and dashes to the Hebrew text to indicate the proper vowels (long after the time of Christ), pious Jews refused to pronounce God's personal name out of reverence. For that reason, when pious scribes added vowels to the name YHWH they deliberately used the wrong vowels so that no one would accidentally say God's name out loud. The vowels were intended to remind people to say "Adonai" (Lord) or "HaShem" ("the Name") in place of YHWH.

Some time ago, Bible scholars who did not understand this convention tried to pronounce God's Hebrew name by reading what they saw in the text -- the consonants YHWH, and the vowels meant to signal Adonai. The result was a nonsense word -- Yehowah, or Jehovah. Scholars since figured out their error, but not before hymns, churches, and even whole movements (like the "Jehovah's Witnesses") had employed the erroneous word. No one is absolutely sure how the consonants YHWH were to be pronounced. It might have been Yahweh. Another possibility is Yahu. We just don't know.

Exodus 3:15 (NIV)
Photo: C. Imes

Since the pronunciation is uncertain, most English translations have chosen to render the Tetragrammaton with four uppercase letters in English: LORD. Whenever you see that in your Bible, you can be sure that the Hebrew behind it is God's personal name, YHWH. If you see "Lord," then it's translating the Hebrew title that means "lord" or "master": Adonai.

So, did the NIV "remove" the word Jehovah from the Bible? Not exactly. They just chose to represent the Hebrew name YHWH in a different way. In my next post, I'll tackle the other part of this accusation -- that the NIV removed dozens of verses from the Bible.

does the new NIV distort the Scriptures? - part 3

In the first post in this series, I suggested that English translations need to be updated occasionally because some passages become ambiguous or misleading as the English language changes. In my second post, I gave an example from Psalm 1.

Today I'd like to approach the language question from another angle. Because not only does the English language change, but ancient languages change, too.

What?!?

Since the King James Version was first translated, whole libraries of ancient texts have been unearthed from the time of the Bible. In the past 100 years, "new" ancient languages have even been discovered! These texts are written in Akkadian, Ugaritic, Hittite, Phoenician, and other languages closely related to Hebrew. They are helping scholars understand the Bible better than ever before.

In the past, translators have often had to guess at the meanings of Hebrew words that occur only once or cultural concepts that seemed obscure. Sometimes they still do. But ironically, we understand the ancient world better now than ever before, thanks to these discoveries and the scholars who have devoted their lives to pouring over them. Hebrew dictionaries are getting better all the time. Now translators can compare with other texts and in some cases the meaning of a biblical term or concept becomes clear.

If you notice a significant change in a newer translation, there is a good possibility that this is why. Ancient copies of the Bible didn't come with a glossary attached. Translators have to work hard to understand the sense of a Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek word and then search for a good way to say it in English.

Occasionally, a discovery will impact a passage that is known and loved by so many people that the translators are in a tough spot. Should they use what they now know of ancient languages to offer a better translation? Or will "changing" this verse make people suspicious of the new translation because it is different from what they know? Call this "pastoral concern" or call this "politics" or call this "good business." The fact is that if people won't buy it and read it, the best translation in the world is useless. The committee has had to make some tough calls, because sometimes some of the best-loved verses are most resistant to revision.

Take Psalm 23 for example. Though I grew up reading the NIV, I'm old enough to still have the KJV echoing in my head.

"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil, for thou art with me . . ." (Psalm 23:4a, KJV)

The old NIV updated the English only slightly by removing "yea" and "thou." Hebrew has no special pronouns for deity, so why use them in English when we no longer talk this way?

"Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil, for you are with me . . . " (Psalm 23:4a, NIV 1984)

But the new NIV "tampered" with something much closer to the hearts of many:

"Even though I walk through the darkest valley,
I will fear no evil, for you are with me . . ." (Psalm 23:4a, NIV 2011)

What happened to "the valley of the shadow of death"?! That's the best part of the psalm!

If you look closely, you'll find that it's been moved to the footnotes, where it says, "Or the valley of the shadow of death." But the scholarship behind this shift isn't brand new. If you check the footnotes of the older NIV, you'll find that it says, "Or through the darkest valley." In other words, the translators have been aware of another way to translate this word since at least 1983. But perhaps they didn't feel we were ready for the change.

The Hebrew word behind this is צַלְמָוֶת (tsal-mavet). Can you find it in this picture of Psalm 23 from my Hebrew Bible? (hint: it's in the last line of Hebrew text, just above the number 2671.)

It's a compound word, and if you break it apart the two parts mean "shadow" and "death" respectively. But keep in mind that many compound words don't hold their meaning when you break them apart. Have you ever seen "butter" "fly"? Then you get my point.

In this case, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, known as the Septuagint, rendered the Hebrew צַלְמָוֶת as two words in Greek meaning "shadow" and "death." Perhaps their Hebrew was rusty and they didn't know this word. But now we do. According to The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament צַלְמָוֶת  means "gloom," or "an impenetrable darkness." They attribute the translation "shadow of death" to "folk etymology."

(To complicate matters, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew still considers that the word could mean "shadow of death." In other words, scholars are still working on this one. And each translation committee will have to use their best judgment.)

What grieves me about the misinformation floating around cyberspace about the NIV is that it is often based on fear rather than solid study. The good scholarly work of those who updated the NIV is rejected because people who are not trained to evaluate a translation blow the whistle. Their good intentions (protecting the Word of God) inhibit the majority from having access to the best translation possible. Do us all a favor. Don't be that whistle blower. Do your homework.

does the new NIV distort the Scriptures? - part 2

Last week I suggested that our English translations need to be updated from time to time because as our language changes, familiar biblical passages lose their ability to communicate. Here's a real example from a recent adult Sunday school class at our church. The passage "sounded right" to me because I've heard it all my life, but to a friend the wording was very misleading in English:

We were reading Psalm 1:

"Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
or sit in the seat of mockers." (v. 1, NIV 1984)

A well-educated and spiritually mature man across the room spoke up. "I have never understood why the righteous are not supposed to 'stand in the way of sinners,'" he said. "Why shouldn't we try to keep them from sinning? Are we just supposed to let them self-destruct?"

It took a few moments for this to sink in. Finally I got it. He was reading this line with the English idiom in mind, "stand in the way," which means to block someone from getting somewhere or doing something. The Hebrew means something else entirely. It's saying that we'll be happier of we don't hang around ("stand") on sinner's avenue ("the way of sinners"). That is, we shouldn't choose that path ourselves.

The translators of the new NIV (2011) recognized the problem and made the meaning a little more obvious:

"Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers." (v. 1, NIV 2011)

As you can see they made a few other changes as well. Is this "tampering with the word of God" as some claim? Or is it facilitating a better understanding of that Word? In my opinion the Committee on Bible Translation is doing all of us a great service. In this case they are finding a fresh way to communicate the same Hebrew text in English with potential for greater understanding.

And their work is not over. Even more recently, I was reading Psalm 1 with my sisters-in-law at our annual beach getaway. When we got to verse 5, reading from the new NIV (which is identical to the old NIV), one sister was confused:

"Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous."

"Why don't the sinners have to be judged?" She asked. I stared at the text, trying to see it from her angle. Aha! She took "stand in the judgment" as a single action (="be judged"). I assured her that the wicked would indeed be judged. When that happens, they will not be able to stand up under it. That is, they will crumble under God's wrath. (For another possible example of this kind of "standing," see Psalm 24:3.)

For the record, this translation of Psalm 1:5 is a fine rendering of the Hebrew. Next time around, though, the Committee on Bible Translation could make this more clear in English. In the meantime, I recommend comparing more than one translation any time you're confused about what a text might mean (and even when you're not! maybe you should be!). Biblegateway offers free access to the Bible in dozens of English translations.

Aside from the NIV, which I use most often, another favorite of mine is the New Living Translation. Like the NIV, the NLT was translated directly from the original languages by top evangelical scholars. It is a more "dynamic" translation. In their own words,

"the translators rendered the message more dynamically when the literal rendering was hard to understand, was misleading, or yielded archaic or foreign wording. They clarified difficult metaphors and terms to aid in the reader's understanding." (from the Introduction to the New Living Translation) 

Here's a look at these two verses from Psalm 1 in the NLT:

"Oh, the joys of those
who do not follow the advice of the wicked,
or stand around with sinners,or join in with mockers." (v. 1)

"They will be condemned at the time of judgment.Sinners will have no place among the godly." (v. 5)

The NLT clears up both of the questions my friends raised about Psalm 1 in the NIV, but one could argue that some of the poetic symmetry is lost (walk . . . stand . . . sit). In the end, I think English speakers are best served by using a combination of at least two translations. If you're not sure where to start, the NIV and NLT are both very good.

However, this 2-part post, long as it is, only addresses one factor in the need for new English translations—confusion with the current translation. Other factors come into play as well—factors controversial enough to make some people's blood boil. I hope to write about those in the coming weeks. Stay tuned!

does the new NIV distort the Scriptures? - part 1

Have you heard that the new NIV distorts the Word of God? If so, you're in good company. Lots of people have heard this. Not having the tools to evaluate the arguments for or against a Bible translation (or lacking the time), many have decided simply to avoid any translation they've heard bad things about. And for many, that includes the NIV.

This saddens me. While someone might study the issues carefully and still conclude that the NIV is not a reliable translation (based on their own convictions), I think it's safe to say that most of those who reject it do so without understanding the issues well enough to make an informed decision.

It should not surprise you that I have an opinion on this matter. After 14 years of higher education in biblical studies, I have the tools to evaluate whether a translation is faithful to the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Of course, my training doesn't guarantee that I'm right, but I hope it puts me in a good position to evaluate the issues. So perhaps you'd permit me to address this from my perspective. (Thanks, I'll take that as a 'yes.') Whether you trust my opinion is another matter. If you do, read on.

First, the facts. The NIV was first published in 1978, representing the work of a diverse group of over 100 Christian scholars from a variety of denominations and cultural backgrounds. Quoting from the preface to the latest edition:

"The work of translating the Bible is never finished. As good as they are, English translations must be regularly updated so that they will continue to communicate accurately the meaning of God's Word. Updates are needed in order to reflect the latest developments in our understanding of the biblical world and its languages and to keep pace with changes in English usage. Recognizing, then, that the NIV would retain its ability to communicate God's Word accurately only if it were regularly updated, the original translators established The Committee on Bible Translation (CBT). The committee is a self-perpetuating group of biblical scholars charged with keeping abreast of advances in biblical scholarship and changes in English and issuing periodic updates to the NIV. CBT is an independent, self-governing body and has sole responsibility for the NIV text. The committee mirrors the original group of translators in its diverse international and denominational makeup and in its unifying commitment to the Bible as God's inspired Word."

Let's be frank. Radical liberals and people known for wacky ideology do not get invited to join evangelical groups such as the Committee on Bible Translation. No. The committee is made up of best of conservative evangelical scholarship—men and women from a variety of denominational and cultural backgrounds who have spent years pouring over the Greek and Hebrew text, serving in church ministries, and achieving tenure in reputable evangelical institutions. Though no one is perfect, these are not the people your momma warned you about. Believe me. I've read their books. Heard them teach. Sat in their living rooms and prayed with them. These are godly men and women who love the church and who actively uphold the authority of Scriptures and submit their lives to its teachings.

So, what is everybody so worried about?

In a word? Change. Change is hard, especially when it touches things we hold dear. We care deeply about the Bible. We have been warned that evil people will try to distort the Scriptures. And so we're on guard. When someone comes along and says they have an improvement on the Bible we've been reading all our lives, it's natural that we should feel defensive. But while it's a good thing to be cautious and "test" what we hear, let's put away our guns. There's no sense shooting at each other.

What's wrong with the Bible we have?

In a word, change. The English language is changing faster than ever and its spoken by people all over the world. There are more English speakers outside the United States than inside it. The growing challenge is to ensure that an English Bible translation communicates well to those from a variety of cultures and those even of our own culture with no church background.

Growing up in church, we have become accustomed to the lilt of certain phrases, but we need to become rigorously self-critical. What does this actually mean? Often, we don't know. We've just been hearing it all our lives, and so it "sounds right." More importantly, what does this communicate to someone new to the faith?

In my next post, I'll share a recent example that illustrates the need for updated Bible translations.

rite of passage

A lot of big stuff happened at our house this week.

Easton (age 5) learned to skip.

Eliana (age 12) got a part in the school play.

Both girls started piano lessons for the first time (not counting lessons at home with us).

And Emma (age 8) made a very big decision. She was running away. Things just weren't going her way. To be honest, I can't even remember what set her off. Generally it's the really grievous things like when someone smiles at her and tells her she looks pretty, or when I refuse to help her with a really challenging homework assignment (such as basic addition) because I'm busy reading to Easton. Enough is enough, really.

She demanded a suitcase. I calmly suggested that if she was running away she would need to learn to fend for herself. She stomped off and found one without my help and started packing. The only problem was that we were headed out to eat for dinner to celebrate her 8th birthday. She certainly didn't want to miss that, so she informed us all that she would be leaving in the middle of the night . . . after her special dinner.

As I tucked her in that evening, I let her know that I would really miss her, and that I hoped she packed a toothbrush (she hadn't). She burst into tears, gave me a big hug, and said she didn't want to run away from home after all. (Phew!) We had a good talk about asking God to help us manage our anger, and she went to sleep peacefully. In case you're having deja vu, yes, this has happened before in the Imes household. That story, too, had a happy ending. Running away must be an 8-year-old rite of passage.

A few days later we were getting the house ready for dinner guests when I noticed Emma's suitcase, still packed and ready in the corner. I suggested we unpack it since she had decided to stay. Imagine my delight to discover that not only had she packed a jacket and a pair of pajamas, she had packed her Bible as well. I might be a horrible Mom sometimes, hard to live with and terribly unfair, but I must be doing something right! In any case, it was a good sign. If that's all she takes with her when she leaves home, she'll be well prepared for anything that comes her way.

Review of BibleWorks 9 (part 3): not your grandma’s textual criticism

For all you scholars out there, here is the third installment of my BibleWorks 9 review.

I’m listening to an old Michael Card CD (The Word) at the moment (yes, I know that dates me). He’s singing, “so many books, so little time,” and I couldn’t think of a better excuse for this very belated third installment of my BibleWorks review. The folks over at BibleWorks were so generous to provide me with an upgrade to version 9 free of charge in exchange for a series of reviews. In addition to being generous, they have proved very patient with a busy doctoral student. You can find my first two installments here and here.

Are you sitting down? On the floor? Ok, good.

If you’re wondering whether the upgrade is worth it, prepare to be blown away by what BibleWorks 9 can do. But first, think back to your first Greek exegesis course, the one where your professor showed you how to do textual criticism. If your experience was like mine, you felt like you had entered a foreign land. Greek seemed easy compared to the steep learning curve as you tried to make sense of the apparatus. Every little symbol referred to something else that also seemed obscure, with its own date, provenance, and stylistic tendencies. And your task was to take all these numbers, letters, symbols, and dates and produce a chart showing which reading had the strongest support. Think of how long it took to flip through your Greek New Testament trying to find the key to all those symbols.

Now imagine that your professor offered to follow you around for the rest of your career, reading the apparatus for you and loaning you all the charts he or she had painstakingly made of textual variants. Imagine that you could spend your time thinking about which reading was the best reading and what theological difference it made rather than trying to decipher codes.

You can stop imagining, because it’s true. BibleWorks 9 includes two complete textual apparatuses for the entire Greek New Testament (CNNTS and Tischendorf). Each and every symbol is hyperlinked to its description, and each and every variant in the CNNTS  includes a chart of all the manuscript evidence for that variant. It’s a Bible scholar’s dream.
But that’s not all. Say that you’re working on a particular problem and you notice that one prominent manuscript has a surprising reading. You want to investigate more closely, because the reading seems suspicious to you. Now, from the comfort of your own study, you can look at high resolution images of some of the major NT manuscripts right in BibleWorks (including Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and others). You can zoom in and out, change the lighting or the contrast, despeckle the image or adjust the sharpness. You can even view a photographic negative of the image to look for erasures, a change in handwriting, or help in deciphering ambiguous letters. The manuscripts are overlaid with hyperlinked verse references to the passages in any translation you choose, making navigation much easier. Learning how to use these new features is simple; detailed video tutorials are included.

I admit that part of me is tempted to tuck away what I now know in a dark corner somewhere, so that my students have to struggle as much as I did. But I’ve decided to be a hero and show them how to use these power tools. I’ll be sure to pepper my demonstration with stories of how rough the rest of us had it (“back in my day . . . “). Students will, of course, still need to learn how to decide between the strength of various witnesses. They will need to be aware of how geographical distribution of manuscripts affects textual decisions. And they will need to understand the principles of textual criticism and get practice applying them to particular cases. But all the ingredients for the text-critical cake have been assembled for them (and you!) in one easy-to-use location so they can focus on baking, not shopping for ingredients.

I have only one disappointment, but it is significant. Neither the text critical apparatuses nor the digital manuscript images are available for the OldTestament, and I’m told that it will be a good, long time (20 years?) before the gap is filled. (Perhaps I should have chosen a degree in New Testament!) But really these features are just the icing on the cake. BibleWorks is indispensable for rigorous study of the entire Bible, with or without these new power tools.

Review of BibleWorks 9 (part 2): spotlight on searching

Last semester I learned how to do a search that is proving incredibly powerful (I wish I had taken the time to figure out how to do this a long time ago). I can now search in Hebrew or Greek for a key word in a certain tense or person (or whatever morphological tag I choose), occurring in a specified proximity to another word of my choosing. For example, in class Dr. Block was curious if the Hebrew Bible ever used the expression “walk after Yahweh” the way it talks about walking after other gods in Deut 8:19. He suspected it did, but didn’t remember where.

Since “walk” occurs 1349 times, “after” occurs 812 times, and “Yahweh” occurs 5195 times in the Hebrew Bible, it would be enormously time-consuming to scan through each reference to find where they occur together. Thanks to BibleWorks, within a minute I had the answer. I simply typed the Hebrew root letters for “walk” + “after” + “Yahweh”, with the symbol *3 to indicate that I only wanted to see those passages where these words occurred within the space of  3 words. Immediately BibleWorks gave us the answer we were looking for. The Bible does indeed use this expression to refer to Yahweh. It is found in only 2 places: 2 Kings 23:3 and 2 Chr 34:31 (parallel passages!). There, Josiah is renewing Israel’s covenant with Yahweh (after reading Deuteronomy!) and affirming that he will not follow other gods, but Yahweh alone — a very interesting correlation.

For the sake of being thorough, I should add that this search did not bring up passages where Yahweh is talked about in the first person or as “he” (without using his personal name). Thanks to Moshe Weinfeld’s ‘Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School’ (332) I have discovered there are several more passages where this idiom is used referring to Yahweh: 1 Kgs 14:8; 18:21; Hos 11:10; and Jer 2:2. It would have taken a bit more time for me to come up with these using a BibleWorks search. I could have first narrowed by search to “walk” + “after” and then manually checked the results, or I could have tried a number of more specific searches such as “walk” + “after” + “me” and then checked the context of each. In most cases my initial search would suffice to help me find examples. 

I’ve said it before, but I simply can’t imagine attempting an MA or PhD in Biblical Studies without BibleWorks!

For Part One of my review, go here.

Review of Bibleworks 9 (part 1): a few of my favorite things

BibleWorks 9
is Now Available!

At Gordon-Conwell my professors recommended that I purchase BibleWorks software to help me study the Bible in Hebrew and Greek. I've been using BibleWorks now since 2007, and honestly, I can't imagine trying to study the Bible without it. I've used versions 7, 8, and now 9, and it just keeps getting better. I was glad to discover that my doctoral supervisor, Daniel Block, uses it as well for his own research. Here are the principal ways I use it:

• I have BibleWorks open on my laptop in all of my Bible classes. In a matter of seconds I can look up any passage the professor mentions and see it for myself in dozens of translations. I can do a quick search to find related passages and know that I’m looking at every passage that matches my search criteria.
• I have not opened the NIV Exhaustive Concordance in the past 5 years. It’s much faster to check BibleWorks. I can search in English, Greek, Hebrew, or any of the major modern languages such as Spanish, French, or German (not Tagalog, unfortunately). I can search by exact word or phrase in any language, or by root word in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic.
• I rarely use a Hebrew or Greek lexicon (is it ok to admit that?), unless I’m performing an exhaustive word study for which I need to consult both Bible Dictionaries and Lexicons. Just by rolling my mouse over any word in the Bible, I have immediate access to lexical entries from Holladay (for Hebrew) or Gingrich (for Greek). BibleWorks speeds my translation process without using an English translation as a crutch. I can work directly from Hebrew to see the definitions of any word I don’t already know. If I come across a strange grammatical construction, I can instantly compare all my favorite translations to see how they handle the passage.
• I have used BibleWorks to learn both Hebrew and Greek vocabulary, and I plan to use it for Aramaic. The BibleWorks flashcards are the best I’ve seen anywhere. I can sort words alphabetically or by occurrence, work on words that occur in a particular passage, time myself, hear them pronounced, and print review lists to have in front of me in class. Best of all, BibleWorks keeps track of the words I know and don’t know, so that my review time focuses only on the words I have yet to learn.

The folks over at BibleWorks were kind enough to provide me with a free upgrade to their latest version in exchange for a detailed 3-part review in both of my blogging venues (both here and at the Wheaton blog: www.wheatonblog.wordpress.com). Like any new program, it takes some time to learn how to use, but BibleWorks 9 provides plenty of training videos and helpful instructions, as well as occasional seminars on site at schools around the country. I do not consider myself technologically gifted (blogging is about as savvy as I get), yet I couldn’t get along without BibleWorks.

what makes a good book good?

I've been reflecting lately on what qualifies something as "good literature." I admit it, I'm a bit of a snob when it comes to books. I have been known to hide children's books in closets and under furniture, hoping to avoid the painful experience of re-reading them. I've also been known to get home from the library with a new book, read it to the kids, and then hop on Amazon to buy a copy for our family. Good books ought to be owned, re-read, and treasured!

The kids and I have discovered a few new gems (and a few groaners) this month from our public library, and that's what got me thinking. Here's my proposal for a definition of good literature. I'd love to know what you think!

A good book is one that gets better each time it is read, and invites readers to notice more and more intentional artistry. Sometimes literary art comes through in perfectly delightful rhyme, other times through playful allusions to other great books. Sometimes pictures are literary masterpieces themselves! The story must be well-told and well-crafted so that subsequent readings don't uncover "holes" in the plot or characterization. Above all, a good story must speak to the reader about herself in a way that illuminates her own life experience.

This last sentence is reflected in a book I've just finished reading by Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative. Alter calls narrative in the Bible "prose fiction," not because he doesn't think it's true, but because he sees it operating in similar ways. Ingeniously, he says, "We learn through fiction because we encounter in it the translucent images the writer has cunningly projected out of an intuitively grasped fund of experience not dissimilar to our own, only shaped, defined, ordered, probed in ways we never manage in the muddled and diffuse transactions of our own lives." (156) In other words, good fiction is good because it tells us about ourselves in a way that we can't see from our own vantage point. A good writer is a deep thinker with insight into how things really are. That's what makes Arnold Lobel one of the most brilliant writers of 'I Can Read' books who has ever lived. Frog and Toad make us laugh because they are like us. (Who really wants will power anyway?)

A bad book, on the other hand, is one that parents loath re-reading to their kids. The rhyme doesn't really work. The pictures lack creativity. The plot has holes or is entirely absent. Life is too short to read bad books. I recommend hiding them (or donating them to your local Goodwill).

Perhaps this is why after all these years I'm still studying the Bible and loving it. The Bible is not the only good book, but I have to say that the more I read it, the better it gets!

overheard yesterday evening

Easton (age 3): What do we have tonight? Are watching Brady Bunch? Are we having a family meeting?

Danny: We're doing our chores, and then it's "time with Mom."

Easton: Wahoo!

I get to be with the kids after school every day, and then after dinner I get 20 minutes alone with each of them.  Eliana and I are reading Bruchko, a missionary biography. Emma and I often play a game together. Last night, Easton and I listened to Dave and the Giant Pickle on tape (Veggie Tales' version of David and Goliath), and then we got out my favorite children's story Bible to read the story there and compare.  Easton has a current fascination with Dave and the Giant Pickle, and listens to it several times a day (this is, by the way, not on my top 10 list ... or top anything list!). He seems to really comprehend what's happening in the story.

Easton: Dave lives in Israel.

Easton (on hearing the word Philistines): That's a funny name! 

Easton (at the end of the story, celebrating): Israel was saved!!

Has the KJV been bad or good for America?

Mark Noll's answer to the question is "both." Today I had the privilege of hearing him lecture on the topic, "'Isn't This the Book of the People?' The King James Version in America." Mark Noll is an emeritus faculty member of Wheaton College and Professor of History at the University of Notre Dame. He has written two dozen books, many of them on the relationship between theology and culture.

Noll outlined the pervasive influence of the KJV on American culture and politics. From the retail business to place names like Beulah and Salem, from art and film to language and literature, there is no doubt that the KJV has left its stamp on America. Even the inaugural addresses of many of our presidents have been laced with quotations and allusions to the King James Version. (He mentioned John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard Nixon as recent examples, noting that Barack Obama is the first American president whose general practice is to quote from more modern translations). Also notable are the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1963 (quoting Amos 5:24 and Isa 40:4) and Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address, where quotations from four biblical passages in the KJV formed the very skeleton of his speech! There is no question that the KJV's lofty style elevated English literature and shaped public discourse.

The popularity of the KJV in American high culture did not preclude its widespread use among common people, though, even among the marginalized. Noll mentioned feminist and African American readers who preferred the KJV over other versions available. This is remarkable considering its coercive use by proponents of slavery. The King James was so widely available that no one group could co-opt it for their own ends. It was everyone's Bible. That was its strength.

As with most things, strengths can become weaknesses. Noll pointed out some disturbing historical problems arising from the use of the KJV. These problems do not stem from the translation itself (Noll thinks it was a good one for its time), but because of its overwhelming popularity and pervasive use.  The KJV gave America the lofty language with which it could talk about any number of subjects. Noll called it "an omnipresent source" for allusions and quotations which betowed a "sacred aura" on public discourse. The mere cadence of KJV-inspired speech was seen as having a certain authority, quite apart from the content of the message. Critical thinking skills were numbed by familiarity. This resulted in confusion between literary and spiritual influence, and between the role of church and state. It was easy to sound Christian without being one.   

I couldn't write fast enough to capture all of the items in Noll's scathing rebuke of the anti-intellectualism that has been engendered by the KJV. It was shocking. The KJV has, he says, spawned the wrong kind of creation science and the misuse of the Bible to promote slavery, and has even given rise to bibliolatry, or worship of the book itself (in this version!) rather than the God who inspired it. Noll would prefer a dozen modern dynamic-equivalence translations over a lofty, literal, archaic one because the meaning of Scripture is made plain to those who need to know Jesus Christ. He asked, referring to the ability of modern translations to speak to lost souls, "Isn't the worse translation the better Bible?" [This, in case you're wondering, did not go over well with Dr. Leland Ryken, in whose honor the conference is being held.  Ryken evidently feels that something crucial is lost when lofty style is abandoned in favor of common speech.]

In short, Noll sees both positive and negative effects of the KJV on American culture. Its popularity was a boon to biblically-infused literary expression.  But any monopoly has its drawbacks. We need healthy dialogue, not dominance of one point of view. Noll is encouraged by the signs that evangelicals are beginning to make substantive intellectual contributions to society. Ironically, the number of empty seats in the auditorium may have been an indication that he is right. While most evangelicals are willing to admit the great literary, cultural, and spiritual legacy of the KJV, it appears that they are also eager to move on.

The King James Version: myths debunked 400 years later

One of the reasons I've been so excited to study at Wheaton is the multiple opportunities I have hear to learn from world-renowned experts at conferences such as this one.  Tonight I had the privilege of hearing Dr. Alister McGrath lecture on "The King James Bible: The Making of a Classic Translation."

McGrath is a British scholar widely respected for his work as a theologian, historian, and scientist.  His lecture was not a disappointment.  I learned a number of fascinating things.

Myth #1 - The King James Version has been popular for 400 years.

Actually it was not popular at first.  Historians are not even sure exactly when it was released in 1611.  It was a non-event.  Neither the Puritans nor the Anglicans wanted a new English translation.  Not until 1660, almost 50 years after its publication, was the KJV was widely embraced.  (And then for political reasons, fueled by the restoration of the British monarchy and the appeal of a national Bible.)

Myth #2 - The King James Version was written in the common language of the people.

While the goal of the translators was to be accessible, the KJV would have already sounded out of date by the time of publication.  Words like "thee" and "thou" had already begun to fall out of use by the time the translation was made.  The committee was guided by a set of rules that included the intentional re-use of earlier translations for the sake of continuity.

Myth #3 - The King James Version was radical and revolutionary.

Translators only deviated from previous English translations where inaccuracies were found.

Myth #4 - The King James Version is a bad translation.

The translation itself, according to McGrath, was a good one in its time.  The problem is that the English language has changed considerably since 1611, and the meaning of the KJV is no longer accessible to common people.  The translators endeavored to be quite literal, bringing Hebrew and Greek figures of speech over into English.  In many cases the sense of the original is "lost in translation."  Another problem is the failure to distinguish poetry and prose through different typesetting, resulting in misplaced expectations of readers.  On the whole, though, the translation is good.

Myth #5 - The use of the name "James" in the New Testament, where the Greek actually reads "Jacob," was a 'tip of the hat' to King James, who authorized the translation.

I approached Dr. McGrath afterwards to ask him about this in particular.  Somewhere during my education I heard this and have always wondered if it was true.  Dr. McGrath says this is a common assumption, but the practice of Anglicizing Hebrew and Greek names goes back further than the KJV.  Even the Great Bible of 1539 reads "James" for the Greek "Jacob."  No one knows why.

If you're interested in reading more summaries of the conference sessions, check out the new blog of Wheaton's doctoral students: http://wheatonblog.wordpress.com/.  Summaries of the lectures will be posted as they are written.  I'm scheduled to write about Mark Noll's lecture tomorrow, so check back tomorrow evening for more!

a 'wordle' of my blog ... (www.wordle.net)

priesthood of all believers?

There is a widespread, popular assumption that the Bible teaches the concept of the "priesthood of all believers."  This is usually taken to mean that each of us individually has access to God without needing a mediator (other than Christ).  Since all of us are priests, we are free to interpret Scripture on our own, and (in its most extreme form) the line between clergy and laypeople should be erased altogether.

In my research on 1 Peter 2:9-10 for my thesis, I was exposed to a book by John Elliott entitled, The Elect and the Holy, where he sets out to explore the biblical foundations of the doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers.” Such doctrine is usually traced to 1 Peter 2:9, where Peter calls believers a “royal priesthood” (or “kingdom, body of priests” depending on how you translate it). Elliott traces the Old Testament development of that theme as it arises from Exodus 19:5-6, and demonstrates that when Moses called Israel a “kingdom of priests” (the source of Peter’s phrase in 1 Peter 2:9), this does not preclude the establishment of a Levitical priesthood just a few chapters later. In other words, “kingdom of priests” was NOT an attempt to abolish a distinction between clergy and laity. Jews were not being encouraged to strike out on their own. Exodus 19:5-6 was expressing that Israel as a whole was elected and set apart for God’s service.

Similarly, the New Testament church is elect and set apart for service. First Peter 2:9 describes the purpose of this election: “that you may declare the praiseworthiness of the one who has called you from darkness into his marvelous light” (my translation). Peter does not intend to do away with clergy and laity. He goes on to give special instructions to the elders in chapter five. Clearly he sees a role for church leaders.

Those entrusted with leadership roles in the church are responsible to explain the scriptures to those who do not or cannot understand. I am all for English Bible translations and personal Bible study (see my preceding post). But all of us wear glasses when we come to the Bible, and we need one another in order to see what we’ve missed because of our own faulty perspective or expectations. We need our leaders to guide our understanding of the big picture of biblical theology so that we are not swept away by wrong interpretations. The Bible is, as the Reformers insisted, perspicuous (that is, understandable), but we are not all equally skilled at understanding it. That is why God gave teachers to the church (Eph 4:11). There is no shame in not being a teacher. “Each one should use whatever gift they have received to serve others, faithfully administering God’s grace in its various forms.” (1 Pet 4:10)  All of us are elect, and we all serve the Lord, but we still need teachers and leaders in the church to help us understand and choose the best path. Rugged individualism simply can't be found in God's design for the church.

did we really need another new English Bible translation?

In a word, yes. 

I used to lament the fact that so many English Bible translations were available while some languages had none. While I do feel that whenever possible our resources should be used to bring the message of God's Word to those who have not yet had opportunity to hear, I no longer groan when I hear of another English version. The English language, like all languages, changes over time. As you may be aware, this month a revised version of the NIV was released. Danny lost his Bible several months ago, and we've been waiting until now to replace it.  Personally, I'm excited about this attempt to correct some of the errors in the 1984 NIV as well as respond to ways that the English language has changed since then. I've just finished writing my thesis on 1 Peter 2:9-10, and I'm happy to report that the NIV 2011 does a better job with the phrase laos eis peripoiesin than any other English translation to date (except for the TNIV, which is being replaced by the NIV 2011).

One positive change is a moderate step toward gender-inclusive language. The TNIV was criticized in some quarters for capitulating to a liberal feminist agenda. The NIV 2011 takes a mediating position between the 1984 NIV and the TNIV. The translators (headed by Dr. Douglas Moo of Wheaton Graduate School) did extensive research on the state of the English language so that the wrong impression was not given to readers. My daughters are growing up in a world where "man" is rarely used to refer to the entire human race irrespective of gender. I want them to have a Bible available to read that does not give the impression that they are second-class citizens of the kingdom of God. Where the Greek can be reasonably assumed to intend a mixed-gender referent, the NIV 2011 seeks to use an English term that gives the same connotations.

Gender-accuracy is not the only benefit of the NIV 2011. The translation committee has also adjusted the translation of certain phrases to more accurately reflect the ambiguity of the Greek. N. T. Wright, former Anglican bishop of Durham and now lecturer at St. Andrew's in Scotland, goes so far as to suggest that one cannot possibly understand Paul's point in Romans by reading the NIV (1984). [I read this in his recent book, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision.] In particular, Wright was referring to the phrase dikaiosune theou, which could either refer to a righteousness that God imputes to us (implied by the NIV 1984, "righteousness from God"), or the righteousness which God himself possesses ("righteousness of God," NIV 2011). Indeed, the NIV 2011 has come a long way towards recovering the possibilities latent in Greek. Therefore, in my view, it was an important, and justifiable use of resources. How many millions of people read the NIV? It is probably the world's most common translation in use today. I'm so glad that it has been updated to reflect advances made in biblical scholarship and changes to the English language. For more information on these improvements, click here. 

New English translations are probably the best opportunity for Bible scholars to make their work available to the general public. We know a lot more about both Hebrew and Greek than we did in the 80's. More manuscripts have been discovered, and the work done on the Dead Sea Scrolls has helped to clarify the meanings of many obscure biblical words (especially those that only occur once). So why buy a copy of the NIV 2011 if you already own a copy of the NIV?  Because it takes you a step closer to what the Bible really meant to its original audience.  In hundreds, maybe even thousands, of little places the translation committee adjusted the English to more accurately reflect the Greek and Hebrew originals.  And -- for those of you who don't plan to learn Hebrew or Greek -- that's worth celebrating!