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 "Forefathers" has usually been replaced by "ancestors."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 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.

best books in Christian publishing 2015

Dr. Daniel Block

Dr. Karen Jobes

Dr. Douglas Moo

The Evangelical Christian Publishers Association has just released their list of finalists for the 2015 Christian Book Award. There's quite a bit of overlap with Christianity Today's top picks of the year. Wouldn't you know . . . my dissertation committee makes up half of the finalists in the Bible Reference category!? I guess that means I'm in very good hands!

Congratulations to Dr. Block (my advisor), Dr. Jobes (my second reader), and Dr. Moo (who will chair my defense) for their excellent publications.

Daniel Block, For the Glory of God: Recovering a Biblical Theology of Worship (Baker)
Karen Jobes, 1, 2, and 3 John: Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the NT
Douglas Moo, Galatians: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NT

The ECPA will announce the winners in each category as well as the overall winner on May 5th. In the meantime, you can check out the finalists in Non-Fiction, Fiction, Inspiration, Bibles, Bible Reference, Childrens, and New Authors on their website.

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!