The New International Version (NIV) translation of the Bible was good. Really, really good. So good that even the bits that weren’t quite as good were still pretty good. I used mine as my regular daily Bible for many years.
Then they went and fixed it, and produced the TNIV (Today’s New International Version), most notable for its attempts to desex the translation and remove any language that was not gender-neutral.
But as USA Today notes, and the publishers are now acknowledging, what a mess that all turned out to be:
“And we’ll make sure we get it right this time”, says Keith Danby, president and chief executive officer of Biblica, once known as the International Bible Society.
Biblica, the Committee on Bible Translation and evangelical publisher Zondervan jointly announced the newest New International Version Bible—and acknowledged they were still singed by the fire and brimstone cast down on earlier update efforts.
Two observations—a small one and a big one.
Firstly, for this Aussie Swede writer, it is fascinating to reflect on the gap between US pop culture and Australian pop culture. I can’t begin to imagine our local rags commenting on the technical aspects of a new Bible translation without even the hint of a secularist sneer. USA Today still slips one in about “fire and brimstone”, but for the most part, they take both sides of the discussion seriously, and quote their sources directly.
Secondly, and more to the issue at hand, if the Bible translation you had produced was as accurate and as to the mark as originally claimed, why in God’s name would you bow to popular pressure within less than a decade of announcing your work to the sound of glory and trumpets, and go off and fix the bits you had already fixed? Especially if the fixes you had brought in to fix had fixed the problem that you had thought was there in the first place. If you take my meaning. “I’m terribly sorry sir, this new improved Cadillac that we sold you has proven to be so unpopular, we are going to rebadge the older Cadillac as a newer, improved Cadillac and junk the one we sold you.”
Wayne Grudem has been a fierce and consistent critic of the original ‘fixed’ version of the NIV (that is to say, the TNIV). USA Today records his response:
Grudem said Tuesday, “I’m delighted to see they have realized the TNIV was simply never going to be accepted by the Christian public who value accuracy in translating the word of God. I’m thankful for their honesty.”
Grudem, as the same article notes, worked on the ESV, but even so, he is a man deeply committed to getting translations right. He is diplomatic in commending the honesty of the TNIV publishers.
There are, however, some pretty serious questions left unanswered. Yes, it’s good that it’s highlighted the danger of fiddling with translations to fit with the publisher’s view of what the public will buy. If the public is buying ‘gender-neutral’, then let’s sell them that, the previous view seems to have been. This current backflip looks like a substantial turnaround, but is it? It seems to be driven by the same mentality that gave us ‘gender neutral’ in the first place. That is, the market demanded it.
Now, marketers will tell you that it makes good sense to listen to your market. The marketers will especially tell you this if they have worked out that this is what you want to hear. But as a principle for creating accuracy in translation, this piece of the world’s wisdom does nothing whatsoever to reassure us that the NIV publishers are committed to giving us a Bible that tells us what God wants us to hear. Not happy, Zondervan!
This may still work out okay. Whatever the machinations that lie behind the decision to toss the TNIV into the compost heap of history, the translators will get to have another crack at improving on an already good NIV. The team is headed up by the eminently trustworthy Doug Moo, who is interviewed by Darryl Dash at DashHouse.com. Let’s pray that the marketers stay well out of the way and allow the translation committee to do its work unhindered, and that God would guide their efforts at translating his word with accuracy and reliability.
My preference is for the ESV, although the NIV works well too.
Not really been a fan of the NSRV since Dominic Steele pointed out some gender related issues which had been removed.
Last time I checked, and the reason for commenting, Zondervan was owned by Rupert Murdoch!
Hey Gordo,
Helpful sentiments about market forces brother.
Just a question: Are you trying to say that those who worked on the ESV are characterised by a lack of concern for accurate translations?
*curious raised eyebrow*
I prefer the accuracy of the ESV with the readability of the NIV. Do you have this version?
I guess that’s the difficulty, along with the fact there is often no perfect translation. Dynamic equivalence verses formal equivalence – there are advantages and disavantages in both.
Amen and Amen again.
I too used the NIV for years, in fact since its original release in 1978.
There may be good cause to do a slight revision/update of the NIV but my concern is that his will be a revision of the TNIV not the NIV. Based on the Biblica website they have stated as such. The Committee is working from the TNIV text but will call this the NIV.
A few years ago I switched to the HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible) published here in the states by Broadman and Holman publishing. I think it gives what another poster asked for – the accuracy of the ESV/NASB with the readability of the NIV.
Then they went and fixed it, and produced the TNIV (Today’s New International Version), most notable for its attempts to desex the translation and remove any language that was not gender-neutral.
The TNIV does not desex the translation and it does not remove any non-gender-neutral language.
The translators’ goal was to accurately communicate “gender” as it appeared in the original. For example, when translating “men” if it is clear the Greek was referring to both sexes the TNIV would translate the Greek as “men and women” or “people” and when translating “brothers” it would use “brothers and sisters” which is how the ESV footnotes their use of “brothers”.
A few responses:
1. It is very unhelpful to use terms like ‘accuracy’ without qualification. What translator in their right mind would say their translation is not about accuracy? Seriously?!?! The word is problematic, because what you think is accurate depends on your translation philosophy (formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence, etc). This is not an easy debate. Their are good arguments on both sides.
2. The eminently trustworthy Doug Moo was already on the key group of translators for the TNIV, as were any number of other eminently trustworthy people. For the full list, see here: http://www.biblica.com/bible/cbt/index.php. Importantly, the translators of the TNIV represented a range of viewpoints on the gender issues in modern evangelicalism.
3. The issues to do with gender-inclusivity on the TNIV were NOT driven by marketing (i.e. the kids love it when we ‘desex’ stuff). They were driven by a desire to recognise societal changes in English which meant the use of ‘masculine’ language could be understood unhelpfully. That is to say, it was motivated by the same reasons as the dropping of “thees” and “thous” from Bible translations. Whether you agree or not, the debate is complex. Even a scholar as conservative as D.A. Carson acknowledges the great difficulties involved in his excellent book – The Inclusive Language Debate. It is hard to get these things right when the language is in substantial flux.
4. Part of Zondervan’s purpose in all this is to bring healing to the American evangelical scene. The battles between TNIV and ESV advocates have been pretty rancorous – on both sides. I suspect Zondervan wants to ‘start again’ as a kind of circuit breaker (which, lets be honest, is also smart in a business sense). I’m betting the NIV 2011 will keep a substantial amount of the gender inclusive language of the TNIV.
5. The TNIV was widely praised by a range of evangelical scholars, including Darrell Bock, Gary Burge, John Stott, Klyne Snodgrass, Tremper Longman etc. Most notably, D.A. Carson thought it a version he could use with confidence, and that it was a substantial improvement over the NIV. Indeed, he wondered what all the fuss was about. Nevertheless, it was also condemned by a range of evangelical scholars (Grudem, Poythress, Piper, Ryken). Therefore, the TNIV became symbolic marker for controversy, very little of which was edifying.
6. The NRSV was a mainline (non-evangelical) translation project, whose gender-inclusive policy is far more radical, and on a few occasions, decidedly unhelpful. It is, nevertheless, still a very good translation, albeit with those qualifications.
7. Yes, Zondervan is part of the HarperCollins group of businesses, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. No, Murdoch has not altered their editorial policy, or changed their evangelical basis at all.
8. It is interesting to note that when we don’t like the way culture is engaged, we call it “selling out” or “marketing”. But when we do like it, we call it “contextualisation”. I think the TNIV was the latter, whereas I suspect Gordon thinks it was the former.
Mark,
You are correct on my use of accuracy. What I meant by that is what I call “transparency to the original”. I know that any time you translate from one language to another there is no such thing as strictly “word for word” due to language, grammar, syntact, etc. So what I look for is a translation that can do that, be as transparent as possible and still put be in readable and understandable English. I might also state that I want that to extend to cultural issues as well – in other words, don’t read 21st century culture into the text, give me the opportunity to do the work of interpretation.
When it comes to the gender related stuff, just translate it the way it would have been commonly understood THEN not now, in otherwords if adolphi was understood as “men and women” in a given context then please translate it that way, but if it was “men” as a generic plural then leave it that way and allow us to interpret and explain. On most of these so called disputed passages the NIV2011 can do in reverse what the ESV and HCSB did by placing a footnote which indcates the alternate reading.
Finally, my biggest concern with the TNIV (and I really hope they fix this) is the number of times that they took singular, first person pronouns and changed them to third person pronouns. I do think that this is not being transparent, that is standing between the reader / teacher and the original author.
Personally, having used the NIV for so many years, having memorized so much from the NIV, I would prefer for the NIV2011 to be as good a translation as the NIV, if it is I will leave the HCSB and return with excitement.
Terry,
Thanks for your courteous post in reply. I think you have made some good points, in particular on the question of footnoting.
My read is that you are someone who favours formal equivalence in translation (“as transparent as possible and still put be in readable and understandable English”). Many conservative translators would not take this approach, and have articulated detailed arguments as to why (see Strauss and Fee, How to Choose a Translation). Equally so, many have responded with strong arguments back.
You see the problem as transparency, which is a very formal equivalent way of approaching the problem. If I may be so bold, formal equivalency privileges the donor language as primary.
Functional (or dynamic) equivalent advocates see the problem in terms of unintended or improper meaning effects. In that sense, they privilege the receptor language.
So to take an example. You identify the problem of switching to third person in gender-inclusive translation. I do see your point. It is scary to change the grammar in this way.
Nevertheless, is it not also true that a modern girl reading Psalm 1 where it says “Blessed is the man” experiences a different meaning effect than the original reader? Whether we like it or not, these terms have changed in terms of the baggage they carry.
Our response could be – then that should drive you to greater thought and study of what the text means, using commentaries, etc. Or maybe she should just get over it…
But all this raises the question – what’s a translation for? If in keeping transparency, I then have to translate the translation in order to understand it, there must come a point where the translation no longer serves its intended purpose. Working out how to make the Bible translation meaningful enough that it connects, without destroying its ability to shock and provoke us with ‘alien’ language, is tricky. Again, this is where different lines are drawn.
This is why I tell everyone I can to use more than one translation, and to deliberately use translations which employ differing translation philosophies.
One final thing – the TNIV didn’t just revise on the issue of some gender terms. It was a good revision in general of the NIV at a number of important places. I hope they keep much of that.
Good chatting with you Terry!
Surely, this is a New Coke maneuver—introduce an “improved” version to great fanfare, then when people complain about the change, restore what people wanted unchanged to even greater fanfare!
So a rebadged TNIV is still a TNIV with a new badge? I guess it sells units.
Speaking as a Bible translation advisor for a language in Papua New Guinea, there’s a lot to be said for various different styles of translation, depending on your audience. I don’t think that you can get a translation that will please everyone, since some want to be as close to the original as possible, while others want the meaning brought out by more free translation. Both have their place.
What we learn in translation theory is that the translation should be clear, accurate, natural and acceptable. If you fail in any of those areas, the translation has not been done well. In my context, that means sometimes sounding like King James, since that is the translation to which we are compared, despite nobody in the language group being a fluent English speaker.
Translation will always involve compromises to touch all four bases. Some things just can’t be translated well, due to the nature of language. For example, our target language has no passive, so we have to be creative when handling Greek passives – sometimes you can put in an impersonal “they”, other times you have to make the actor explicit, and still other times there are accepted ways to handle it in the language.
I have been reading the TNIV for the last couple of years, and find that some of the gender-neutral language is grating, particularly the shift to plurals to avoid gender-specificity. But it’s, as Mark said, part of hitting the language that is in the process of change. I look forward to seeing the new version in a couple of years or so.
Many of those who whinged about the TNIV were promoters of the ESV: hardly an objective group of folk.
If the new NIV is going to be 90% the old NIV and 95% the TNIV, it stands to reason that the new NIV is really the TNIV lightly revised. I think the TNIV was said to be about 7% different from the NIV.
Having read through all of the NIV, TNIV, NLT, 2nd edition, Good News Bible [Australian edition], New Jerusalem Bible and ESV, I can’t help commenting that some of what has been said about the TNIV is not true and applies equally to several other Bible versions.
One of the best things about contemporary Bible versions, such as the ESV’s update of the RSV and the TNIV’s update of the NIV is the use of inclusive language where it shows that the original was intended to address both men and women.
Occasionally the TNIV went too far and used inclusive language where it was not needed.
Sometimes the ESV is squeamish about putting into the text what the footnote tells you it means!
But the interesting thing is that those who argue against the gender inclusive language in the text frequently add it in preaching and writing.
I have heard folk who say they are complementarian adding it to 2 Timothy 2 verse 2, for example when speaking about MTS workers.
And I also hear the same folk who disdain the singular “they” in the text using it frequently in their speaking, both informally and in Bible talks.
The TNIV is written pretty much in the language we speak.
I greatly appreciate each of the versions I’ve cited above, but would demur on the study notes in the NJB which are written with a low view of the Bible’s authority.
Those who only read “literal” versions are missing out on what God has for us in the less formal versions. And vice versa.
I’m expecting more blessing to follow when I complete reading through the ESV Study Bible [a lengthy process with all those great articles, introductions and study notes], when I venture forth into The Message and read through the Bible again rapidly.
Without being unkind, a number of commenters have missed the bullsey in the same way as a wrong thing shoots for the wrong target and is off the mark.
The TNIV publishers, by their own admission, misjudged the market and got burned, charred and scarred.
Now they are saying they got the market wrong, so oopsy of the first order has occurred.
So the poor old translation committee
(including the eminently trustworthy Doug Moo) has to backtrack on their TNIV work on the major area on which the TNIV was trumpeted as being terrifically terrific.
That spells ‘L’ for ‘Loser’ in my book. Because if it was terrifically terrific, there is no way on God’s green earth (to quote Don Carson, who if quoted seems to win an argument) that this should have been backtracked upon.
Unless, of course, the marketers have seized control of our translations, in which case, heaven help us.
‘bullseye’ not ‘bullsey’
Hi Gordon. The revision of the NIV has already been revised several times in the NIVI, the 2002 TNIV NT and then in the 2005 whole shebang.
If you disagree with some of its renderings, isn’t it a good thing that these may be altered one further time?
I think the result will be more like the current TNIV than the old NIV, last revised lightly 25 years ago, and with unnecessary masculine language in it that is not seen in any contemporary version, including the ESV.
Gordon, you said:
“The TNIV publishers, by their own admission, misjudged the market and got burned, charred and scarred.”
where exactly was this said? From what I have read, the TNIV committee is concerned with what people make of their translation – and not concerned with sales.
Gordon,
Moe Girkins, the pres. of Zondervan, has said very simply:
Whatever its strengths were, the TNIV divided the evangelical Christian community
This is the central problem. If I read them right, the TNIV was intended as a translation that would aid evangelism and discipleship into the new century. The belief was that the English language was moving onto new places, particularly outside Christian circles.
The ‘backlash’ against the TNIV came from conservative evangelicals who regarded it as a capitulation to egalitarianism, feminism, and probably communism if given half a chance. World magazine ran vitriolic articles, Al Mohler wasn’t much better, and in attempting to reach out to a new generation, Zondervan alienated SOME of its base. This is the major mistake they are confessing to…not so much the translation itself, but rather the process of bringing certain segments of the evangelical community along with them. Quite simply, there are parts of American evangelicalism that refuse to accept that “he”, “brother” and “man” no longer function as generic in many places of the Western world.
Therefore, Zondervan had a choice. Stick with a translation that was going to divide American evangelicals for the next generation, or attempt to revisit the process, with some olive branches to the disaffected parties. Whether a compromise can happen is a moot point, but this hardly warrants a “Loser” call, nor does it represent the capitulation of Bible translation to pure pragmatism. Mistakes were made, passions were aroused, and now they are trying to correct these problems, so that evangelicalism in America is not unnecessarily divided in a ‘translation war’. It doesn’t do the church any good to have ESV Christians or TNIV Christians.
One of the things I have greatly appreciated as a mother who wants her children to read from complete Bibles as soon as they are able to read (rather than watered down children’s versions) is the recent introduction of the NIV with Australian English spellings. My two eldest children (only 6 and 5) have a copy now in the Large Print version, which is easier for them to read than most Children’s Bibles which are for some reason always published in the much harder to read 8.5 font type. Mind you, I would prefer a Bible that has longer ascenders and descenders than then font that the Bible Society of Australia has chosen to use with this particular version. I suspect this font was chosen because it saves space on the page and hence they can include those extra pages of study helps.
Perhaps I am being too pragmatic and not nearly spiritual enough, but I like it when my 5yo daughter can read the letters without a magnifying glass as she copies “Saviour” rather than “Savior”. And I venture to suggest I am more typical of the market that these publishers are trying to reach, than many of the commenters above.
Of course, pragmatism has also led me to stick with the NIV, whatever its faults, because, as with other commenters above, I have read and memorised from it for years now and I am just plain comfortable with it. I suspect that is an undervalued reason why the TNIV has not sold as well as hoped.
<i>Of course, pragmatism has also led me to stick with the NIV, whatever its faults, because, as with other commenters above, I have read and memorised from it for years now and I am just plain comfortable with it. I suspect that is an undervalued reason why the TNIV has not sold as well as hoped. </i>
Yes, Sharon, it completely junked up my memory verses as well. I did try memorizing a bit of Greek New Testament one time but frankly, I’m just not that good at it.
My memory verses are either KJV or NIV/TNIV.
It’s not really a problem. I like the old KJV and hope it isn’t too odd when I quote it to others.