I was on BibleGateway.Com, the popular Bible resource site with text of the Bible in many languages and versions, trying to link Psalm 119:9-11, one of my oft-quoted passages, to a blog entry. When I selected what I thought was the NIV, I noticed the first part of verse 9 read, “How can a young person stay on the path of purity?”
That’s funny, I thought to myself. Unless I had forgotten, I had always known the NIV to read, “How can a young man keep his way pure?” [emphasis added]
Just to make sure, I pulled out a hard copy of the NIV Bible. Sure enough, it said, “How can a young man keep his way pure?”
Then, I went back to the unfamiliar online translation I had read and wondered whether I had pulled up the TNIV (Today’s New International Version, an update of the NIV published © 2001, 2005 that was translated in more contemporary English language, one of the features eliminating male-only pronouns and adopting gender-neutral ones in many contexts). But when I clicked on the version choices, I confirmed that I had not selected the TNIV.
Am I mad? I asked myself, for just a moment.
I wasn’t - just uninformed. In case you too missed the buzz, the New International Version is getting an update.
NIV, Copyright 2011
Apparently, it’s been in the works for some time. The revisions were announced in September 2009. The Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), translators of the NIV, decided that as a result of growing knowledge about translating the original biblical texts into English and changing modern usage in the English language, there is a need to revamp the NIV to reflect those changes. In the CBT’s words (released by Biblica, formerly the International Bible Society, which publishes the NIV):
From its inception in the 1960’s, the team behind the NIV has recognized that Bible translation is a never-finished work. As more and more information becomes available about the biblical world and biblical languages, and as English usage develops and changes, the NIV also needs to change to maintain and strengthen its focus on transparency to the original text and ease of understanding for readers. Under the terms of the NIV charter, the CBT meets every year to monitor these changes and to reflect them in periodic updates to the text. The 2011 update is the latest fruit of this process.Biblica has a timeline for rolling out the updated version. In November 2010 it was first made available for public viewing on BibleGateway and Biblica.com. The first printed versions are set to be released for retail in March.
After release, the current version of the NIV © 1984 (the first printing, of just the New Testament was in 1973; revisions were made and the complete NIV first printed in 1978), will no longer be printed and will be phased out of the marketplace (old, unsold 1984 copies will be donated to needy churches and ministries). Additionally, the newer TNIV will no longer be printed. The process of switching over to NIV © 2011 is expected to take about 2 years.
What’s Changing?
If you ask the translators, they’d say on the whole, not much. Ninety-five percent of the words in the NIV © 2011 will be the same as in the current version.
But there are marked differences. Perhaps the most controversial is the addition of gender-neutral pronouns in many contexts, as in the TNIV (although the NIV translators, the CBT, did not adopt the gender pronoun changes in the TNIV wholesale – in some cases, the pronoun changes were entirely new renderings than the existing NIV or the TNIV).
To the question of whether the goal of the changes was to make the NIV more “gender inclusive,” the CBT responds:
"The CBT’s mandate under the NIV charter is to maintain the NIV as an articulation of God’s unchanging Word in contemporary English. To the extent that gender inclusive language is an established part of contemporary English and that its use enhances comprehension for readers, it clearly was an important factor in decisions made by the translators…In addition, particular attention was paid to external feedback in the area of gender language…”The CBT maintains that none of the changes relate to describing God:
“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.” [emphasis in original] (See Q&A, “What was decided about inclusive language?”)A few other examples of changes in NIV ’11:
“Forefather” to “Ancestor”: The term forefather, used in the 1984 version, is believed to have all but “disappeared” from the English language, in favor of the term “ancestor,” which the NIV 2011 adopts in most cases “unless a specific, limited reference to the patriarchs or to another all-male group is intended.” [emphasis in original] [law school folks: sounds like statutory construction:)]
“Saints” to “Lord’s Holy People…”: The term "Saints" is now often translated as "God's people," "the Lord's people," or "the Lord's holy people," to highlight that the meaning of the term in the original text often refers to all believers and is not necessarily a “good person” as the term “saint” in modern day commonly connotes.
Changing “Jews” to “Jewish Leaders”: In some places in the New Testament, most prominently in the Gospel of John, the use of “Jews” has been retranslated as “Jewish leaders” or other similar language to reflect that rejection of Jesus in those contexts was from Jewish leaders and not Jews generally.
For more information about the changes, including more examples, visit “What Improvements Have Been Made?”)
Note About the Inerrancy of Scripture
Before I comment on the changes, it is important to note that I believe firmly in the inerrancy of Scripture. But translating the Bible from its original text to any other language – including English – cannot necessarily render every single word exactly as in the original language (not to be overly technical, but I say “necessarily” because of my lack of knowledge of what circumstances, if any, a translation could allow every single word to be rendered exactly as intended in the original. An educated guess says none, but I do not want to guess here!) . However, this does not discredit the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture as the being God’s literal, breathed words – that teaching rests on the infallibility of the original text itself. However, that is a more fundamental topic that I have no intention – or preparation – to cover here. For a basic understanding of the doctrine of “inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility” of scripture, and how it relates to Bible translation, click this link.
(Initial) Pros
Regarding the new NIV, on one hand my initial thought is that I appreciate the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT)’s commitment to rendering God’s Word as understandable and accessible to as many people as possible, and believe that this update could certainly help the cause.
I also think Christians – especially longtime ones – have a tendency to get riled up over changes such as the ones in the new NIV just for the sake of keeping things the way we have always known them and not “pandering” to society – leaving things “traditional,” you might say. We often have this sense that things are more “holy” – or even more biblical – because they are older. But the Bible does not command us to preserve all “older” traditions – in fact, the New Testament, while fulfilling Old Testament prophecy, also was a break from tradition– radical, countercultural – just like the life that we are called to as Christians even today.
Further, the NIV itself is not a “traditional” translation. The current NIV © 1984, the most popular English translation for the last 20 years, has endured substantial controversy, particularly when it first came out, in New Testament only, less than 40 years ago. Some called the translation inaccurate – sometimes even heretical – as compared to the time-honored King James Version. And this opposition persists in some circles today. In short, the NIV © 1984 that is the most popular English translation is only 26 years old, and the intention of that translation has been stated as the same as the © 2011 version today.
Further, when the Bible was first written, it was in the common language of people at that time. Translating the Bible in a way that makes it more accessible in our language can be consistent with the context under which the Bible was written – another reason not to automatically write off the new NIV.
Cause for Pause (Cons?)
At the same time, personally, I am not ready to decide how I will use the new NIV, particularly if it will be my primary text. As followers of Christ, we have a responsibility to devote ourselves to a clear understanding of Scripture and to study it for ourselves. One way we can do so in this context is to make an effort to understand how the changes to the New NIV were made in translation, comparing other translations and sources as necessary, and be open to how God may speak to us in the process.
In particular, gaining a deeper understanding of the different Bible translations and allowing it to influence which translation(s) we use could easily make a list of top ten fascinating and worthwhile things we should do but probably haven’t. In light of the changes to the NIV, however, it’s a timely pursuit.
My Story
Until fairly recently, I did not give much thought to the different translations – for the most part I just went with what was standard around me or what was given to me. And it varied. All told, growing up at some point I used five different versions, either for study or memorization: KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB and the New Century Version – although at most points the NIV has been my primary version.
I do not remember paying close attention to the different translations in personal study until my first year of law school, when I went looking for a pocket Bible that I could carry on the Metro with big, heavy legal books. My Bible, then NIV, was standard-sized and too big to lug around.
The only discount pocket bible I could find was an NKJV – it was just $5. Since I already knew some verses in NKJV and liked it alright, I went with it (and, again, it was $5 - a mighty fine price on my law student budget!).
For a while I enjoyed using the NKJV as my primary text, although I would still use the NIV online or at home. About a year later, however, after finding myself comparing the NIV and NKJV more, and noticing the NIV to resonate more with me, I went back to using the NIV primarily.
Digging Deeper
The experience made me focus more on the different translations. I recalled lessons growing up that the KJV was a more “literal” translation than the NIV, but beyond that tidbit I did not remember much else about how Bible translations I had used differed. I decided to research. And what I read fascinated me. A rough, lay person’s overview, or refresher:
Methods of Bible Translation
Generally, the original Old and New Testaments were written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. There are two main approaches to biblical translation: Formal Equivalence and Dynamic (or Functional) Equivalence.
“Formal Equivalence” is often called “word for word” translation because it involves trying to match each word in the original language with a corresponding word in the language of translation. (e.g., if the word being translated is “book,” a translator would look for the word meaning “book” in the text being translated, doing the same for each individual word). The rationale for formal equivalence in biblical translation is that it most accurately conveys the literal meaning of all words as intended in the original texts, minimizing personal interpretation.
Examples
King James Version
New King James Version
New American Standard Bible (often considered the most literal translation originating in the 20th Century and the most common Bible in churches)
English Standard Version (like the NASB in many respects, but more colloquial)
Dynamic (or Functional) Equivalence: This method is dubbed “thought for thought” because, rather than translating each word, entire ideas or thoughts are translated as a whole. A common rationale for dynamic over formal equivalence is that because not all words in one language have identical or accurate translations in another, the “word for word” method may result in awkward, hard-to-read translations, while thought for thought captures the meanings of the words in the language they are being translated better.
Examples
Good News Bible
Contemporary English Version/Today’s English Version
“Balance” or Mix of Formal and Dynamic Equivalence: This is a somewhat artificial category, as versions that fall under it are often generally classified as just dynamic for the fact that they use this technique at all. However, from my study, when this "balance" category is added, it is presented as a way to distinguish among the varying degrees that a large number of Bible translations use dynamic equivalence. I appreciate it for the nuance - and color - it adds to the broad category of "dynamic."
That said, this "balance" category involves translations that combine both formal and dynamic equivalence based on the idea that neither pure “word for word” nor pure “thought for thought” can always accurately convey the meaning of the original text because of variances in languages. “Word for word” is used where it is considered a more accurate rendering of the original text, and “thought for thought” when it is deemed a more exact translation than word for word. One translation calls this “optimal equivalence.” Translations that use both formal and dynamic have been said to be on a “sliding scale” based on the degree to which each technique is used.Examples
New International Version (Has been explained as “lower” on the dynamic scale, sliding more toward formal than a number of the translations in the dynamic category)
New Century Version (translated for a fifth grade reading level and often targeted for teens, but has been known to keep a good balance between dynamic and formal)
New Living Translation (often pointed out that this translation is on the “edge” of the combined method, leaning more toward dynamic than formal equivalence)
Some Sources on Bible Translations: “What are the Different Bible Translations - addresses the differences – sometimes nuances – among each; BibleGateway.com- click on individual versions for information. Note that there is some variance among sources on how to classify translations.)
My Picks
After researching several different translations, I made some changes to my use of versions. Although currently the NIV is my primary text, I also reference three additional versions, in the following order: NKJV, NASB, and NLT (as I do when I link to Scripture on my blog).
I became more appreciative of the formal equivalence method used in texts such as the NKJV and the NASB that generally seem to steer clearer of any hints of interpretation – in favor of “purer” translation methods than the ones using dynamic equivalence in some form (the formal method is especially useful for Books of the Bible such as Proverbs, which have been said to be more understandably translated very literally - which I have found true in personal study).
I also began referencing the NASB more because of its common status as the most literal translation of the 20th Century – which I believe adds another dimension to studying Scripture in our language. Additionally, I appreciate the authority it tends to have as the choice translation for most churches – including the ones I have attended. However, the NKJV is my top “literal” translation; although the two have similarities, I find the NKJV easier to understand than the NASB (but that also may be because I have used it more often than the NASB). There are exceptions –Philippians 1:9-10, for example, is most clearly understood for me in NASB as compared to the NKJV (similar, but slightly less clear for me) and the NIV.
At the same time, I valued the “balance” approach taken with the NIV to translate the Bible into more modern English for understandability, but still maintain a level of sensitivity to the actual meaning of words - which I also saw can be a more accurate translation in our language than a literal one in some instances (common example: 2 Timothy 3:16– the original text is believed to mean that Scripture is literally “God breathed,” but a “word for word” rendering, as in the KJV/NKJV and NASB, result in the English word “inspired,” rather than “God breathed”. However, the NIV, using some dynamic equivalence, renders the word “God-breathed,” known to be more accurate as compared to the original text).
Additionally, after reading about the history of the New Living Translation and its efforts to still maintain some use of formal equivalence along with dynamic, I use it to reinforce my understanding of passages I’ve first read in the NIV, NKJV or NASB. I’ve found in many instances it has a way of making the meaning of verses really clear in our language in light of other translations I use. (I prefer it to, for example, The Message, which is at best a paraphrase of the Bible – not a translation. I think The Message can have good use as a secondary source, in some ways like a commentary, but in light of how it was translated I think it’s problematic to give it study-Bible status).
Collectively, referencing all four translations tends to really illuminate the meaning a passage for me and cause me to meditate on each word more carefully than I do when I read just one version. I enjoy taking parts of one sentence in one version, placing it next to part of a sentence that is more understandable in another, and then going back to reading the entire sentence in each version individually. When I’ve completed the process, I definitely gain!
Why Study?
Ultimately, studying God’s Word is not meant to be just for seminary students or pastors, but for all Christians. Second Timothy 2 admonishes believers dissect It as “workmen” so that we can apply it rightly (my paraphrase!). Second Peter 1 also tells us to pursue spiritual growth constantly, and that in doing so we will always exhibit godly fruit. Awareness of what translation we are reading – and how it affects our understanding of Scripture –can be a useful part of studying the Word of Truth for application.
At some point in our lives we may find that to increase our understanding of scripture, it may be necessary to study one of the original Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic languages in order to grow from reading the Bible in the language it was written. I have heard testimonies of not just Bible professors or pastors – but also lay Christians, who, for example, studied the Bible in Greek and said it added a dimension to their pursuit as workmen that they could only describe as incredible! Of course God does give us insight as we study His Word even in our own language and ask Him to open our eyes to wonderful truths in His law, but reading the Bible in its original form can be an amazing way to pursue an understanding of God's Word.
To Be Continued…
It will take some time for me to figure out how I will use the New NIV. I have begun comparing it with © 1984 online, and know if I were to decide to switch to it as a primary text it would be adjustment – as for many of us. I plan to really make an effort to understand the translation method and ask God for discernment in how to use it.
God’s priceless training program in Righteousness comes with a manual, His Word. And the cool thing about His class is that if we study The Text, we can all be on the Honor Roll. And making the grade has something to do with learning about an NIV makeover.
No comments:
Post a Comment