"New" NIV retreats to "old" language
USA Today reports that the Committee on Bible Translation, which translated the New International Version of the Bible, admitted that the revision released in 2002, call "Today's New International Version," was a mistake.
It was a mistake because they attempted a measure of gender-inclusion in their translation. For example, they substituted "brothers and sisters" where the New Testament writers used "brothers."
Since its debut in 1978, the New International Version — known as the NIV — has been the Bible of choice for evangelicals, selling more copies than any other version. But a 2005 gender-inclusive edition bombed after being condemned as too liberal.Translators hope their latest edition, which debuted online this month, will avoid a similar fate. They've retained some of the language of the 2005 edition. But they also made changes — like going back to using words like "mankind" and "man" instead of "human beings" and "people" — in order to appease critics.
It's available for preview at BibleGateway.com, with print versions expected in March.
Wheaton College Bible scholar Doug Moo, head of the translation committee, said the group tried to create an accurate English Bible without ticking off readers....
"...We really tried to get it right this time," he said. "We tried to be careful about not bowing to any cultural or ecclesiastical agenda. We also talked to anyone who wanted to talk to us."
In 2009, the NIV accounted for 28% of Bibles sold in Christian bookstores. That was followed by the King James, at 16%.
USA Today says that the Committee, in making the last revision, broke a promise they'd made to James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, John Piper, pastor of Minneapolis megachurch Bethlehem Baptist, and other conservative pastors, not to produce a gender-inclusive NIV.
In response, Dobson accused translators of distorting the word of God.
So in order not to bow to culture, did the translators bow instead to a constituency? Is this a case of evangelical "political correctness?" Not so, says Moo.
"The whole idea that we want to make this constituency or that constituency unhappy is wrong," he said. "You don't do a translation that way. You don't say 'this will make the liberals unhappy' or 'this will make conservatives unhappy.' Your job is to produce the most accurate translation possible."Moo disagrees. He says that the new version of the NIV is accurate. But he also admits that the committee did some research to see what words evangelical Christians — who are most likely to buy the new NIV — prefer.
In the "you can't please everyone" department, a professor at Boyce College criticized the latest, more traditional version, for being too egalitarian.
Denny Burk, a professor of New Testament at Boyce College, a Southern Baptist school in Louisville, has complained about one change in 1 Timothy 2:12. That verse from a New Testament letter from the Apostle Paul, used to read, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man." Now it says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man."The change from "have authority" to "assume authority" is huge, Burk argues. He believes that God gave men and women different jobs — and that women can't be pastors. Burk says the new Bible sides with his opponents.
"It appears, therefore, that the NIV 2011 comes down on the side of egalitarianism in its rendering of 1 Timothy 2:12," he wrote in a blog at BibleGateway.com.
Exactly why we were wrong to approve the NIV for use in church (to appease conservatives) -- it is an inaccurate translation that bows to a sexist agenda.
Posted by Ann Fontaine![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 19, 2010 10:51 PM
Yikes, we let the NIV into TEC??? :-0
I thought EVERYBODY (every Episcopalian) knew that this "translation" (read "Sexist-Homophobic-Authoritarian Screed") has NEVER been about fidelity to Scripture, and ALWAYS been about advancing a ConEv agenda? The NIV owes its very existence to the fact that the Mainline and (Vatican 2) Roman Catholic translations of the post-WW2 era were rejected, precisely BECAUSE they were by Mainline and/or RC scholars (Mainline, for being allegedly too liberal, RC for showing the Early Church to be, well, Catholic!)
This latest incident just demonstrates that reality, AGAIN.
There are many faithful ways to accurately translate Holy Scripture.
The NIV has never been one of them.
JC Fisher
P.S. As w/ all propaganda, I recommend people familiarize themselves w/ it. Reading the NIV, you'll get a good idea of how NOT to translate the Bible! (e.g., w/ anachronisms like "homosexual" in them)
Posted by tgflux![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 20, 2010 2:31 AM
Small mistake in the first par: The NIV 2011 does use "brothers and sisters" to translate adelphoi, rather than the NIV 1984 usage of "brothers". Some commentators have calculated the new NIV follows the TNIV 95 per cent of the time, when compared to the old NIV.
Posted by Obadiah Slope![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 20, 2010 8:19 AM
People seem to forget that translations are translations. If we want to know what the Bible "really" says, we have to read it in Hebrew and Greek; and furthermore, to have a sense of the cultural subtexts of those languages. No, I am not trying to make folks who don't read the original languages feel guilty! (My own Greek is pretty feeble and my Hebrew went over the hill a long time ago.) But we do need to remember that we are dealing with translations, and all of them have flaws and weaknesses. (I understand that orthodox Muslims do not permit the Qu'ran to be translated -- one must read it in Arabic.) Is the re-revision of the NIV a chickening-out in the face of modern right-wing pressure? Of course. I routinely use the New Revised Standard Version, and am sympathetic with its linguistic inclusivity, but I also recognize that it often does an awkward and inelegant job of it. Good translation is hard. That's how it is. Get over it.
Posted by Bill Moorhead![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 20, 2010 1:48 PM
The bottom line is that every bible is going to refer to God, presumptively, as 'He'.
Everything else flows from that assumed gender identity.
The naming of the Holy One is no insignificant issue.
While it is clearly helpful to think of God as Father, it is equally helpful to think of God as Mother, and better still if we can recognise that God transcends gender, while fully feeling, expressing, and identifying as male and female. In this image, male and female, the bible says we were created.
While commonsense can see that accurate bible translations are essential to informed critique, and reception, at the same time there is a problem and an issue with churches that perpetuate the assumptions of the past in their liturgy, their teaching, and that whole subconscious communication of patriarchy that runs deep in the scripture, and which can influence and limit people, through repeated unquestioning use, through sense of guilt, and which results in a sense of the Holy that is as limited as the literal translation of text can be limited, in reflecting the limits of the cultures and religious communities from which the texts sprung.
The scriptures are profound and wonderful, but not all to be taken literally, and that's where a literal translation can become a problem.
It all depends on the culture and teaching and liturgy that goes on around the literal texts.
"Now here is the literal text."
"Now where did they go a little wrong? Where did they fail to achieve balance? Where was their culture filtering the revelation God gave them?"
Of course, the reply may also come: "Yes, but should you allow your own modern liberal culture to filter the revelation?"
Either way, we need to be on our guard. But literal translation needs to be kept well-distanced from literal interpretation and application.
When you combine the two, you may have a problem. And it's a problem that can be seen in the way, historically, religion has contributed to the marginalisation of women, and in many places in the world, still does.
Posted by Susannah Clark![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 21, 2010 8:37 AM