I have not been a fan of the NIV ever since I was able to understand the complexities of translation philosophy. In my opinion, it was more popular due to its marketing strategy than for its merit as a translation. (My opinions on the NIV can be found mixed among my posts on bible translation.) I'm sure Zondervan has high hopes that NIV 2011 will help them retain market share and win over the crowd that largely panned TNIV due to the gender translation issue. While initial reports suggested NIV 2011 was more restrained on that issue, I don't think they went far enough to fix the problems with TNIV (as noted here). My litmus test remains their translation of Isaiah 19:16. TNIV and NIV 2011 gut the original of its intentionally insulting rhetoric. I won't translate the verse here lest I offend you.
I have ignored most of the recent advertising push to promote the NIV 2011, but a full back cover ad on a Christian magazine caught my eye. Here's the text from the ad. Is it just marketing spin or a misleading misrepresentation of the facts?
It's amazing how going back to the beginning moves us so far forward. Translated from the most reliable ancient biblical manuscripts. Tirelessly researched by the world's preeminent biblical scholars and linguists. And made crystal clear for English-speaking audiences worldwide. The New International Version is the translation that's easy to understand, yet rich with the detail found in the original Scripture.
Let's look at these claims and their implications.
1. "Translated from the most reliable ancient biblical manuscripts." Oh no! I need to get an NIV. My other Bibles didn't use the most reliable ancient manuscripts. Actually, most translations use the same critical texts in Hebrew and Greek created by scholars from what seem to be the most reliable ancient manuscripts. NIV has a slightly different Greek text than the standard NT critical text, but we are all essentially working with the same manuscript data. The difference is in which variations get preference in translation.
2. "Tirelessly researched by the world's preeminent biblical scholars and linguists." Other Bible translation committees don't have the "preeminent" scholars (only the eminent ones), so NIV must be better. And they worked "tirelessly" this time. Actually, in these past two decades of expanding English Bible versions, many scholars have been involved in the production of multiple versions. Some of the same people working with a different translation philosophy. But at least when working on the NIV, they didn't get tired.
3. "And made crystal clear for English-speaking audiences worldwide." This is a value judgment. Crystal clear relative to what? Young's Literal Translation? The New American Standard? The King James? What is made clear? The meaning of the "original"? The English style?
4. "easy to understand, yet rich with the detail found in the original Scripture." It's as easy to understand as most moderately idiomatic English translations. But I don't understand how they can claim, in all seriousness, to be "rich with the detail found in the original Scripture." The gender-sensitive issue forces a translation that completely suppresses the rich metaphorical detail of the Hebrew in Isaiah 19:16.
I realize that some people will honestly agree with the opinions about the NIV found in this ad. Only the last claim is, in my opinion, stretching the truth. Our Bible translation preferences have been conditioned from years of using a particular favorite. For a long time, the NIV has been that favorite for a lot of people. An ad like this is designed to get people to stick with the NIV, hopefully without thinking too much about it.
"I won't translate the verse here lest I offend you."
ReplyDeleteI wish you would!
The NIV11 made me realize how disconnected the translation is from the academy and how beholden it is to the Bible market. I hope the hints from an SBL email/survey last year of an NRSV revision come to fruition.
ReplyDeleteWhatever your opinion on translation philosophy, I will vouch for the text base of the NIV, particularly in the OT. The more I compare Bible versions on OT textual decisions, the more I am convinced that quality textual scholarship forms the basis of the text in a way seldom matched in evangelical circles.
ReplyDeleteWhatever your opinion on translation philosophy, I will vouch for the text base of the NIV, particularly in the OT. The more I compare Bible versions on OT textual decisions, the more I am convinced that quality textual scholarship forms the basis of the text in a way seldom matched in evangelical circles.
ReplyDeleteOur job as publishers is to inform consumers of the NIV update and to communicate its heritage and translation philosophy. The real work
ReplyDeletehappens with the translators who struggle and debate to find the optimal combination of 1) words that capture the original experience of Bible readers, and 2) in language that is understandable to English speakers today. And we agree that there are many great translations and do not try to elevate (or "market") the NIV over any other one. We simply try to communicate the philosophy of the NIV and its translators, the Committee on Bible Translation, (see the NIV Translators' Notes at
http://www.niv-cbt.org/niv-2011-overview/translators-notes/ ) and
encourage people to decide for themselves.
And John 1:18 has had intimate feminine rhetorical language removed in the NIV1984 and the ESV. Fortunately the NRSV and NIV2011 have at least provided a meaningful translation.
ReplyDeleteYou chose a good text for testing the ideological spin. And I agree about the original NIV. It was a bible for middle class housewives, so it needs to be updated since that species is now nearly extinct.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the NIV 2011, does not do what the ESV does in simply adding in the word "men" when it is not there in the Greek. Phil. 2:29.
ReplyDeleteThe ESV also uses the masculine pronoun when clearly both men and women are being addressed, and there is no masculine pronoun in the Greek. In the case of 1 Tim. 5:8, many sermons have been preached that indicate the preacher thinks that this verse supports the notion that "men provide." In fact, the Bible nowhere says that men provide and women do not.
Thanks, Sue. I'm always on the lookout for counter-examples to add to my collection. I'll have to take a look at these in more detail soon.
ReplyDeleteZondervanBibles, my job is to point out the things in translation philosophies that the average Bible reader will never think about for themselves. 99% of average church going Bible readers have never read the translators' notes at the front of a new Bible. (I'm odd because that's the first thing I read.)
People don't like to decide for themselves. That's what good advertising does - persuading someone to buy and convincing them it was their own decision.
Drew Longacre, the OT textual basis is pretty much the same BHS that all use. Differences come in how they use the variants in the apparatus or in whether they incorporate DSS.
In general, no translation is perfect. All have flaws. I will point out flaws in my favorites too when I come across them.
Doug,
ReplyDeleteThe translator notes at the beginning of the ESV claim that masculine terms in the English reflect masculine terms in the original languages. This is not in fact, accurate. While in the KJV, "men" translated anthropos and referred to "people" now in the ESV, "men" often translates anthropos and refers to "men."
I would have to say that, because of the translator notes, the ESV is not longer gender accurate or I am not anthropos!
Sue, I am not satisfied by ESV on the gender translation issue either. Common sense should allow for more flexibility, but finding the right balance is hard. All versions have problems at different points (except KJV 1611 which is perfect, of course). That's why I encourage people to read and compare a variety of different translations.
ReplyDeleteDoug,
ReplyDeleteI feel that often people represent the ESV as being more accurate but not flexible enough and not practical. I would like their to be some acknowledgement that using a masculine noun or pronoun in English where there is none in Greek is not accurate. This is often the case in the ESV. However, it is in fact less accurate to impose a masculine pronoun, instead of a generic plural, which is done in the NRSV. Both are compromises, but the playoff is between imposing a plural or imposing a masculine.
And my fear is that too many people are convinced by the preface to the ESV, than too few.
Interesting oversight for a for a translator, Your problem is you just don't speak advertising ( :-) ) and are treating this like descriptive text. Let me translate:
ReplyDelete"Translated from the most reliable ancient biblical manuscripts." = Uses the UBS text
"Tirelessly researched by the world's preeminent biblical scholars and linguists." = Uses a large mixed discipline team who were more than just tangential involved.
"And made crystal clear for English-speaking audiences worldwide." = Is not a formal translation, does not use a lot of heavy scholarly words, avoids deep theological terms...
"easy to understand, yet rich with the detail found in the original Scripture." = Is a mediating translation and not a fully dynamic one.
And yes you can find bibles that don't meet those criteria, negating:
not UBS text: NKJV, KJ
not mixed team: Message, Living Bible, The Voice, Clear Word
not crystal clear = ESV, NRSV, KJV, NKJV, AMP, Expanded
not mediating = NLT and the ESV the core competition.
I do speak "advertising" as you say. I just find it deceptive because their negations are subjective value judgments and the public in general is not known for critical thinking or even lightly questioning what they get from advertisers. That's especially true in Christian publishing where the default mode is "I trust this because I found it in the Christian bookstore." No attempt at discernment. Discernment is damaging to our economy because people might not buy if they think twice.
ReplyDeleteThe claims about "bibles that don't meet those criteria" reflect a mix of demonstrable fact and subjective opinion. No translation is crystal clear in every case and I certainly wouldn't give the best mediating translation award to the NIV 2011.