 |
|
|
Note: this page uses the Galilee Greek font; you'll need it installed for the page to be legible. (I have omitted accents in Greek words since most web browsers don't handle them well; the few breathing marks that are included may cause spacing anomalies in some browsers.)
Very Preliminary Observations on the TNIV
(Today's New International Version)
Rodney J. Decker, Th.D.
Assoc. Prof./NT, Baptist Bible Seminary
Clarks Summit, PA 18411
Copyright 2002. All rights reserved.
Since the recent release of the TNIV I have been deluged with requests for an opinion. Thus far I have refrained from giving one. (Some of the reasons for that are noted in the next paragraph.) But the frequency of such queries has finally suggested that I should at least offer a very tentative, preliminary assessment. As my further reading of the TNIV progresses, I will revise, correct, retract, or extend, as necessary the preliminary thoughts on this page. (You can note any such modifications by checking the "last edited" date at the very bottom of the page.)
Disclaimers: Please note that these observations are based on my reading only a limited portion of the TNIV text. This is not a review, a condemnation, nor an endorsement. It is not fair to review a book without having read it. I have not read the TNIV NT yet, though I have begun that process. Other than sampling it here and there, the only portion that I have read carefully is the book of Galatians (on which these observations are based) and some chapters in the Gospels. Also note that these comments should not be taken to reflect positively or negatively on the NIV translation. That is a separate question and new features or flaws in the TNIV do not affect the nature of the NIV. (In many ways I wish that the TNIV had received a non-NIV-related moniker to avoid "collateral damage," but I'm sure that Zondervan wants to leverage the market share and popularity of the NIV for the new pony in their stable!) As to the procedure on which these observations are based, I read the TNIV text carefully, checking my Greek text wherever I noticed something that seemed different or unusual. I did not compare the two texts word-for-word. I may thus have missed other items similar to those noted here, though I tried to do a fairly "close" reading from the TNIV. I have read the NIV for a quarter century, so I know that wording fairly well--most differences are readily noticed by someone who has used the NIV extensively. The reader who wants more information on the TNIV may consult the publisher's web site and the selected links provided at the end of this article.
First, a catalog of systemic changes that I have noted in Galatians. These are almost entirely related to terminology involving gender reference (which is the primary "feature" that is attracting attention in the TNIV). [When only a lexical form (i.e., nom. sing.) is given below it may represent any grammatical form of that word.] A preliminary assessment of these observations follows the catalog.
1. Wording involving ajnqrwpoV (typically translated with some form of the word "human" or "person"--though "man" is retained in some places):
ajpo ajnqrwpoV > with a human commission (1:1)
di) ajnqrwpoV > by human authority (1:1)
kata ajnqrwpon > of human origin (1:11)
para ajnqrwpou > from any human source (1:12)
ajnqrwpoV > human (3:15)
ajnqrwpoV (any form) > person (1:10 [3 x]; 6:7 [sing. > plural])
ajnqrwpoV > man (5:3--because the reference is to circumcision)
2. Grammatical differences between Greek and TNIV:
masc. sing. > plural [e.g., the one who/he who > those who] (6:6, 8 [2 x]--& next verb to match, sing. > plural)
third person sing. > … person … (1:8)
third person sing. > second person [he > you] (6:4 [5 x], 5 [2 x])
3. Terminology involving sarx (flesh):
sarki kai aiJmati > any human being (1:16)
sarki > by human effort (3:3)
kata sarka > as a result of human effort (4:23)
4. Terminology involving uiJoV:
Normally translated as "children": 3:26; 4:7 [sing. > plural]--but left as "sons" in previous verse!
5. "People" or "person" used as a generic expression other than as a translation of ajnqrwpoV:
tiV, 2:12
ejn, 3:16
poluV, 3:16
third person plural verb, 4:17 (those people)
ton toiouton, 6:1
pantaV, 6:10
6. ajdelfoV is consistently translated "brothers and sisters" (10 x): 1:2, 11; 3:15; 4:12, 28, 31; 5:11, 13; 6:1, 18
7. "heir" > "heirs" (?presumably because "heir" is masculine in contrast to "heiress," whereas the plural form is not [usually] distinguished?), 4:1, but then TNIV must change the following four verbs (all of which are singular) in the next two verses to plural forms in order to make the sentence grammatically consistent in English!
8. Other non-gender-related "curiosities":
6:10, proV oijkeiouV thV pistewV > to the family of believers
6:16, to all who follow this rule--to the Israel of God [This punctuation equates the church with Israel; the NIV had "to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God," which implies the same conclusion; I prefer, "to all who follow this rule, and to the Israel of God."]
Observations
A. None of the translations involving ajnqrwpoV are objectionable. The use of "human" is a very legitimate gloss for this word and is so cited in the lexicon (thus BDAG3, but also older lexicons, e.g., Abbott-Smith). None of the passages in Galatians is affected theologically by this translation. If anything, it makes the text clearer.
B. The terminology involving sarx is likewise legitimate. There is nothing gained by retaining "flesh" in these passages.
C. The generic use of "people"/"person" is not objectionable. The expressions thus translated are all general terms that require some equally general phrase in English. Since the referent in each such case is personal, the translations used are legitimate.
D. I am uneasy with some of the grammatical changes noted above. These do not involve specific gender-related words, but in each case the grammatical change has been made to avoid any use of the generic masculine. The result, however, generalizes the reference, usually by shifting a singular word to a plural (sometimes third person to second person). Although I cannot see any such instance where this would affect the interpretation, I am uneasy with the practice of making such formal changes, especially when there are other alternatives that maintain a closer formal correspondence with the text (e.g., a masc. sing. adjectival participle can easily--and correctly--be translated as "the one who…" in place of "he who…" and maintain the singular form, rather than shifting it to a plural, "those who…." That this sometimes has a grammatical domino effect by requiring other finite verbs in the context to also shift from singular to plural increases the significance of this practice. Similar changes are sometimes essential when translating from Greek into English due to differences in the two languages (e.g., Greek infinitives are often translated as finite verbs in English rather than as English infinitives; the oblique cases are most frequently translated with English prepositions; indirect objects often become prepositional phrases, etc.). My preference, however, is to maintain a formal equivalence where the result entails good English and accurate communication. Functional equivalents (as some of these changes might be considered) should be used only where necessary (something that I think the original NIV balanced reasonably well, though in light of the recent discussions, it is more obvious to me how often NIV used the "he who" approach for adjectival participles rather than "the one who"). Do, however, remember that these changes do not result in any theological or hermeneutical damage to the message of the text in Galatians.
E. The practice of translating ajdelfoV as "brothers and sisters" based on the fact that the reference of this masculine gender word includes people of both the male and female sex is understandable, but at the very least the reader should be told that this is what is being done. This practice is not discussed in the introduction nor is it footnoted in the text. The ESV has handled this issue by also giving "brothers and sisters" as a legitimate translation--but in the notes rather than in the text. (Please remember that gender and sex are two very different categories; gender is strictly a grammatical category and does not reflect anything regarding the sex of the referent!)
F. There are two extended passages (i.e., more than one clause or sentence) in Galatians that pose problems. In both 4:1-7 and 6:1-8 seemingly insignificant changes (perhaps unobjectionable in themselves) have a ripple effect that results in numerous other changes to subsequent words and phrases in order to maintain some semblance of proper English grammar and syntax. This points out clearly the implications of some such changes. They must be evaluated not only at the level of individual word choice, but contextually since they can drive the translation of entire paragraphs. (I am not suggesting that translation can only be done on a word-by-word basis. Far from it. A great many statements must be translated at least on the phrase level [and clause-/sentence-level situations are not uncommon] to be intelligible and to communicate accurately. But here we are looking at paragraph level changes that are not necessary for either accuracy or good English.)
Other General Observations
Some changes are footnoted, others (even very similar changes) are not. For example, in 4:23, kata sarka is translated "as a result of human effort," and is footnoted "or, 'according to the flesh.'" But in 3:3, sarki is translated "by human effort" with no note at all.
Typography remains a major "plus" for the TNIV as it was for the NIV. This is not just an incidental matter, but is part of the hermeneutical setting. The TNIV retains Palatino as its standard font (a clear, legible font). Section headings have been changed from Palatino italic to an oblique sans serif font (Optima?) which more clearly differentiates them from the text itself. More importantly, a single-column format with normal paragraphing is retained from the NIV's typography. Verse numbers are deliberately set in a small, superscripted font that enables easy location, but does not detract from the flow of the text. This format has major advantages over the traditional (KJV) pattern of setting each verse as a separate paragraph. (Most NASB and NASB95 editions follow the KJV at this point, though thankfully some paragraphed editions are now available.)
Tentative Conclusion
Most of the changes that I have observed in this limited sample of the TNIV result in an acceptable translation, though the net result gives a rather different "feel" or "tone" to the text. I suspect that this will be the greatest real obstacle to the use of the TNIV in conservative circles. It sounds too different from the way most people still talk to be accepted, at least at this time. (Some will disagree with me at this point; the stated purpose of the TNIV is to communicate to a culture that is perceived to have already made this transition.) It may be true that in some circles, especially those more concerned with "correctness" in gender terminology, such terminology is not only accepted and encouraged, but actually used. This is not, however, the general use of English in most churches with which I am familiar or in the secular arena (other than in the media, in higher education, and in politics). John and Mary Doe who live just down the street still don't talk this way--at least not in my local grocery or hardware store. My initial impression (which may be wrong) is that the use of such translation policies may to some critics seem to be agenda-driven (I do not think that is actually the case), seeking to effect such changes rather than reflecting a real need to communicate with people who do not understand more traditional language or who may be offended by it.
To be fair, the reader of this page needs to know that I reside in a relatively conservative part of the country (though there are certainly many other areas of far greater conservatism, both politically and theologically) and not in a major metropolitan area. Those ministering in other settings may well perceive this issue quite differently--indeed I have read several highly-regarded NT scholars whose ministry context is different. And although I am a professor by trade, I minister in a conservative Bible college/seminary setting which serves a very (theologically) conservative constituency, not in a university context. I also work with an inner-city church planting ministry in which we minister to people largely untouched by such concerns. In the summer I travel (mostly within driving distance of NE PA) to preach in local churches most weekends--and I cannot remember hearing anyone using inclusive language, certainly nothing that sounds like the TNIV. (That may say more about the churches in which I minister or about the people who talk to me than about language in general!)
Language does change and is changing. As a result, accuracy in communication suggests that translations may from time to time need to be updated to reflect such changes. (All standard translations have been updated, most a number of times, including those historically most popular in an English-speaking context: the KJV and the NIV.) Perhaps in due time English language usage will change in my part of the country to the point where the TNIV will be "Today's" NIV. My preliminary assessment is that at the moment it represents only a potential sample of what "Tomorrow's" NIV might look like where I minister. In other more specific contexts and ministry settings perhaps the "Today" tag has more legitimacy.
Additional Notes
Translations should not seek to be the agent of instigating changes in the common language, but should reflect what is the most widely accepted standard of usage among the general populace. "Avant garde" usage should not be the basis for such a standard, especially if it were motivated by an activist agenda of political correctness that sought to advance an ideological position via media/political manipulation and intimidation. (I am not claiming that this is the motive of the TNIV, though that charge has been leveled by others--I think unjustly in many instances.)
As I have continued to browse the TNIV, I observe that the items noted above are much more noticeable in epistolary literature; they are much less frequent in narrative genre--which makes sense due to the direct address of a letter. This observation suggests that the debate is going to be focused largely (though not exclusively) in the epistles. Since that relates most directly to the practice of local churches, it is going to have the most direct impact.
I have also noted that in the *NIV* (at least in John where I was reading at the time), adjectival-substantival masculine participles are translated "he who..." more often than necessary (rather than as the equally legitimate, "the one who..."). However, it is artificial and stilted to use "the person who..." in many such contexts. The alternative of the TNIV is to change it to a plural pronoun (resulting in other grammatical changes that "ripple" through the following context). A few examples (certainly not exhaustive or systematic--just a few that caught my eye) with comparisons between NIV, TNIV, and ESV:
Ref. Greek NIV TNIV ESV John 12:25 oJ filwn thn yuchn aujtou ... oJ miswn ... the man who loves/hates his life ... those who love/hate their life ... whoever loves/hates his life ... 12:35 oJ peripatwn ejn skotia/ ... the man who walks in the dark ... those who walk in the dark ... the one who walks in the dark ... 12:44 oJ pisteuwn eijV ejme ... when a man believes in me ... those who believe in me ... whoever believes in me ... 13:35 (paV instead of a ptcp.) gnwsontai panteV oJti ... All men will know that ... everyone will know that ... all people will know that ... In these instances I would suggest that 12:25 would be better translated as "the one who loves/hates his life..." (using the more generic "the one who..." for the participles, and leaving the generic "he" for the pronoun aujtoV in the modifying phrase). "He" is still used and understood as a generic pronoun in English--the only possible choice since we do not have an official "generic" pronoun in the singular. Shifting to the plural is, of course, the alternative that many advocate, but that not only has less support (any?!) in common English (except for instances almost universally marked "incorrect" in English class!), but it shifts the grammatical number of the context (in TNIV above, "their life"; see other examples of even more extensive changes in Galatians above). Note that this is not just an instance of using "those" as a generic singular, but it affects the entire context of many occurrences, demonstrating that this word is still viewed as a *plural* in English.
In 12:35 I would suggest that the ESV has chosen the wisest course.
In 12:44 I think that "the one who believes in me..." might be a better choice. (ESV's "whoever" might imply the presence of a relative or indefinite pronoun, though this is not necessarily a problem. Those who do not understand Greek might try to "ring the changes" on the "whoever" here in an unjustified manner. The same would also be true of 12:25 in this regard. ESV has not been consistent in their translation at this point [ctr. vv. 25 & 44 with 35]--as one might expect of a translation which makes formal equivalence one of its marketing points!)
In 13:35 the TNIV is preferable; "everyone" is accurate and reads better in English that the "all people" of the ESV.
I have pared down the links below to some basic, representative pages since I am not on a crusade regarding this issue (I have more pressing things to do than take on such an effort). I commend Wayne Lehman's page below for additional sources of information on this debate.
One of the better "TNIV links" page which presents links both pro and con is Wayne Lehman's page on the Bible Translation site. (See especially the section of this page listed as "Scholarly articles about the TNIV.")
Representative organizational pages, both pro and con: CBMW's vocal opposition pages (the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is a complementarian group that has a lot to say about gender-related matters in translation. (Do keep in mind that several CBMW people have been heavily involved in another major new translation just published [the ESV] ...) The equivalent opposing group (i.e., egalitarian) is Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE), and they have a "pro-TNIV" page. (Disclaimer for the record: I personally hold a complementarian position.)
| Blog | Contact Info | NT Resources Home | Who is Rod Decker? |
These pages use Unicode UTF-8 encoding; most Greek text is now in Unicode format, though some remnants of the older, non-standard Galilee encoding remain. You should not have difficulties viewing this material if you have a relatively current web browser and a font that contains polytonic Greek. Certain disclaimers apply. Please note that I am unable to serve as a Q & A resource. As my schedule permits, I will attempt to answer questions related specifically to my own writings posted on this site, but I cannot answer general Bible or Greek questions from anyone who is curious. Sorry!
hits since 1/2/03; page was first posted 4/15/02. This page last edited
07/25/08.