Posts Tagged TNIV
Well, it doesn’t really; I mean, not in any “real” way. As I said before, I never liked the TNIV and don’t care for the NIV either for that matter. Part of this is frankly because I tend to prefer “word for word” translation over “dynamic equivalence” that the NIV and TNIV employs. The other reason is because, as I said in my comments on the preceding post, I believe the publication of the TNIV as well as it’s withdrawal has more to do with profits than anything else. But allow me to lay out a bit more my larger issue with English language Bible translation.
1) Arguments over Bible translations (whether NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, etc.) provide cover for Christian intellectual elitism
Christianity is a translated religion. Unlike Islam, we do not hold to any particular language being the revealed language of God and scripture. Therefore the words of Jesus (perhaps spoken in Aramaic) were translated into Greek without losing their potency. Reading the Bible in French or English or Twi or Russian does not represent a deficiency, but the heart of the missionary impulse. However the way debates over translation occurs communicates that unless one is fluent in the so-called “original languages” one cannot really know what God is saying. This is inherently elitist as the vast majority of Christians in the world who have ever lived and who currently do live may not even be literate, much less experts in ancient Greek. Is their understanding of God, ethical practice, and Christian maturity therefore inevitably compromised?
This is not to say that translation with great care is unimportant. It is very important, but if we communicate, however unintentionally, that you “really need to read it in the Greek to understand” we inevitably establish a hierarchy to which only an elite and privileged few have access.
2) The proliferation of English translations in the last 100 years has done NOTHING to advance Christian maturity or knowledge.
Faithful translation is important as I have said, and that has ostensibly been the motive for updating translations, in addition to keeping pace with new or better source documents that have come to light. But is hardly evident that these multiple versions have done anything to increase the amount of scripture knowledge or biblical practice. Indeed I would venture to guess (anecdotally to be sure) that those Christian “neanderthals” who hold onto the KJV probably have more extensive Biblical knowledge than many others.
3) The proliferation of English translation is driven by profit and is evidence of an exceedingly materialistic self referential culture.
Many translations are copyrighted. Book publishers make lots of money selling Bibles. There is great incentive to come out with a “NEW & IMPROVED” version every few years. We buy them because we can, and because we want a version that “fits” us. This is related to my last point.
4) (Not the last point but related to the previous one) The English language has not changed so much in the last hundred years and certainly last fifty years to justify the new translations.
The 400 year dominance (and continued strength) of the KJV meant that much of the language was indeed very different than contemporary English and quite opaque to some (though not so much as to be unintelligible. After all it is still a leading version and in some ways superior; KJV English conveys continuing present tense better than contemporary English) and therefore made some sense to update. Since then… not so much.
5) The proliferation of translations is in some ways a capitulation to the Christian disengagement with shaping culture.
The chief justification for many modern versions is to faithful translate the scripture into “today’s English.” Well this is fine as far as it goes. BUT, none of these many translations, partially due to their abundance and partially due to their linguistic poverty, actually affect the culture into which they are cast.
The KJV, for all its flaws (and they are many) was written in a language that though long “obsolete” retains a poetry and magnificence that remains unsurpassed, much like the language of Shakespeare (written in the same era). Many contemporary versions, though technically superior, frankly lack any beauty and therefore are less powerful in their effect in shaping culture, both within and outside of the church.
Now it can be argued that aesthetic value is less important than accuracy, but I disagree. Aesthetics have a truth value all their own and while “though I walk through the darkest valley” may be a more technically accurate translation, it does not speak in the same way as “though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death” and is therefore lest likely to be memorized, or to shape our worldview. Bad writing cannot be covered up by saying “the translation is technically accurate.”
Additionally the multitude of translations means that Christians have lost something very important: a common language, which is important in creating and reinforcing and yea verily, shaping our common dialogue and culture.
Is there any doubt from the title of this post that I don’t exactly have great feelings of sadness for the demise of the TNIV? It is perhaps not so appropriate to call the TNIV “the witch” since it is a “faithful and scholarly translation” but there you have it. There are others for whom the TNIV has been an important resource for their own lives and ministry and they are sad to see it go. Daniel writes:
As someone who communicates from the Bible on a weekly basis, I have found the TNIV to be a faithful, accurate and scholarly update to the best-selling NIV translation many of us grew up with.
Well God bless him. Eugene Cho also is lamenting its demise. I personally have used the TNIV on occasion (usually because there was no other option available) but have never purchased one and wouldn’t unless I had no other option. I was opposed to its publication for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the gender inclusive language. From Christianity Today:
“Whatever its strengths were, the TNIV divided the evangelical Christian community,” said Zondervan president Moe Girkins. “So as we launch this new NIV, we will discontinue putting out new products with the TNIV.”
Girkins expects the TNIV and the existing edition of the NIV to phase out over two years or so as products are replaced. “It will be several years before you won’t be able to buy the TNIV off a bookshelf,” she said.
“We are correcting the mistakes in the past,” Girkins said. “Being as transparent as possible is part of that. This decision was made by the board in the last 10 days.” She said the transparency is part of an effort to overhaul the NIV “in a way that unifies Christian evangelicalism.”
“The first mistake was the NIVi,” Danby said. “The second was freezing the NIV. The third was the process of handling the TNIV.”
I have no quarrels with or suspicions about the motives of the scholars who did the work of translation for the TNIV. I am certain (as certain as anyone can be about such things) that their motives were honorable and pure before God. This is true even as it relates to the issue of gender inclusive language.
Doug Moo, chairman of the the Committee on Bible Translation (which is the body responsible for the translation) said the committee has not yet decided how much the 2011 edition will include the gender-inclusive language that riled critics of the TNIV.
“We felt certainly at the time it was the right thing to do, that the language was moving in that direction,” Moo said. “All that is back on the table as we reevaluate things this year. This has been a time over the last 15 to 20 years in which the issue of the way to handle gender in English has been very much in flux, in process, in development. And things are changing quickly and so we are going to look at all of that again as we produce the 2011 NIV.”
The “flux” to which Moo refers concerning the English language is actually overstated. Neutered language is the norm in academic English usage and has moved into common usage beyond the academy due mostly to rather aggressive efforts to mold popular use. Unlike the evolution of the English language generally, the neutering of the language happened intentionally as a way to counter what were considered to be the oppressive patriarchal assumptions embedded in the language.
Why this gender thing matters, but not really
In so many ways, it honestly doesn’t. Though I am no Greek scholar, I am aware that in many places the language used is, in some ways, generic, that is, it does not specify gender, or more specifically, sex. To neuter the original language in this way in order to conform to contemporary English usage norms makes a lot of good sense and doesn’t fundamentally challenge any doctrines of the church.
In other ways though, the neutering of language is quite significant as it says something powerful about how the church interacts with culture. It is in fact only the newest manifestation of the church’s efforts to respond to and speak relevantly to a culture that is rapidly becoming post-Christan and into which the church’s voice as a culture shaping agent is less and less important. The multiplication of English language translations in the last century is testimony of the increasing marginalization of the church in society and every attempt at relevance reinforces greater and greater alienation. But more on that in a later post. In the mean time: