The NIV will be updated…but what about the TNIV?

I had wondered recently what happened to the TNIV…I found a copy that the publisher had handed out to students at my seminary when it came out.  I usually use the NIV when teaching or preaching.  (Believe it or not, I still use my NRSV for devotional study, mostly because that’s the Bible my sister gave me when I became a Christian.) 

It looks like the current committee has some solid folks on it (including Blomberg from my seminary as well as commentators from my favorite series, the NICNT).  I do agree with some instances of gender inclusive language (such as adding “and sisters” with a footnote), because if a person is not familiar with the fact that “brothers” implies “fellow believers” it can be a stumbling block to hearing the message.  However, the best road is educating people about translations and how they are done in order to reduce any confusion or misunderstanding.  That way, one can teach or preach from a solid translation such as the NIV or ESV (one more vote for the ESV, by the way, if we’re keeping track) and easily point out nuances in the text that may be noticeable in the original language but not in the translation.  I do agree with Matt that the NIV is a great translation to simply sit down and read.

Last month, I was teaching on the transmission and translation of the Bible to our high school students, and they were very enthusiastic about learning about translations.  Perhaps that’s because in the culture we are in (LDS), that is one argument some folks have against trusting the Bible as we know it.  But that’s another thread.

sometimes the actual intent of the biblical author can be lost to modern readers who do not understand the way ancient writers used language and/or who are unfamiliar with ancient colloquial expressions and imagery.

The solution to the difficulty is for readers to learn the ancient colloquial expressions and imagery, and the way ancient writers used language.  In other words, to acquire a Biblical mind-set, rather than force the Bible to fit the modern mind-set.

“Dynamic equivalence” simply substitutes the translators’ theological conclusions (based, of course, on their confessional commitments) for the actual words of Holy Scripture.  Instead of giving the reader the actual words of Scripture, with its difficult and challenging images, figures of speech, and paradoxes which the reader must grapple with in mind and spirit, “dynamic equivalence” gives pre-digested theology which has been passed through the translators’ theological filter.

Consider the ambiguities in the way the word “flesh” is used in the Scriptures.  This is something that a Christian must confront and grapple with in order to come to a truly Biblical understanding.  That is impossible when the translators hide the word “flesh” behind the theological conclusion “sinful nature.”  Or consider the word Παραδωσεις, which the NIV renders as “traditions” when it is referred to negatively (e.g. Mk 7.8-9) but as “teachings” when it is referred to positively (1 Co 11.2, 2 Th 2.15).  If that is not a confessional presupposition at work, then I do not know what is.

Tell me what the Scriptures say, not what the translators infer that it means.  The NIV is an execrable and heterodox translation; it cannot be saved.

Good point all, Chris Jones. Of course, I’m a KJV man myself.  If I have to use another translation, I opt for the New American Standard.

The solution to the difficulty is for readers to learn the ancient colloquial expressions and imagery, and the way ancient writers used language.  In other words, to acquire a Biblical mind-set, rather than force the Bible to fit the modern mind-set.

Absolutely. If we keep translating it into currently contemporary terms in a few generations it will be hard for anyone to pick up a Bible with any confidence that it says what its writers intended.

ESV sola. My wife and I have a morning bible study. I use the ESV she has an old NIV. I have found a number of disturbing mistranslations which reflect a bias. Episkopos = overseer.

#4
AMEN, and AMEN!

We must always remember that any translation is faulty by its very nature.  “Translators are traitors”, my NT professor once told us.  But since few, including clergy, can read Greek and Hebrew well enough (myself very much included), I will continue to use the RSV.

I’m an NAS man, myself.

Yes, I am a purely ESV guy now personally speaking

Fr. Matt:
Thanks for this thread.  My 15 year old niece participates in a 6am Friday bible study at her public school with some of her Young Life friends (prayers for them and their faithful witness) and needs a good new study bible.

Peace,
-ms

I agree that the ESV study Bible is amazing and well worth getting. Another wonderful Bible that I own and recommend, that has come out fairly recently is the Orthodox Study Bible which uses the NKJV for the New Testament and a new translation for the Old Testament from the Septuagint.
I use s couple translations,I like and use the RSV,NKJV and the ESV. I consider the use of my NRSV as a necessary evil. As for the NIV, not really a fan,even when I was Evangelical. When I was in grad. school they gave free TNIV Bibles to everyone and I was not impressed,I sold mine to the nearby used book store.

I welcome the publication and increasingly wide use of the ESV, just as I welcome the release of any new, reasonably competent translation of the Scriptures.  For as noted above, there is no such thing as a perfect translation.

Personally, I use the NRSV as my main English Bible, but I read the Greek NT on a virtually daily basis, since there’s just no substitute for it. 

But there is a HUGE, glaring problem with the ESV, just like the NIV.  It lacks seven books of the Bible!  That is, we Anglicans make use of the Deutero-Canonical books (that Protestants tend to call the Apocrypha), at least for devotional and historical purposes, although not for establishing doctrine (Article VI of the 39).  And both the Sunday and the daily lectionary include readings from those minor, but significant books from the Hellenistic (Greek-speaking) period.  So of course all the faithful Anglicans here at SF will naturally want to be able to read those assigned readings, right?

FWIW, I highly recommend everyone (except new converts) read more than one translation of the Bible on a regular basis.  The differences can be very stimulating.  But for new Christians, those same interesting differences can be overly confusing.

As for Bibles with study notes, I highly recommend two different kinds.  I mainly use the New Interpreter’s Study Bible put out by Abingdon (NRSV), which has excellent study notes and general helps, reflecting the viewpoint of most moderate, centrist biblical scholars.

But I also highly recommend The Spiritual Formation Bible, which is a hybrid, combining the features of a regular study Bible (like the good old NIV Study bible)and a devotional Bible (like Max Lucado’s).  Edited by Richard Foster and Dallas Willard, along with Eugene Peterson and Walter Brueggemann, this wonderful tool is available in both the NIV and the NRSV, the latter with and without the Deutero-Canonical books.  It’s the Bible my wife uses most (with the full canon, those added seven books, of course!).

David Handy+

I use KJV (one complete, one just the ‘canonical books’), NASB, NIV, and a HCSB. 

I have no troubles if they use ‘people’ instead of ‘men’ if the original language’s use of a masculine pronoun was for the generic as well - but if the want to make ‘sons’ into children, when the original language didn’t support such use, well, then, I’d be bothered.

Until I learn Greek and Hebrew, I’ll be asking more than just one committee to translate for me…

12, actually my office book has those readings.  I thought that the ESV folks were working on a translation of the Apocrypha.  Does anyone know?

Hi David+

No, the ESV and NIV are complete. The apocryphal books are, as article 6 states, very good and helpful but not to be equated with the inerrant Word of God.

For that reason, I regularly replace the Apocryphal readings in the lectionary with readings from the OT. I would no sooner permit a reading from the Apocrypha during worship in the place of scripture than I would a reading from CS Lewis or JI Packer—both excellent and helpful and godly writers who, nevertheless are fallible and do not write scripture.

Matt+
We use the BCP 1662 at home (morning and evening prayer), and I’ve not found any readings from the Apocrypha in it as of yet.

Within the new province, is using the table of readings from the 1662 something that would be considered ‘OK’?

Also, is there a 1662 based lectionary that doesn’t leave out any of the scriptures (the table we use seems to have only those parts of Job that are spoken by Job and God for example)...

[12] David Handy

But there is a HUGE, glaring problem with the ESV, just like the NIV.  It lacks seven books of the Bible!

That’s a feature.  Not a bug.

Personally, I think it would be a good thing if the NIV itself faded away.  The NASB/ESV are more than sufficient to the task.  And the concept of “dynamic equivalent” did create problems in the text. 

carl

Matt said:“The apocryphal books are, as article 6 states, very good and helpful but not to be equated with the inerrant Word of God”

That is a new one to me.  I never knew the 39 articles taught inerrancy!

Hi Eugene,

I think you misunderstood the point of my comment…which was that Article six does not consider the apocryphal books on par with the word of God.

Now, I do think an argument could be made that the use of the term “Word of God” necessarily implies inerrancy but, as I said, that wasn’t my point.

Matt (#15) and carl (#17),

Of course, I realize quite well that for you guys, the Bible has only 66 books, not 73.  My own pastor in Richmond, Matt, has the same policy that you do, and regularly substitutes an OT passage whenever the 1979 BCP Sunday lectionary calls for a reading from one of the Deutero-Canonical books.  And I understand that and can live with it.

But when I’m in charge, I encourage lectors to read a passage from say Sirach or the Wisdom of Solomon (both occasionally appointed for use) with the typical conclusion, <i?“This is the word of the Lord!”</i>  I have no qualms or hesitation about that.  Just like with the rest of the Old Testament (wink).

I think you hardcore Protestant guys are refusing to face the implications of the significant fact that some of the NT writers allude to the apocryphal books from time to time and do so approvingly, e.g., as Paul echoes the book of Wisdom in Romans 1 (in the attack on the folly of pagan idolatry).

The 39 Articles aren’t sacrosanct or above criticism.  And the fact that Article VI is rather negative about the Deutero-Canonical books is one of the areas where it MUST be tweaked and updated if it’s to function as a real, living doctrinal standard for all orthodox Anglicans today, on this side of the Tractarian Counter-Reformation.

Just remember, the 1552 BCP replaced the canticles drawn from the Greek text of Daniel, such as the Song of the Three Men (Benedicite, Omnia Opera Domini) with Psalm 148, which likewise clebrates the wonder of God’s good creation.  But the 1559 and 1662 BCPs put them back in, as worthy of liturgical use by Anglicans.  And rightly so.

But of course, that was also one of the complaints of the Puritan party, who insisted that Anglicanism still needed to be purged of its remaining traces of Romanism.

David Handy+

David Handy,

The ESV Study Bible does lack the Apocrypha, but there is now an ESV edition with the Apocrypha—albeit with the books at the back of the volume instead of between the Testaments where they belong.

The ESV is excellent.  Might I also recommend the Revised English Bible (REB), which avoids many of the gender-neutralization errors of the NRSV, and is particularly well suited for reading aloud.

This is concerning Matt’s question, “What about the TNIV?”

The very first press release about this which I saw had a spokesperson for Zondervan (IBS’ new name) saying that they would stop producing products based on the TNIV.

I am encouraged by that. My spiritual background is in the missionary movement “Operation Mobilization”, and IBS recently merged with Send the Light/OM Literature to form first STL-IBS and now Biblica. I have no idea what background IBS leadership came from, but the STL leadership come out of OM and one of OM’s greatest charismas is striving for unity in the Body of Christ. This decision certainly is a move in that direction.

Fr Kennedy,

Article 6 says nothing about inerrancy, and certainly does not designate the canonical books as “inerrant” and the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books as “not inerrant.”  The title of the Article, after all, is the Sufficiency, not the inerrancy, of Scripture. 

Your practice of substituting canonical readings for deuterocanonical readings is not consistent with what Article 6 does say:  the other books ... the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners.  When the Article speaks of “the Church” reading the deuterocanonical books, it can only mean “reading in public worship”; for the Church by her nature does not read privately.

Bo,

The 1662 lectionary appoints numerous lessons from the deuterocanonicals, often for weekdays rather than Sundays.  For example, on the weekdays following Trinity 26, readings from Tobit, Baruch, and 2d Maccabees are appointed.  Also, readings from the deuterocanonicals are appointed for some Holy Days, such as SS Barnabas, Peter, James, and Bartholomew (Sirach) and also All Saints Day (Wisdom of Solomon).

Thanks, RomeAnglican (#21).

I’m glad to know the ESV is now available with the full canon of Scripture included. 

And yes, I welcome your recommendation of the British REV too.  It does indeed have some magnificent passages, like the Prologue to John’s Gospel (John 1:1-18).  And lest we forget, former ABoC Donald Coggan, a firm evangelical, played a leading role in that badly needed revision of the ground-breaking old NEB (where the OT was often mistranslated due to the idiosyncratic views of G.R. Driver).

We’re incredibly blessed to have so many fine translations available to us in English, more than any other language on earth.  Alas, there are still over a billion people on earth who have no access at all to God’s Word in their heart language.  So the challenge of missionary Bible translation work remains.  And I’m happy to say that the Roman Catholic Church is very involved in meeting that vital need today.

David Handy+

Friends,

A pastoral application story of this whole discussion.

I am counseling a couple (yes, man and woman…) who are to be married at the end of October.  We are in the details of the liturgy now, and picking Scriptures.  One of those suggested is a snippet from the Book of Tobit, namely part of the prayer of Tobias.  This is a wonderful story, and one that has particular application for a wedding sermon.  The fact that it is Deutero-canonical enters into the conversation because the wife-to-be is Methodist, while the husband-to-be is Anglican (Episcopalian from childhood).  I would love to use the reading from Tobit - as I have on other occasions.  We probably won’t, simply because the reference will be unknown to her family - and wedding sermons aren’t typically the place to explain the place of Deutero-canonical Scriptures!

Anyway, I agree with Dr. Handy and Chris Jones - as a matter of course these readings have a place of honor given by the Church - there is nothing within them that is inconsistent with the Canon, and their use to me seems entirely consistent with the spirit and letter of the 39 Articles.

That being said, I’m excited to read the ESV Study Bible - and will likely wait until I can get my hands on one that includes the Deutero-canonical books.

Fr. Darin Lovelace+
St. Davids Anglican Church (ACNA)
Durant, Iowa
http://www.stdavidsdurant.info

Chris,
I’m using the simple Month and Day table in the BCP, I can’t figure out the counting from Trinity thing

Now that you mention it, I do remember the Reading for St. Bartholomew’s day including a book that wasn’t there…

Hi Chris Jones:

“Article 6 says nothing about inerrancy…”

Again, that was not my point. See #19.

“Your practice of substituting canonical readings for deuterocanonical readings is not consistent with what Article 6 does say:  the other books ... the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners.”

Sure it is. I certainly have no problem with people reading the apocryphal books for an “example of life” and “instruction in manners” even though they are not to be equated God’s holy and inerrant Word. We just don’t read them during worship.

“When the Article speaks of “the Church” reading the deuterocanonical books, it can only mean “reading in public worship”; for the Church by her nature does not read…”

Oh, I think that is a bit of a stretch…but you go ahead and believe that. I think “the Church” can do all sorts of things collectively outside of the realm of worship including read and or study good books.

Fr. Darin (#25),

Yes, there is no substitute for wise pastoral discretion.  I similarly wouldn’t use the delightful prayer from Tobit in a wedding with family members from thoroughly Protestant backgrounds unfamiliar with the book.

Alas, I can’t receive PMs any more.  My mail box here is full, and I can’t even access it to delete some of the old messages.  Maybe Matt or one of the other managers at SF could assist me there.  But in the meantime, feel free to send me a private email at fr(dot)davidhandy(at)yahoo.com

Cordially,
David Handy+

It is interesting to note the implication of articles 20 and 21:

First in 20 we are told it is unlawful for “the Church” to expound one passage or “place” of scripture in such a way that it conflicts with or is “repugnant to” another. Why would such a law be deemed important? I mean if there were no concept of inerrancy implicit int he doctrine of scripture during this time period why would harmonization matter?

And, really, on what basis ought “the Church” to be governed by the scripture? Why can’t “the Church” when gathered in Holy Council also be recognized as an authoritative source of special revelation alongside the bible? Well article XXI gives us some insight I think:

“General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together(forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God.”

Interesting. So one reason that “the Church” in council cannot be seen as holding authority on par with that of scripture is that “they may err”. And why might they err? They are all not “governed with the Spirit and Word of God.”

So, while I would agree that the Articles do not explicitly teach inerrancy as we know it today—they certainly that one reason that the Councils do not have the same standing as scripture is that “councils err”

Which, I think, implies quite a bit.

I certainly have no problem with people reading the apocryphal books ...

It is not a question of “people” reading the apocryphal books; it is a question of “the Church” reading them.  Evidently, in your parish “the Church” does not read the apocryphal books (whatever individual “people” who are members of the parish may do “on their own time”).

Do you have your bishop’s blessing to ignore or change the liturgical readings appointed by the Church’s canonical authority (The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith—Article 20)?  Or is it within the purview of a parish rector to alter the Church’s liturgy at will?

Chris,
The ‘Church’ exists where two or three are gathered in His name.  That is not limited to the time of the Service of Worship.  What three of us do together in His name, we do as the church.

“It is not a question of “people” reading the apocryphal books; it is a question of “the Church” reading them.”

Yes, and the Church does and should read them. We just don’t think “the Church” should do so during worship. Perhaps “the Church” might study the texts and then speak collectively about them?

Oh…wait…I see that “the Church” already did in Article 6. And, amazingly, she did so outside of a worship service. Shocking.

“Evidently, in your parish “the Church” does not read the apocryphal books (whatever individual
“people” who are members of the parish may do “on their own time”).”

heh…“the Church” in my parish? what an odd phrase. My parish is certainly a congregation in “the Church” and “the Church” certainly “doth read” the apocrypha.

“Do you have your bishop’s blessing to ignore or change the liturgical readings appointed by the Church’s canonical authority (The Church hath
power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith—Article 20)? Or is it within the purview of a parish rector to
alter the Church’s liturgy at will?”

I believe the prayerbook 79 rubrics allow the senior minister to substitute and/or change readings and the 79 book is licensed for use in the ACNA.

But hey if I’m wrong and my bishop has the mind to, I suppose I’ll just have to be defrocked because I’ll not waste precious worship time reading uninspired and errant books in place of God’s Word. But I think my bishop is quite a bit more gracious than that.

Chris,
Looking ahead, I find that readings from Wisdom are in the table of lessons we use, in October.

I’ve no frock to be taken - we’ll read from Proverbs most likely..

I rather enjoyed the Song of the Three Children. 

When I first brought home a ‘full KJV’ my Granny read the ‘extra books’ and found them ‘better than the Shakespeare stuff you brought home’, maybe she was of a like mind with the reformers.

When I was home recently, one of the appointed readings (1928 BCP) was from Sirach.  For a study Bible, I have the RSV (not NRSV), and I’ll buy an ESV study Bible as soon as the Deutero-canonicals are in it.

At to TNIV, I think the news article says that when the new revisions to the NIV are complete, they’ll stop printing TNIV, which has not been a big success in any case.

Bo,

That is not limited to the time of the Service of Worship.

Are you sure about that?

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.  (Article 19)

Defining the Church as a congregation where the Word is preached and the sacraments are administered sure sounds like defining it liturgically to me.  It is all well and good to define the Church as “where two or three are gathered,” but the definition turns on what is meant by “in His Name.”

The traditional understanding of “in His Name” is a gathering for worship according to the Church’s rule of prayer, under the presidency of an apostolic minister who preaches and celebrates in persona Christi.  It is not clear to me that other ad-hoc “gatherings” of self-selected believers really qualify as being “in His Name.”

Chris,
I’m one hundred percent sure about that.
Matthew 18:20

The congregation with those visible marks is still the congregation when engaged in a Tuesday afternoon book study, the members are still members when holding private prayer in their own homes. 

You may deny that I remain a member of the Body of Christ when I walk out of the church-house door if you wish.  You’ll be hard pressed to find Scripture to support that position.

Fr Kennedy,

I believe the prayerbook 79 rubrics allow the senior minister to substitute and/or change readings

I believe that you are mistaken about that.  The rubrics allow readings to be lengthened (“Concerning the Daily Office Lectionary” on page 934), but I can find no authorization in the rubrics to substitute or change the appointed readings or psalmody.  If you can cite the rubrical authorization I shall stand corrected.

Ah well. I’m just not that interested. I suppose I’ll just have to throw myself on the mercy of my bishop…something tells me he’ll be lenient.

Bo,

How are we “gathered in His Name” when we are not doing what He commanded us to do?  The Saviour said this do in remembrance of me, but He did not say get together on Tuesdays for Bible study.  When we gather for the purpose He commanded us to gather, then it is “in His Name,” because it is in obedience to His command.  When we gather for other purposes—however good and salutary those other purposes may be—it is not “in His Name” in the same sense.

Of course you are still a member of the Church in between worship services.  But you are a member of the Church because you participate in the liturgical assembly and receive the means of grace (Word and Sacrament).  Everything we do as Christians is grounded in that liturgical life.  The Church’s worship (especially the Eucharist) is constitutive of the Church in a way that Bible study, vestry meetings, and all other “churchly” activities simply are not.

Hi Chris Jones

Has the Church ever done anything collectively outside the context of the liturgy of worship—in particular has the Church ever corporately done anything with books apart from liturgical worship?

has the Church ever corporately done anything with books apart from liturgical worship?

I would say no.

With respect to the books of Holy Scripture, the Church has done two things:  it has recognized those books which are canonical; and it has used those books liturgically to communicate the faith and to mediate the grace of God to the faithful.  With respect to the former, the whole point at issue in the canonization process was “what books may be read in public worship?”.  If a book is read in public worship, it is (more or less by definition) canonical.  (In that context I should say that I respect the consistency of your refusal to read the deutero-canonicals in public worship.  You do not believe them to be canonical, so you are unwilling to read them liturgically.  I don’t quarrel with the principle, but I think your stance is inconsistent with the historical position of the Church as well as with the liturgical standards of the Church body to which you belong.)

With respect to the liturgical usage of the Scriptures as means of instruction and means of grace, much of what may seem to be “extra-liturgical” use of the Scriptures (or other literature) is in fact intimately connected with the liturgical heart of the Church—either as preparation for, or working-out the implications of, what we receive through our participation in the Church’s liturgical life.  Everything in the life of the Church—catechesis, Bible study, confession and absolution, evangelization, and so forth—proceeds from the Gospel proclaimed, and the divine life given, in the liturgy.  If the Church is doing things that are entirely unconnected with the liturgy, then perhaps it ought not to be doing those things.

Interesting. I would suggest that, in fact, the Church has defined doctrine based on her corporate study of and debate over scripture…outside the context of liturgical reading.

And, I would suggest, that the result of this corporate study and reading resulted in what we read in Article 6 regarding the status of the Apocrypha.

I certainly think that the Church “doth read” the scripture and the apocrypha in other contexts than liturgical…otherwise she could not speak authoritatively on doctrine and other matters, including the nature and shape of the bible.

Chris,
I Corinthians 11 has it that the Lord’s supper is a remembrance of Him as oft as we do it.  Getting to it being required at every meeting of the Church would be a bit of a stretch.  I really don’t think that is what you’re aiming at.

We are commanded to assembly ourselves together. 
We are commanded to study to show ourselves approved.
We are commanded to witness and to make disciples.
None of those actions require the cup nor the broken bread.

Reading from Wisdom at a vestry meeting, would, if the members of the vestry are members of the Church, be reading from the Apocrypha in the Church, and as the Church, and wouldn’t be leading others to think that the reading was ‘the Word of the Lord’.

I bought a copy of the TNIV Study Bible a few months ago and found it very good, as I do the NIV and the NIV Study Bible.  I have recommended both the TNIV and the NIV to parishioners.  I certainly need to get a copy of the ESV (and you guys recommend the ESV Study Bible, right?) to see what I’ve been missing.

Like Dr. Handy I read the Greek NT daily.  My Hebrew is not what it was 30 years ago in seminary and graduate school, but now and then I refer to it.

There are no translations without problems here and there, and that certainly includes both editions of the RSV as well as the NRSV.  The RSV at least translates “sarx” as “flesh,” and doesn’t try to find some supposed modern equivalent to it, as most of the translations issued recently do.  I will give high marks to the helps and maps in The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Augmented 3rd edition.

Hi Matt+

Question for ya.  Besides the really good ESV study Bible that’s out, are there other reasons why you’d recommend ESV over NAS?  Might be an excuse to drive up to my old stomping grounds, and visit Baker’s.

Hi Moot,
The NAS is a great version, probably my favorite ‘word for word’ before the ESV came out. But, what sets the ESV apart, in my book, is the elegance and beauty of the language. In many ways the ESV recalls the KJS or what the KJS must have read like to people at the time. It seems standard setting for lack of a better expression, whereas the NAS is often clunky.

Baker’s it is!
Thanks, Matt+

I agree completely with Father Kennedy’s assessment of the ESV. It is without parallel as a highly accurate essentially-literal translation that also reads as elegant English prose.

I have heard it said that the ESV is too difficult for many Americans to read (they say it is written at an 11th grade reading level), but I use it daily in class with my middle schoolers at St. Vincent’s School and they seem to have no problem with it (granted, we have uncommonly bright kids at SVS who get a heavy dose of Bible and theology coursework, which I hope enhances their comprehension!). Today I actually helped two of my sixth graders purchase their own copies of the peerless ESV Study Bible with recently received “birthday money” (and that purchase was entirely their own idea!).

If you don’t have an ESV Study Bible, buy one today! (The Cadillac of study Bibles!)

The old NIV and the TNIV will no longer be published, once the new updated NIV appears in ‘11. It will be well-worth waiting for this update.  The TNIV was not all bad, and one hopes that the positive/accurate changes will be kept in the updated NIV.

Re 34, Katherine, if you are waiting for an ESV Study Bible version that includes the deutero-canonicals to be published before you purchase one, I fear the wait may be a long one. I suspect the commercial demand for such a volume is not great enough to lead to its publication any time soon. (I could be wrong but I imagine the mass of evangelical consumers who drive the Bible publishing market are not champing at the bit to see what the study notes for the ESV translation of Tobit have to say!).

But might I suggest that your present RSV Study Bible (the old Oxford Annotated from the sixties, perhaps?) would still do a fine job for you anytime you needed study notes on the deutero-canonicals, but the ESV Study Bible treatment of the much-more-frequently-consulted “first” canon books is of such outstanding value it is worth the investment today. Perhaps your Bible study habits are significantly different from mine, but even though I teach a Bible class at my school daily and preach every few weeks, I don’t think I have ever had to consult study notes on a deutero-canonical text more than once or twice a year since I have been out of school. My suggestion, get the ESV Study Bible and keep your old deutero-canonical friendly Oxford Annotated close by in case of need.

Matt+ - In #46, I am SURE you mean the KJV, not the KJS (or has she come up with her own version of that now as well as the canons of TEC)

John3v3, ouch, yes, terrible mistake. Thanks for the correction.

Ah yes, the NIV - the Nearly Inspired Version

Lame puns aside, I’m an NASB man myself. I appreciate its effort to stick as closely to the actual Hebrew and Greek as possible. The Holman Christian Standard is probably my second favorite. The ESV, I feel is overrated. It has an awesome study Bible to be sure, but on its own, its still slightly less literal than the NASB and slightly less readable than the HCSB. Plus, like almost all translations other than the NASB and HCSB, it doesn’t capitalize pronouns referring to God.

I must agree with Matt+, I shuddered whenever an apocryphal reading came up when I was in a pew ... I do not allow the readings in my Parish either .... of course we are a 1928 BCP Parish. I’m sure my Evangelical background is at play here, as my Dad would not allow anything but KJV to be read from his pulpit to his flock.

Ed+

Since I had a bit of a tiff with the good Father Kennedy a few weeks ago over Mark Driscoll/Joel Osteen and a Calvinism discussion, I’ve been reading ATC (All Things Calvinist) - back to Sproul “Chosen By God,” Berkoff, Hodge, Grudum. Couple that with J.I. Packer’s essay on Biblical Interpretation and some John Piper - trying to get into the Reformed mind of Matt Kennedy and going outside my comfort zone as J.I. suggests.

Now I find out that Matt believes the ESV Study Bible is the Cadillac. MMMM.

I bought the ESV Study bible in genuine leather when it first came out, a couple of months ago. It weighs a ton and at first glance is very “busy”. It’s even bigger than the Holman Scofield III which I like. And it’s hard to read in bed as Scripture readings for Evening Prayer. And it didn’t seem to offer any intros that I haven’t seen before in The King James Study Bible (previously known as the Liberty Study Bible) or the KJV/NKJV Scofield I, II, or III (I guess it’s obvious I’m not looking for the Apocrypha). It certainly beast the NOAB but what doesn’t?

But no one has mentioned anything about “the profitable notes” and where they might lead. I’m guessing Reformed. But I look at the contributors and you have some Dallas Seminary along with some Westminsters, Covenants, and even some SBC schools - although they may be Calvinist Southern Baptists.

I’ll have to get past the small type, busy layout, and weight and check out the profitable notes.

“Dynamic equivalence” simply substitutes the translators’ theological conclusions (based, of course, on their confessional commitments) for the actual words of Holy Scripture.—#2

This is a caricature of dynamic equivalence, reflecting a simplistic notion of translation and a preposterously categorical smear on dynamic-equivalence translators’ integrity.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Instead of giving the reader the actual words of Scripture, with its difficult and challenging images, figures of speech, and paradoxes which the reader must grapple with in mind and spirit, “dynamic equivalence” gives pre-digested theology which has been passed through the translators’ theological filter.

Have you done much translation?

Translation is not a mechanical process. Even a very literal translation involves considerable judgment. Moreover, most translations (Biblical or otherwise) are not hyper-literal. The more literally you translate, the more you lose in clarity and readability. The translator must consider the tradeoffs and strike a balance. (I have not studied Hebrew and Greek, but I’ve seen translation challenges and tradeoffs abundantly in languages more closely akin to modern English.)

For a modest Biblical example, consider Matthew 2:19-21 in Paul McReynolds’ Greek-English Word Study New Testament:

“Having died but the Herod look messenger of Master shines by dream to the Joseph in Egypt saying, having raised been take along the small child and the mother of him and went into land Israel.”

This passage is from a narrative (as best I can tell, a reasonably straightforward narrative). The translator would face greater challenges in a complex passage like Ephesians 1.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Martin Luther, perhaps the greatest Bible translator of all time, often wrestled to find the right way to convey in German the sense of the original Hebrew and Greek. He declared:

—“In translation you cannot speak German with a Greek or Hebrew tongue.”

—“One may not ask the Latin language how to speak German. One must ask mothers in the home, children on the street, the common man at the market, and watch carefully how they speak. After that one may translate. Then those who read will understand you and know that you are speaking German with them.”

—“I endeavored to make Moses so German that no one would suspect he was a Jew.”

—“Your reader must be able to read God’s Word as though it were written yesterday.”

Sounds like dynamic equivalence, doesn’t it? Yet Luther produced a legitimate translation, not a paraphrase, not an ink-blot test of his own theological preconceptions. His translation’s great success owed much to his hard work at conveying in colloquial German the sense of the original.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

If you prefer a very literal translation, by all means use one. But don’t equate dynamic equivalence with paraphrase, much less dismiss it as a fraud.

I led Daily Morning Prayer for over a year to a small group of “baby Christians,” (Katrina victims on the Gulf Coast) using the BCP lectionary, and continued that on a personal basis for the entire two-year lectionary, so I did encounter the apocrypha as presented by the lectionary.

I was not impressed. However, since that experience brought home to me that I had not read the apocrypha in many years, I included it in my next annual sweep through the entire bible. I obtained the The New Interpreters’ Study Bible, based on the NRSV, which was the only study bible I could get my hands on that included the apocrypha. It had its shortcomings, but it was nevertheless helpful.

Reading these books in their entirety showed me just how far away they are from the canon: none of them approaches the stately grandeur of the books of the canon. I refused to read some of the apocryphal selections in the lectionary in Morning Prayer, as they were absolutely inappropriate to the group of struggling drug and alcohol addicts who I had gathered under my wing. Examples:

Sirach 3:3 (appointed for 2 Christmas, yr 1) claims, “Those who honor their father atone for sins;”

Wisdom 1:13 (4 Easter, yr 1) claims, “God did not make death.”

Speaking of the ungodly, Wisdom 3:12-13 (skipped in lectionary) says, “Their wives are foolish, and their children evil; their offspring are accursed.”

Speaking of Adam, Wisdom 10:1 (5 Easter, yr 1) says, “Wisdom protected the first-formed father of the world, when he alone had been created; she delivered him from his transgression.”

Not that the Apocrypha does not rise to heights on occasion: we would be impoverished without the soaring liturgy of the Song of the Three Young Men (BCP 47-49 & 88-89) and the Prayer of Manasseh (BCP 90-91).

I recommend that every serious Bible student read through the apocrypha, especially 1 Maccabees, but this is way down the list of priorities. And (with my Bishop’s blessing) I avoid reading from the Apocrypha in the part of the service dedicated to the Word.

And one should never, never say “This is the Word of the Lord” after the Apocrypha: the correct BCP closing is “Here ends the reading.”

Irenaeus,

It may be that I expressed myself too strongly.  I ought not to have made a sweeping statement about dynamic equivalence as a style of translation, when the NIV is the only example of it that I know.  For all I know, the NIV may be a singularly poor example of dynamic equivalence.  And you are quite right that no translation (whether of Scripture or anything else) can be faithful to the original if it is woodenly literal.

I stand by my criticism of the NIV in particular, however.  There are too many instances in which the translators hide the actual wording in order to make a theological point.  (It does not help that the theological point they are making is often (from my perspective) heterodox.)

a preposterously categorical smear on dynamic-equivalence translators’ integrity

That was not my intent.  It was the translators’ intent to convey what they sincerely believed the meaning of the text to be.  I am sure that for them it was entirely legitimate to base their “meaning for meaning” renderings on their own theological inferences, and that they did so with complete integrity.  I simply do not agree that this ought to be the translator’s job.

Have you done much translation?

I cannot claim to have done a great deal of translation (particularly not much in recent years), but I have done enough of it to be quite well aware of the difficulties and subtleties involved.  I have done translations from Greek, French, and Anglo-Saxon, and have enough knowledge of Latin, Welsh, and German to translate the odd sentence or two.

There was nothing in my initial comment that advocated for “literal” translation (as if such a thing were even possible).  Of course there is a continuum of translation techniques from the literal, which preserves the grammatical structure of the source language and strives for a one-to-one correspondence between source and target vocabulary, to the paraphrase, which strives to convey the meaning of the source text without any loyalty whatever to particular words and images.  And there are many points in between on that continuum.

But not all translation styles are fitting for the Holy Scriptures.  If the specific words, images, figures of speech, references, and allusions (whether literal or typological) are not preserved in the translation, then the coherence of the Scriptures can be obscured.  A single passage might be rendered accurately by dynamic equivalence, but if the references, allusions, and figures of speech by which it is linked to the whole of the Scriptures are not also rendered accurately, a great deal is lost.

My concern is not so much with the accuracy of the rendering of particular passages, but with what your namesake St Irenaeus of Lyons called “the hypothesis of Scripture.”  A translation like the NIV which takes it upon itself to resolve the metaphors that Scripture uses (like “sinful nature” for “flesh”) necessarily obscures the hypothesis of Scripture.

Chris [#58]: Many thanks for your response and clarifications.

In shopping for Bibles recently, I was intrigued to learn how the Roman Catholic Church looks with strong favor on the Revised Standard Version.

From the standpoint of English style, the RSV is one of my favorites. But it’s hard to find in bookstores . . . unless you look among the “Catholic Bibles.” Which I finally did. It’s like finding a long-lost friend.

#60—from the standpoint of style, perhaps, but not grammar, as it inverts (subconsciously, perhaps) or skews the meaning of the second person singular.

From the standpoint of style, perhaps, but not grammar, as it inverts (subconsciously, perhaps) or skews the meaning of the second person singular.—#61

Unlike the original RSV, the Second Catholic edition does not use “thou” and “thee.” Does that resolve your concern?

Thanks, texanglican #50.  So, once I return to living in the US, perhaps I’ll get an ESV study Bible to supplement my old Oxford Annotated RSV.

I suppose what puts me off in considering translations is the insistence that something is an “evangelical” Bible.  I have a copy of the ESV for reading, and I like it very much, more than the NIV.  But calling something an “evangelical” or “Catholic” Bible makes me wonder, as a non-reader of either Greek or Hebrew, what is in the translation that makes it one or the other.  Especially in Anglican terms, we are trying, or so I hope, to be both part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church and also to be evangelical—spreading the good news.

I fall back on looking first at Psalm 1.  If it says, “Blessed is the man…” (RSV, NIV, ESV) rather than “Blessed are those…” (TNIV) then I hope I am in the right place.

Katherine,
In Psalm 1, the word in Hebrew you are referring to is ish.  It can be understood to be ambiguous as a gender specific word, especially when placed next to the Hebrew word geber.  You can see the use of the word geber in Psalm 127:5 and Psalm 128:4 with “man” or as “mighty man” (ESV).
I believe Psalm 1 is one place where the T-NIV actually got it right to use the english “those”, referring to those members of mankind, or perhaps members of the human race of either gender.  Not to mention the use of the word “children” for the Hebrew banim in 127 and 128.  If you look at the attending commentary in the Blue Bible online, you can follow the less gender specific use of ish.
Certainly there is the ish and ishah of Genesis, and in that case, because the word is contrasted by the same word with a suffix added, there is almost no choice but to refer in the english to man and woman.

Thank you, Rob Eaton+.  But is it not true that for nearly two thousand years there have been references in Christian prayer and meditation not only to Psalm 1 in the “blessed are those” sense but also to “the man” as Jesus Christ?  Since it has been so interpreted in both ways through the ages by Christians, it seems to me that a translation which cuts off one of these interpretations is a mistake.

What is the Anglican/Episcopal view of the apocrypha? Obviously this view affects how one evaluates the usefulness of recent translations, especially in study Bible format.

In Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Anglican reformers followed St. Jerome in reading these books “for example of life and instruction of manners” but did “not apply them to establish any doctrine.” In other words, they are useful for reading, even publicly in worship, because of the information they contain about the period between Malachi and Matthew and for guidance in living. Note: “Example of life” means “an incident or situation in which one individual’s punishment or plight may serve to admonish others,” and “instruction of manners” means a lesson provided by “the habitual conduct or moral character of a person.” [BCP, p. 868; other quotes from Merriam-Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged]

The 1979 Catechism uses the wording “under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” only in reference to the Old and New Testaments, not in reference to the Apocrypha. Hence after the reader completes an appointed lesson from the Apocrypha, it is appropriate for that person to say “Here ends (or endeth) the reading” rather than “The Word of the Lord.” [BCP, pp. 853, 325, 357]

Why do the books of the Apocrypha not warrant inclusion in the Old Testament canon? Here I summarize the points made by W.H. Griffith Thomas, an early 20th century Anglican. (1) They were never part of the Jewish canon (the Hebrew Scriptures). (2) They are never quoted in the New Testament. (3) They were not confused with canonical books by those of the early Church who knew Hebrew, including St. Jerome. (Note: St. Augustine of Hippo, who knew no Hebrew, backed their inclusion in the Roman Catholic canon.) (4) They appeared in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures) but only as an appendix. (5) They make no claim to divine authority, and several clearly disclaim any such authority. (6) They contain what Professor W.H. Griffith Thomas calls “doctrinal, chronological, historical, and geographical errors.” [(1)-(6) Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles, pp. 114-115]

What is the value of the apocrypha? (1) These books contain “important information regarding the life and thought of the Jewish people during … the period just prior to the emergence of Christianity.” So they increase the reader’s understanding of “the political, cultural, ethical, and religious background of the contemporaries of Jesus Christ.” (2) They have influenced “such diverse figures as poets, artists, hymn-writers, dramatists, composers, and even explorers—notably Christopher Columbus.” [(1)-(2) Bruce Metzger, Apocrypha, p. viii] (3) Of course, we should add their value “for example of life and instruction of manners” per Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles.

Dick Wire

This has been overall an interesting thread.  A book that came to my attention by a veteran text critic and Bible translator, Bruce M. Metzger, is The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001).  I can recommend it to a general audience.  It deals with the Septuagint and other ancient versions as well as English translations.

By the way, it is now usually thought that early Christians did not inherit a closed canon of the Old Testament from the Jews.  There was Scripture, yes, but it was not part of a closed collection known as a canon.  See especially Albert C. Sundberg, Jr., The Old Testament of the Early Church (Harvard University Press, 1960s).

I haven’t come across the idea that the parts of the Septuagint that are what we call the Apocrypha were in the Septuagint as an appendix.  Metzger in the above book says that “. . . the books are arranged according to their literary character: (1) Pantateuch and historical books, (2) poetical and sapiential books, (3) prophetical books.  Within each group, the sequence does not correspond to that of the Hebrew canon” (p. 17).

Although there are no direct quotes from the Apocrypha in the New Testament, there are many allusions.  For an extensive listing of these allusions, see pp. 800-804 of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition.

Rudy+

Katherine,
I don’t think you can make use of the “2000 years” contraction for “ever since Jesus” in this case.  Certainly in the early church fathers there are the interpretations (both the allegorical interpretations (such as Origen, and others of an “Alexandrian” style), and then those who object to such as the only method, such as Ambrose, etc.), where Psalm 1 is pointed messianically to Jesus.  Augustin pointedly picks up on that in his commentary.  On the other hand, Theodore of Mopsuestia (caveat: whose writings betray a universalist salvation approach to Christ’s death and resurrection), recognizes such an interpretation but would rather have you start with “a man” being better understood as “all of us human beings”, or “mankind”, as I was suggesting the word ish more deeply suggests.
But by this time you’re into the fourth century.
I’m not clear who the first was to make the connection between Psalm 1 and the Messiah (which allows the possibility of a Jewish pre-Christian interpretation of such, too).
I guess I would understand those early Christians prior to the commentaries who were reading Psalm 1 in worship to apply it in a new light to themselves, as in Christ and his saving grace for that holiness to be applied and gained at all, rather than NOT applying it to themselves and only seeing Jesus as the one who perfectly fulfills the Psalm.
The easy way out of controversy here is to simply take the “three layers of interpretation and meaning” approach, which would allow different (but appropriate and tested) meanings all at the same time.  Glory!