In the days before the glorious appearing of the ESV Study Bible, I used to love the NIV. It was the first version I read after my conversion. I read it seven times through in as many years. It does not possess the beauty of the KJV but I could understand it. It was simple and at that time in my life I needed simple. The NIV is not a “word for word” translation (like the ESV) but neither is it a paraphrase (like the “Message”). It is a “dynamic equivalent” translation. Basically that means that the translators wanted to produce a text that would, for modern English-speaking readers, effectively communicate the meaning of the text without necessarily translating every word. Some call “dynamic equivalent” versions “thought for thought” translations as opposed to “word for word” translations. The concept behind dynamic equivalence is that 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. So thought for thought translators try to convey meaning accurately even if it means not necessarily translating every word accurately.

The NIV is a fine translation given its purpose—far better than the risible NRSV—and until the new ESV Study Bible came out (some call it the Cadillac of study bibles and I agree—if you don’t have one, get one) I always recommended the NIV Study Bible to new believers.

I was somewhat disenchanted when I learned of plans for the inclusive language TNIV. I was afraid that key biblical concepts and principles like male headship would be gutted in order to accommodate a superficial and emasculated egalitarianism. I do not have a TNIV but I’ve thumbed through it enough to understand that my fears were perhaps exaggerated but not unfounded.

It may be that the good people who put the NIV translation together have learned from their mistake. The USA Today reports that the committee has decided to base their most recent update on the older, more accurate 1984 version of the NIV, rather than the newer TNIV. This probably means that the TNIV will meet with a slow, quiet, and deserved death. The article is not as reassuring as I would like, but it does point to a more positive direction for the newest version of the NIV

I once said in a story on the intense spiritual/theological/social politics of Bible translation that a wrong move can get you burned at the stake.

No one built an actual bonfire under the folks who put out the so-called “gender-accurate” Today’s New International Version of the Bible, an update of the immensely successful evangelical Bible, the NIV in 2005. But they were badly scorched by scholars, theologians, linguists and cultural critics.

Today, the NIV’s missionary sponsor, Biblica, and the Committee on Bible Translation, and publisher Zondervan—the three groups behind the NIV since it’s original 1978 publication—announced they would scuttle the T-NIV, go back to the 1984 update and start over. Their announcement was made in a webcast where they were repeatedly asked variations of the same theme—gender politics.

Will there be women on the translating committee? They’d like more but there is one among more than a dozen men right now. Will there be translators from the “Global South” (code for conservative evangelicals from Africa and South America)? Yes, there’s a new committee member from India.

What about “social pressures” to lean the text this way or that on homosexuality, on women, or on masculine and feminine references to God and God’s people?

...more