CHOOSING A BIBLE TRANSLATION

by Tom Stark, retired RCA Pastor, Lansing, Michigan

We recognize that many people do not “choose” a translation. Children may be given a Bible and, hopefully, they use it. Adults may become part of a congregation where most everyone seems to use the same version. They may only be vaguely aware that there are other versions. But when they visit any Christian bookstore they discover that many translations of the Bible are in print, not to mention many editions with special features, like red letters for the words of Christ, study notes, elaborate cross-references, notes for special audiences, etc.

For Christians outside of the U.S. the choice of translations may vary tremendously from what they would find in the U.S.:

In many languages the scriptures are available in only one version. In some languages there is an “old” translation (usually not before the 19 th

century), which may be considered difficult to understand by some Christians, and a newer translation, which may seem controversial to other Christians who prefer the “old” version.

In some parts of Latin America a version may be preferred or viewed with suspicion depending on whether it is recommended by the Roman Catholic church or by “evangelicos”, or Protestants.

In some parts of the world some Christians prefer or recommend reading the Bible in English, but other Christians may regard English (or French, Spanish, or Portugese) as colonial, non-indigenous languages, and want to learn and worship using the Bible in their indigenous language.

In some languages the Bible is only available in parts or all of the New Testament, not the whole Bible.

In most places Bibles translations in English are either in American or British editions, which have many differences. “American English” or “British English” editions include vocabulary which is foreign to the other country, plus differences in weights and measures, spelling, time, agricultural terms, money, etc. (The New English Bible had “Whitsuntide” rather than “Pentecost”.) The British versions have often been more popular in countries which had British colonial rule or immigration.

This article is an attempt to tell something of the impact of various Protestant versions in the U.S. in the last 60 years. It includes many quotations which, unless otherwise noted, are excerpted from Wikipedia.org, the online encyclopedia, which is useful for brief summaries. Many other articles can be found on the internet, remembering that being on the internet does not make an

article reliable; kooks and cults are also there. Along with Wikipedia quotations I have given some comments and suggestions from my own experience.

THE KING JAMES VERSION

“The King James or Authorised Version of the Bible is an English translation of the Christian Bible first published in 1611. The New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) edition of the Greek texts, so called because most extant texts of the time were in agreement with it. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text. (Modern English Bibles. . . decline to use the Textus Receptus, opting instead for what many modern scholars feel are more reliable [editions]).

“Although it is often referred to as the King James Version, particularly in the United States, King James was not personally involved in the translation, though his authorisation was legally necessary for the translation to begin, and he set out guidelines for the translation process, such as prohibiting footnotes and ensuring the position of the Church of England was recognised on various points. It is more commonly known as the "Authorized Version" in the United Kingdom.

“King James's instructions made it clear that he wanted the resulting translation to contain a minimum of controversial notes and apparatus, and that he wanted the episcopal structure of the Established Church, and traditional beliefs about an ordained clergy to be reflected in the new translation. His order directed the translators to revise the Bishop's Bible, comparing other named English versions. It is for this reason that the flyleaves of most printings of the King James Bible observe that the text had been ‘translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised (by His Majesty's special command.)’

“The King James Version is a formal translation of these base sources; words implied but not actually in the original source are specially marked in most printings (either by being inside square brackets, or as italicized text).

“In the Old Testament, there are also many differences from modern translations that are based not on manuscript differences, but on a different translation of Ancient Hebrew vocabulary or grammar by the translators. Hebrew scholarship by non-Jews was not as developed in the early 17th century as it is now. The New Testament is largely unaffected by this as the grasp of Koine Greek was already quite firm in the West by the time the translation was made. The difference is partially caused by the fact that while there is a very large and diverse body of extra-biblical material extant in Ancient Greek, there is very little such material in Ancient Hebrew, and probably not even this little was known to the translators at the time

2

“The King James Version has traditionally been appreciated for the quality of the prose and poetry in the translation. However, the English language has changed since the time of its publication, and the King James Version employs words and grammatical structures that may be foreign to modern readers. For example, the King James Version uses the second person singular pronouns, such as "thou". Some words used in the King James Version have changed meaning since the translation was made; for example "replenish" is used in the translation in the sense of "fill" where the modern verb means "to refill", and "even" (a word very often introduced by the translators and thus italicized) is mostly used in the sense of "namely" or "that is". Because of this, some modern readers find the King James Version more difficult to understand than more recent translations.

“The King James Version is notably more Latinate than previous English versions, especially theGeneva Bible. This results in part from the academic sylistic preferences of a number of the translators - several of whom admitted to being more comfortable in Latin than in English - but was also, in part, a consequence of the royal proscription against explanatory notes. Hence, where the Geneva Bible might use a common English word - and gloss its particular application in a marginal note; the King James version tends rather to prefer a technical term, frequently in Anglicised Latin.

“Like most Bibles of the Reformation period, the KJV originally included the Apochrypha, so named in the text. It contained all the books and sections of books present in the Latin Vulgate's Old Testament but missing in the Hebrew. Under theThirty-Nine Articles, the doctrinal confession of the Church of England established in 1563, these books were considered non-canonlical but were to be ‘read for example of life and instruction of manners’.

“The original printing also included a number of variant readings and alternative translations of some passages; most current printings omit these. The original printing also included some marginal references to indicate where one passage of Scripture quoted or directly related to another. Most current printings omit these.”

Many Christians are unaware of the history of the King James Version, and that many changes came to the text after it was published. None of the King James Bibles printed today use the original text without changes. The changes were necessary because of changes in English as to spelling, grammar, etc. Still, any reader knows that the English does not sound like anything they have heard- from the pronouns (“thee”, “thou”), the verbs forms (“shouldst”, “dost”, “canst”), the obscure meanings (“suffer the little children”), etc.

A virtual monopoly of the King James Version in English continued until the 1940s. There were a few 20th century translations by individuals, which never got widespread attention, and an American revision of the King James, the American Standard Version of 1901, which also did not gain wide support. It was

3

considered too literal, and difficult to read, though it did get used in many seminaries.

My in-laws are in a church which once only used the King James Version. In fact, the pattern in the church was for every one to own (and carry to church) the Scofield Reference Bible edition of the King James. (C.I. Scofield’s notes reflect the “dispensational” interpretation of the Bible.) There may have been no “official” requirement, but members would have felt uncomfortable carrying any other translation to church, or quoting anything else in a Sunday School class, or using a different translation to teach a class.

The time came, I discovered, when my niece and nephew began to use the New International Version in their devotions, because they preferred it. But they would not have used the translation publicly for some time, and they would not have carried it to church. Eventually, the pattern in their church became somewhat more relaxed.

Of course, Christians realize that God uses his Word even when the form in which it is expressed has more limitations than we would like. This has always been true. People are won to Christ by the message of illiterate believers who repeat a summary of the gospel message. People are reached through early versions of a Bible translation- versions which will ultimately be considerably improved in accuracy, and by first time translations into a language of perhaps only the gospel of Luke, or only the New Testament. But our goal is to have translations which accurately and clearly communicate the entire Word of God.

THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION- 1982

“The aim of its translators was to update the vocabulary and grammar of the King James Version, while preserving the classic style and beauty of the 1611 version. Although it uses substantially the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the original KJV, it indicates where more commonly accepted manuscripts differ.

“The New King James Version also uses the Received Text for the New Testament, just as the King James Version had. The translators have also sought to follow the principles of translation used in the original King James Version, which the NKJV revisers call ‘complete equivalence’ in contrast to ‘dynamic equivalence.’

“The task of updating the English of the KJV involved significant changes in word order, grammar, vocabulary, and spelling. One of the most significant features of the NKJV was its abandonment of the second person [singular] pronouns ‘thou,’ ‘thee,’ ‘ye,’ ‘thy,’ and ‘thine.’ Verb forms were also modernized in the NKJV (for example, ‘speaks’ rather than ‘speaketh’).

4

“One major criticism of the NKJV is that it is rendered in a language that no one has ever really spoken. By maintaining much of the Elizabethan structure and syntax of the KJV (an intentional effect on the part of the revisers, who intended for a reader to be able to follow along in one version as the other version is read aloud), the NKJV at times has been criticized for putting modern words into archaic orders. Unlike the Revised Version of 1881-85 and American Standard Version of 1901, which sought to take advantage of modern scholarship but left the overall text worded in archaic Jacobean language, the NKJV sounds neither Jacobean nor particularly modern.

“A second major criticism involves the fact that it is based, as noted above, solely upon the ancient texts available during the time of King James and not on earlier manuscripts and documents which have since been discovered. Since these manuscripts, most of which reflect an Alexandrian text-type, are argued by some of today's scholars to be more reliable, the NKJV's adherence to the Textus Receptus seems to many to violate the spirit of open scholarship and open inquiry, and to ascribe a level of perfection to the documents available to the 17 th century scholars that they would not have claimed for them. (Regarding this point see David Dewey, A User's Guide to Bible Translations, [InterVarsity Press] pp. 162-3.)

“Adherents of the so-called "King-James-Only Movement," on the other hand, see the New King James Version as something less than a true successor to the 1611 version. Such supporters argue that, because the NKJV makes scores of changes to the meaning of the 1611 translators, it is not a simple "updating" but actually constitutes a new version. To take just one example, Acts 17:22, in which Paul in the KJV calls the men of Athens "too superstitious," is changed in the NKJV to have the apostle call them "very religious," consistent with the rendering of most contemporary versions.”

THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION (NEW TESTAMENT 1946, OLD TESTAMENT 1952)

In the fifth grade I was given a Revised Standard Version New Testament by our pastor, in appreciation for babysitting his twin boys. This version came out in 1946, and was the first Bible (only the New Testament) I owned. I didn’t read it much until college, and there I found cheap paperback RSV New Testaments, which we used in our outreach Bible study in the dorm.

Though I didn’t own a King James Bible for years I knew about it because many of our speakers at InterVarsity on campus used the King James. Christian books which I read often quoted from the King James. I met Christian students who only used the King James. I don’t remember being troubled by that, but I was

5

secretly grateful that I didn’t have to use a version that I thought sounded strange and was not always easy to follow.

“There were three key differences between the RSV (on the one hand) and the KJV, RV [British forerunner of the ASV] and ASV [1901]:

“First, the translators reverted to the practice of the KJV and RV in the translation of the Tetragrammaton, or the Divine Name, YHWH. According to the practice of the versions of 1611 and 1885, the RSV translated the name ‘LORD’ or ‘GOD’, whereas the ASV had translated it ‘Jehovah’.

“Second, a change was made in the usage of archaic English for second-person pronouns, ‘thou’, ‘thee’, ‘thy’, and verb forms ‘art, hast, hadst, didst’, etc. The KJV, RV and ASV used these terms for both God and humans. The RSV used archaic English pronouns and verbs only for God, a fairly common practice for Bible translations until the mid-1970s.

“Third, for the New Testament, the RSV followed the latest available version of Nestle's Greek text, whereas the RV and ASV had used an earlier version of this text (though the differences were slight) and the KJV had used the Textus Receptus.

“In 1971, the RSV Bible was re-released with the Second Edition of the Translation of the New Testament. Whereas in 1962 the translation panel had merely authorized a handful of changes, in 1971 they gave the New Testament text a thorough editing. The most obvious changes were the restoration of Mark 16.9-20 (the long ending) and John 7.53-8.11 (in which Jesus forgives an adultress) to the text (in 1946, they were put in footnotes). Also restored was Luke 22.19b-20, containing the bulk of Jesus' institution of the Lord's Supper. In the 1946-52 text, this had been cut off at the phrase ‘This is my body’, and the rest had only been footnoted, since this verse did not appear in the original Codex Bezae manuscript used by the translation committee. . . . Many other verses were rephrased or rewritten for greater clarity and accuracy. Moreover, the footnotes concerning monetary values were no longer expressed in terms of dollars and cents but in terms of how long it took to earn each coin (the denarius was no longer defined as twenty cents but as a day's wage). . . .”

In seminary, where I encountered the study of Greek and Hebrew, I did campus work part-time at the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon, full time in the summers at InterVarsity camps, and, for an internship year, at Boston University. We used the RSV in all our campus ministry. I learned in seminary, though, that the RSV had been controversial when it first came out, and still was in some fundamentalist and evangelical circles. The main points of contention seemed to be:

6

1. The copyright was held by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches (NCC). The forerunner agency of the NCC Division had commissioned the group which did the translation and the NCC membership was mostly mainline Protestant denominations (including the RCA), and was therefore considered theologically unreliable.

2. “The RSV New Testament was well received, but reaction to the Old Testament varied. Many accepted it as well, but many others denounced it. It was claimed that the RSV translators had translated the Old Testament from an odd viewpoint. Some specifically referred to a Jewish viewpoint, pointing to agreements with the Jewish Publication Society of America Version and the presence on the editorial board of a Jewish scholar, Harry Orlinsky, and claimed that other views, including those of the New Testament, were not considered.”

3. “The focus of the controversy was the translation of Isaiah 7:14 as ‘a young woman’ rather than the traditional Christian translation of ‘the virgin’ (agreeing with the New Testament and the Septuagint). . . .”

4. The translation committee contained scholars from mainline Protestant and liberal seminaries.

When I came to East Lansing to start a congregation the Reformed Laymen’s Publicity Committee was active in Michigan. They were committed to buying hymnbooks and Bibles for any new churches, as well as other assistance. So we got new RSV Bibles for our congregation. Even though they were free, could we justify using the RSV? I believed we could. I did not believe it was perfect, but I did not believe any version was. Certainly the King James Version was not, so I used the RSV and felt no need to be uneasy. I did not hesitate to mention minor qualms with the version on those comparitively few occasions when I was asked. And we occasionally had visitors over the years who did not stay with our church because we used the RSV, or because we didn’t use the King James.

PARAPHRASES

While paraphrases are not intended for close study, they have been invaluable especially for:

Those with no prior introduction to the Bible Young people

New readers, such as elementary children, but also immigrants

Poor readers, including the mentally handicapped

7

Unbelievers

J. B. PHILLIPS- LETTERS TO YOUNG CHURCHES- 1947, THE NEW TESTAMENT IN MODERN ENGLISH- 1958

Earlier paraphrases of the Bible had been done in English, without wide impact, until the English pastor, J. B. Philips, did a free paraphrase, “Letters to Young Churches” and then the whole New Testament. His paraphrase caught on with enthusiasm among young people and with many adults. I remember an edition with a plaid cover, which someone dubbed the “cookbook edition”, because it reminded them of the Betty Crocker cookbook. It sold a lot at Young Life camps and within Young Life. During one period, if I saw a student show up with the “cookbook” edition it was a good guess that they had been in Young Life.

KENNETH TAYLOR- LIVING LETTERS- 1962, THE LIVING BIBLE- 1971

Even more dramatic success followed the publication of the paraphrase of the Bible by Kenneth Taylor.

“When he and [his wife] Margaret read to their [10] children, Taylor lamented that there was no book that covered the whole Bible for youngsters. As their kids brought home Sunday School lessons, he handwrote stories to match the pictures, asking if the stories made sense.

“Encouraged by favorable responses, he submitted the material, subsequently published by Moody Press as The Bible in Pictures for Little Eyes, an all-time bestselling children’s book. Then followed a sequel, Stories for the Children’s Hour and Devotions for the Children’s Hour “.

“Noting the success of these titles, he recalled his longstanding dissatisfaction with the King James Bible; the text simply didn’t make sense to his children. Perhaps he could paraphrase the entire Bible for grown-ups as he’d done for children? Commuting by train to Chicago each day, he utilized his travel time for paraphrasing the scriptures into contemporary language, beginning with the New Testament.

“Acquiring a loan, he published Living Letters in 1962. Sales were patchy, but in 1963 its marketing received an incalculable boost when Billy Graham announced his ambition to offer Living Letters to anyone in his viewing audience desiring a copy.

8

“Tremendously successful, Living Letters received wide distribution under the auspices of Taylor’s newly-formed company, Tyndale House Publishers – named after William Tyndale [the Bible translator].

“Taylor finished the entire Bible in contemporary language and published it as The Living Bible in 1971. Over 40 million copies of this paraphrase have been sold.

“Taylor never intended for his paraphrase to be used as the reader's sole source of Biblical knowledge, or as an aid to serious, scholarly study, but rather to put the basic truths of the Bible in language which could readily be understood by the typical reader without a theological or linguistic background, and [held] that he had never represented himself as a professional Bible scholar or his work as a translation.”

EUGENE PETERSON- THE MESSAGE: THE BIBLE IN CONTEMPORARY LANGUAGE- 2002

By an American pastor, “The Message: the Bible in Contemporary Language was written to try to make the original meaning of the Bible more understandable and accessible to the modern reader. The translation has received criticism by some for being too much of a paraphrase, thus making the final product too far removed from the original Greek and Hebrew. Others defend Peterson's work; it was not meant to be a literal word-for-word translation but rather a rewording of the text in modern language with the meaning and teaching of the original texts still intact. Peterson explains: ‘When Paul of Tarsus wrote a letter, the people who received it understood it instantly, When the prophet Isaiah preached a sermon, I can't imagine that people went to the library to figure it out. That was the basic premise under which I worked. I began with the New Testament in the Greek --- a rough and jagged language, not so grammatically clean. I just typed out a page the way I thought it would have sounded to the Galatians.’”

MORE TRANSLATIONS

NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE- 1971

“As its name implies, the NASB is a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901. This translation was begun as an alternative to the Revised Standard

9

Version (1946-1952/1971), itself a revision of the ASV, but considered by many to be theologically liberal. Thus, using the ASV as its English basis, the NASB's translators went back to established Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts and revised the ASV as literally as possible, deliberately interpreting the Old Testament from a Christian standpoint, in harmony with the New.

“Seeing the need for a literal, modern translation of the English Bible, the translators sought to produce a contemporary English Bible while maintaining a word-for-word translation style. In cases where word-for-word literalness was determined to be unacceptable for modern readers, changes were made in the direction of more current idioms. In such instances, the more literal renderings were indicated in footnotes.

“The greatest perceived strength of the NASB is its reliability and fidelity to the original languages without theological interpretation. Its corresponding weakness is that its readability and literary style sometimes prove confusing to the average reader. In addition, its printing of verses as individual units instead of paragraphs makes the text appear fragmented (though more recent editions are available in paragraph format). The NASB, along with other literal translations, also allows for ambiguities in the text's meaning. Though some perceive this as a weakness in the translation, it is actually a function of the aforementioned lack of theological interpretation.”

My contact with the NASB came in those stretches of time when students in the Navigators campus ministry and in Campus Crusade for Christ were taught, at least in some parts of the country, that the NASB was the version to use- the most accurate. This was well before the 1995 revision. So students from those groups in our church, during those years, usually always carried and used the NASB.

UPDATED NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE (1995)

“In 1995, the Lockman Foundation reissued the NASB text as the NASB Updated Edition (or more often, the Updated NASB or NASB95). Since then, it has become known simply as the "NASB" and has supplanted the 1971 text in most current printings (although the Thompson Chain Reference Bibles still use the older edition for their NASB Bibles).”

THE HOLMAN CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE- NEW TESTAMENT-1999, ENTIRE BIBLE- 2004- The Southern Baptist Bible?

10

Published by Broadman and Holman, the Southern Baptist press, it may become the “Southern Baptist Bible”. The web site list of the editors and translators also indicates which are Southern Baptists- around half. Many of the rest are from other Baptist denominations.

“The roots of the HCSB can be traced back as early as 1984, when Arthur Farstad, general editor of the New King James Version of the Bible, began a new independent translation project. In 1998, Farstad and Lifeway Christian Resources (the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention) came to an agreement that would allow LifeWay to fund and publish the completed work. Farstad died shortly thereafter, and leadership of the editorial team was turned over to Dr. Edwin Blum, who had been an integral part of the team. Interestingly, the death of Farstad resulted in a change in the Greek New Testament text underlying the HCSB; although Farstad had envisioned basing the new translation on the same texts used for the original King James Version and New King James Version, after Farstad's death, the editorial team replaced this text with the Greek New Testament as established by modern scholars. This is based on the Alexandrian text-type and best represented by the editions of the United Bible Societies and of Nestle-Aland.

“Holman Bible Publishers assembled an international, interdenominational team of 100 scholars and proofreaders, all of whom were committed to biblical inerrancy. The translation committee sought to strike a balance between the two prevailing philosophies of Bible translation: formal equivalence (literal, "word-for-word", etc), found in translations like the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version, and dynamic or functional equivalence ("thought-for-thought"), found in translations like the New international Version and the New Living Translation. The translators call this balance Optimal Equivalence.

“According to the translators, the primary goal of optimal equivalence translations is ‘to convey a sense of the original text with as much clarity as possible’. To that end, the ancient source texts were exhaustively scrutinized at every level (word, phrase, clause, sentence, discourse) to determine its original meaning and intention. Afterwards, using the best language tools available, the semantic and linguistic equivalents were translated into as readable a text as possible.”

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION- NEW TESTAMENT 1973, FULL BIBLE 1978, MODIFIED 1984

“Work on the NIV began in 1965, sponsored by the New York Bible Society, which is today the Colorado Springs-based International Bible Society. The New Testament was set forth in 1973, the Old Testament and full NIV Bible in 1978, and a modified edition in 1984.

11

“The translation took more than ten years and involved 100 scholars from the USA, Canada, the United Kinkdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of theologians includes over 20 different denominations such as Baptists, Evangelicals, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and many more.

“According to Zondervan (publisher of the NIV), the translation has become the most popular modern English translation of the Bible, having sold more than 215 million copies worldwide. It is especially popular among American Evangelicals. It is considered by many Christians a good, modern supplement to more historic Bible translations like the King James Version, or even as more accurate (since it draws from a wider range of source texts including the Dead Sea Scrolls).

“Evangelical Protestants received the Revised Standard Version, which first appeared in the whole Bible in1952, with some trepidation. The RSV was criticized by conservative Christians for not using traditional Christian translations of certain texts regarding the virginity of Mary, and other Old Testament passages whose Christian interpretation referred them to Jesus. The New International Version project was begun to meet the perceived need of having an updated Bible in contemporary English but which preserved traditional Evangelical theology on these contested points. Unlike the RSV and New Revised Standard Version, the NIV is an explicitly Protestant translation; the deuterocanonical [apochryphal] books were not included in the translation. Apart from these theological issues, the translation philosophies of the NIV were similar to the RSV, and the NIV, like the RSV, uses the critical Greek New Testament texts, rather than the Textus Receptus of the King James Version.”

On the NIV web site there is the list of the 100 scholars who worked on the project, answers to questions from Kenneth Barker, who chaired the team, and examples of how translation was handled for 150 sample texts.

Sometime in the mid-‘80s the University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan switched from the Revised Standard Version to the New International Version.

TODAY’S NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (TNIV)- NEW TESTAMENT 2002, BIBLE- 2005

“Today's New International Version is an English translation of the Bible, developed by the Committee on Bible Translation, or CBT. The CBT is the same committee of biblical scholars that translated the popular New international Version (NIV) in the 1970s.

“The TNIV is a revision but not a replacement of the NIV. The TNIV New Testament was published in March 2002. The first complete Bible was published

12

in February 2005. The rights to the text are owned by the International Bible Society (IBS). Zondervan, an evangelical Christian communications company, publishes the TNIV in North America. Hodder & Stoughton publishes the TNIV in the UK and European Union.

“There are a number of differences between the TNIV and the NIV. Most commonly, changes were made in an effort to enhance overall clarity – that is, making the text easier to understand. For example, in Matthew 1:18, the NIV says that Mary was ‘with child.’ The TNIV simply says Mary was ‘pregnant.’

“Another example is the phrase ‘fourth watch of the night,’ which the TNIV translates ‘shortly before dawn’ (Luke 12:38).

“On the other hand, the TNIV translators have at times opted for more traditional Anglo-Saxon or poetic renderings than those found in the NIV. For example, ‘the heavens’ is sometimes chosen to replace the ‘the sky,’ as is the case in Isaiah 50:3: ‘I clothe the heavens with darkness and make sackcloth its covering.’

“At times the TNIV offers a different or nuanced understanding of a passage. For example, in the NIV, Psalm 26:3 reads, ‘For your love is ever before me, and I walk continually in your truth.’ The TNIV reads, ‘For I have always been mindful of your unfailing love and have lived in reliance on your faithfulness.’ There are a number of changes in this one verse, but of special note is the TNIV’s translation of the Hebrew word ’emet. The TNIV translators took this word to mean more than simple honesty in Psalm 26:3, referring more specifically to reliability or trustworthiness.

Gender Inclusive Language and the TNIV

“Among the most frequently discussed (and debated) changes in the TNIV are those involving the use of gender inclusive language to refer to people. Various terms are employed such as ‘gender neutral’ or ‘gender inclusive’.

“For example, in the TNIV, Genesis 1:27 reads: ‘So God created human beings in his own image’ – where many older translations use the word ‘man’ as a generic reference to humanity. Matthew 5:9 reads: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God’ – instead of ‘son.’ (Interestingly, the King James Version uses ‘children’ here too.) And Romans 3:28 reads: ‘A person is justified by faith’ – instead of ‘a man is justified by faith.’

“Masculine references to God (e.g. "Father," "Son," etc) are not modified in the TNIV.

“Opponents of this approach point out that many of the terms in question are grammatically masculine in the original languages. (In Greek and Hebrew – as in Spanish – nouns and pronouns have grammatical gender. While English nouns

13

and pronouns do not have grammatical gender, nouns like "boy" are masculine, and such as "girl" are feminine.)

“Most Bible translators, regardless of their theological backgrounds, agree that some passages in the text lend themselves to gender inclusion, but some allege that inclusive language versions often make unreasonable changes. Critics of gender inclusive language claim that, in order to achieve its aims, inclusive language can force an incorrect translation onto the text. For example, they claim:

“Translators substitute neuter plural pronouns for masculine singular pronouns in the original text, in order to remove the singular "man" and the "he" pronoun which may follow, as in the case of Psalm 1:1: "Blessed are those who do not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers". In the original text, this verse highlights the struggle of the individual against the wicked masses; a rendering which is lost with the use of a plural pronoun in the subject. Opponents also argue that awkward (or even incorrect, according to language prescriptivists) grammatical usage is adopted in order to achieve the translators' goals. For example, they cite Revelation 3:20: ‘Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me.’ and John 6:44; ‘No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day’. The “singular they” problem of plural pronouns results from the lack of a singular gender-neutral pronoun in English.

“Proponents argue that the critics of inclusive language confuse grammar for meaning - that the grammatical gender of a word has no bearing on its meaning. (For example, in Spanish the word for table, mesa, is grammatically feminine, but that does not mean tables are female.) The main arguments in favor of inclusive language are:

“It is claimed that no such male nuances of meaning exist in passages translated with inclusive language; therefore translations like the TNIV more accurately communicate the meaning of the text. For example words like "adelphoi" previously translated "brothers", could be understood as gender inclusive and was (dependent upon context) comprehended in New Testament times as inclusive. With the shift of time and customs, "brothers" has become understood as a collective masculine word. It is right therefore in a large number of passages to use "brothers and sisters", which is gender accurate to the text.

“Traditional forms of English (in which terms like ‘man’ and ‘he’ applied to both genders) are falling out of everyday use and are likely to be misinterpreted, especially by younger readers. Also it is argued that use of what is claimed as the singular they does not obscure the individual application of passages like Revelation 3:20, because such use is increasingly common in the English

14

language and is easily understood by most readers. Also, supporters maintain that the 'singular they' has a long history in the English language.

“The TNIV's approach to gender inclusive language is similar to that of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the New living Translation (NLT), the New Century Version (NCV) and the Contemporary English Version (CEV.

“Some have suggested that the TNIV is essentially a republication of the NIVI, an inclusive language edition of the NIV that was published in the UK in the late 1990s. However, there are several differences between the two translations. First, the entire Committee on Bible Translation (or CBT, the same committee that translated the NIV) worked on the TNIV. This was not the case with the [NIVI]. Second, as noted above, the TNIV is a thorough revision based on the NIV; as such, it is far more than merely a "gender inclusive" update of the NIV. Third, the TNIV adopts a more conservative approach to gender language, retaining masculine language in some passages where the NIVI did not (for example, Proverbs 3:1). Fourth, the TNIV was more than a decade in the making, while the NIVI was a much shorter project.

The TNIV and hoi ioudaioi (the Jews)

“In the TNIV some original Greek text references to hoi ioudaioi (literally, the Jews), are translated as referring to Jewish leaders of Jesus' day. For example, in the gospel of John (e.g. John 18:36), the TNIV translators and a number of other biblical scholars now render hoi ioudaioi as [referring to] "Jewish leaders," and not to the Jews as a whole. Although it is claimed that this change was justified in terms of interpretation by biblical scholarship, the result is that the TNIV is less anti-Semitic than English versions which retain the literal translation of "the Jews." The TNIV is not alone among English Bible versions in following recent biblical scholarship on this matter. Some, in terms of a literal reading of the text, have criticized this change from "the Jews" as being untrue to the text; others, however, may regard this change as bringing the translation closer to the intent of those source texts. The reality is that the complexities of understanding the divisions of Synagogue and Church and its impact upon the text, the use of the definite article (the) which is suggestive that all Jews were involved, coupled with anti-Semitism, have forced translators to choose a particular interpretation of the text, rather than provide a more literal translation.”

The TNIV Launch and Ensuing Controversy

“When TNIV was launched first in 2002, its publication caused considerable controversy, especially among American evangelical Protestants. Some claimed the publication of a gender-inclusive bible was a betrayal because the International Bible sdociety said in a 1997 press release that it would "[abandon] all plans for gender-related changes in future editions of the New International Version (NIV)." IBS and Zondervan claimed that the TNIV is a new translation.

15

“In spite of the fact that its word choices are much more conservative than many other Biblical translations, the TNIV has received much more attention than other comparable projects, mainly because the original NIV has been the best-selling English Bible version in the United States for over 20 years.”

Critics of the TNIV

The TNIV has provoked opposition, especially from Dr. Wayne Grudem and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood which he heads, and Dr. Vern Poythress of Westminster Seminary.

In 2002, a number of prominent evangelical leaders and scholars expressed their opposition to the TNIV. These include James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Wayne Grudem, D. James Kennedy, Albert Mohler, John Piper, Dennis Rainey, Pat Robertson, R.C. Sproul, Joni Eareckson Tada, and others.

Additionally, in 2002 both the Presbyterian Church in America and the Southern Baptist Convention passed resolutions expressing disapproval of the translation.

“Although it is now stated that ‘TNIV is a revision but not a replacement of the NIV’, there was a suggestion that this might [not] be the case, a suggestion which caused bad publicity. As a result of the Inclusive Language controversy, some Evangelicals made preparations to ensure that a Bible which still catered for Evangelicals would be available. From this two new versions appeared as alternatives; the Holman Christian Standard Bible and the English Standard Version.”

Supporters of the TNIV

In 2006, the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) officially recognized the TNIV as an acceptable translation for use in its churches. The TNIV also gained widespread use within the Evangelical Covenant Church.

Many evangelical scholars and leaders have enthusiastically endorsed the TNIV. These endorsements are found on the TNIV web site. The first listed there is from Dr. Donald Carson, research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and featured speaker in October 2006, at the URC Institute, sponsored by the University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan. Dr. Carson says:

"The TNIV is more accurate than its remarkable predecessor, the much-loved NIV, while retaining all the readability of the latter. It is a version I can use with confidence, whether I am speaking at a university mission, or in a Bible conference anywhere in the English-speaking world. I am deeply impressed by the godliness, linguistic competence, cultural awareness, and sheer fidelity to Scripture displayed by the translators. Thirty or forty years from now, I suspect,

16

most evangelicals will have accepted the TNIV as a 'standard' translation, and will wonder what all the fuss was about in their parents' generation—in the same way that those of us with long memories marvel at all the fuss over the abandonment of 'thees' and 'thous' several decades ago.”

Some other endorsements:

"As someone who is passionate about evangelism, I enthusiastically embrace the TNIV as a translation that faithfully communicates God's word to the next generation of seekers and believers. The TNIV is not only accurate, but incredibly readable. I look forward to using the TNIV for personal study, preaching and evangelism."- Bill Hybels, Senior Pastor, Willow Creek Community Church

"As an evangelist committed to communicating the truth, relevancy, and power of the Gospel, I'm thankful to have the TNIV as one more valuable tool in reaching the next generation."- Lee Strobel, author, The Case for Christ, host, “Faith Under Fire”, former Willow Creek Teaching Pastor

"The TNIV is a fine translation whose goal of being sensitive to the English of its audience opens up the Word, especially to those who may not be familiar with Scripture. The use of alternatives in the marginal notes helps the reader see where the translation is disputed. It is clear, concise, and contemporary. In my book, that is three for three."- Darrell Bock, Ph.D., Research Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

"We welcome the arrival of the TNIV. It is a translation that seeks to accurately communicate the Word of God in contemporary English and as such strengthens our mission in reaching college and university students with the Gospel."- Alec Hill , President, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship

“It has never been easy to distinguish between a 'translation' and a 'paraphrase'. Translations tend to go for contemporary scholarship at the expense of contemporary language, whereas paraphrases tend to sacrifice accuracy for relevance. Today's New International Version is highly successful in combining both scholarly accuracy and linguistic relevance." - John R. W. Stott, Preacher, Evangelist, Author

"From here on, this is my version of choice. The translation is faithful, readable to our contemporary ears—and yet it retains the dignity of classical translations."- Richard Mouw, Ph.D., President, Fuller Theological Seminary

17

"The TNIV avoids the overly free translation of certain texts that previous gender-inclusive translations have included, while rendering gender-inclusive uses of "man," "he," "brothers," and the like with appropriate, contemporary English exactly corresponding to the meaning of the original Greek or Hebrew. Not to do this leaves a Bible that increasingly misleads the modern reader; as the father of two daughters I know first hand how this works! And I remain a complementarian with respect to gender roles; the two issues are quite separate." - Craig Blomberg, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary, Denver, CO

"Martin Luther once wrote that it was hard to make the Hebrew prophets speak German, and he received unfair criticism for adding the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 when it did not occur in the original text. Great translator that he was, Luther understood that there is more to producing a serviceable translation than merely offering a wooden, word-for-word transposition. The great translators working on the TNIV also understand that."- Mark Braun, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Theology, Wisconsin Lutheran College

"This new translation is the most accurate ever. It is more faithful to the actual Greek text than any of the standard translations. - Terry C. Muck, Ph.D., Professor of Missions and World Religions, Asbury Theological Seminary

“Since the 1970s, the NIV rightly won its place among millions as a trustworthy, accurate, and eloquent translation of the scriptures. Now after years of painstaking work by a long list of skilled evangelical scholars, the TNIV is ready for another era. It continues the tradition of the NIV in every respect, making it even more readable, lively, and above all, accurate. This is a translation we can trust. This is the translation I - and countless other scholars - have been waiting for. This is the translation that will become the mainstay of the 21st century”. - Gary Burge, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament, Wheaton College and Graduate

"You are most welcome to put me on your list of endorsers. We have lived in Europe for 30 years now and know well the issues of translation and learning languages. In part, it is this experience that has given us insight into truths about gender that we never saw in traditional English translations. Recently there have been several inclusive translations, but we were glad to see the NIV finally break the barrier in the US. As we have read of the various battles from our vantage point they appear to have been ill-informed and trivial at times, simply ignoring basic rules of translation. My training at Dallas Theological Seminary taught me to appreciate the necessity of the original languages, my language experience in Europe has taught me the value of relevant and timely translation.

18

- Dr. Edward G. Murray, Institute for Biblical and Theological Studies, Campus Crusade for Christ, Eastern Europe and Russia

“ I'm enthusiastic about the TNIV for many reasons related to my own training and calling. I studied graduate linguistics and translation theory for two years with Wycliffe Bible Translators (SIL) and served for many years in Asia; I gained a keen appreciation for the importance of a translation done in the "heart language" of those it seeks to reach. Presenlty, I serve in a position where our organization's goal is to empower churches to reach their communities with the gospel of Christ. The TNIV is written in today's language, proper yet flowing. It maintains a high value on accuracy, particularly when using pronouns that reflect the audience intended by the biblical writers. For the past six months, I've used this translation in my personal devotions and have been repeatedly impacted by the wonderful and powerful Word of God”- Ajith Fernando, National Director, Youth for Christ, Sri Lanka

"The Reformers of the 16th century translated the Bible into the vernacular languages of their day so that 'the farm boy at his plow and the milk maid at her pail' could read and understand the Scriptures in their everyday speech. The TNIV stands in this same tradition. I predict the TNIV will have a shaping influence on the English of the future, even as it reflects today's contemporary idiom." - Timothy George, Th.D., Executive Editor of Christianity Today, Dean of Beeson Divinity School, Samford University

Partial List of Further Endorsements (Texts Are on the TNIV Website):

19

Other scholarly support for the TNIV:

1. Dr. Craig Blomberg, professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, in “TNIV: the Untold Story of a Good Translation”, a 31-page article linked from the Wikipedia article on the TNIV. “I have read every word of the TNIV, rereading my old NIV at the same time, noting and evaluating every change in light of the UBS Greek New Testament. . . .” He has a threefold purpose: to point out outstanding improvements of the TNIV over the NIV, to respond to the most persistent and misguided charges against the TNIV with respect to gender-inclusive language, and to show how the “Colorado Springs Guidelines” actually would impugn some forms of translation found within the New Testament itself.

2. “Do Gender Sensitive Translations Distort Scripture? Not Necessarily”, a 15-page article by Darrell L Bock, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, at Bible.org. He closes his article with this quotation:

Philip Yancey, authorJohn Ortberg, Pastor and teacherBenny Aker, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament and Exegesis, Assemblies of God Theological SeminaryMyron Augsburger, Th.D., President emeritus, Eastern Mennonite UniversityNoel Becchetti, President, Center for Student MissionsTremper Longman III, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical Studies, Westmont CollegeAlice Mathews, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Educational Ministries and Women’s Ministries, Gordon-Conwell Theological SeminaryStuart Briscoe, Phoenix Seminary- Adjunct Faculty, Elmbrook Church (retired pastor), Telling the Truth MinistriesJim Cymbala, pastor, Brooklyn TabernacleEd Dobson, Senior Pastor, Calvary Church, Grand RapidsBen Patterson, Campus Pastor, Westmont CollegeCornelus Plantinga, Jr., President and Professor of Systematic Theology, Calvin SeminaryBill Robinson, President, Whitworth CollegeRonald Sider, Ph.D, Professor of Theology and Culture, Eastern Baptist Theological SeminaryLarry Hart, professor of Theology, Oral Roberts UniversityMark Strauss, Ph.D., Associate Professor of New Testament, Bethel Seminary West, San DiegoW. Sherrill Babb, Ph.D., President, Philadelphia Biblical UniversityRoger Nicole, Ph.D., Professor of Theology, Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando

20

“Three Books and One Article that Discuss the Issues:

“If you wish more detail on the basic principles of this dispute than I can trace here, see the following books and article. The books by Carson and Strauss defend the possibility of certain kinds of gender sensitive translations as a matter of translation theory. The book by Poythress and Grudem argues that most of what such translations do is flawed, even though in principle it holds to the possibility of such rendering. The article by Grudem responds to pieces for gender sensitive translation by a variety of authors in light of the most recent TNIV controversy. These works are not listed in any order of preference, but in alphabetical order. All the writers are evangelicals who hold a high view of scriptural inspiration (i.e., inerrancy). All also hold to traditional views on the role of women in the church.

“Donald Carson, The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism (Baker)

“Wayne Grudem, “Are the Criticisms of the TNIV Bible Really Justified? Interaction with Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, Peter Bradley, D. A. Carson, and Bruce Waltke” (Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 7/2 [Fall, 2002]): 31-66

“Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem, The Gender Neutral Bible Controversy (Crossway)

“Mark Strauss, Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation and Gender Accuracy (InterVarsity Press)”

3. Dr. Carson, research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, has written clearly in the book above about the inclusive language issue (The Inclusive Language Debate: a Plea for Realism”, 1998, Baker Books, 221 pages). He explains how the controversy led to his resignation from the Board of Reference for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, since he believed the guidelines which had been hastily adopted were not sufficiently accurate for Bible translation work (page 35, footnote 19).

4. Dr. Carson elaborates on his concerns in The Challenge of Bible Translation: Communicating God’s Word to the World, a group of essays published in 2003 by Zondervan, with 20 scholars contributing. Carson’s article is “The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation- and Other Limits, Too”. 50 pages.

5. Also relevant in the same book is the chapter by Dr. Mark Strauss, professor of New Testament at Bethel Seminary San Diego, on “Current Issues in the Gender Language Debate: a Response to Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem”, 27pp. (For more information on the original NIV there are two articles in the book

21

from members of the original NIV translation committee, Dr. Kenneth L. Barker, Chairman, and Dr. John Stek, professor of Old Testament at Calvin Seminary.)

6. Dr. Strauss is also author of Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation and Gender Accuracy, 1998, InterVarsity Press, 240 pp. (in Dr. Bock’s list above).

7. On May 21, 2002 Dr. Wayne Grudem and Dr. Mark Strauss had a debate on the Today’s New International Version at Concordia University, Irvine, California (Missouri Synod Lutheran). The transcript is available at: http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation

The instructions for the transcript (46 pages) are: “This transcript may be copied to other websites ONLY if it is copied in its entirety, along with this preface. The original debate gave equal time to both debaters and it would not be proper to excerpt from this transcript only portions of the debate from a single debater, or portions which are intended to give rhetorical advantage to one of the debaters.”

THE BIBLE AT URBANA 2006

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship sponsors every three years a student missions conference, “Urbana”- after its longtime location at the University of Illinois. The planning committee’s decided to supply the TNIV to over 20,000 participants in 2006, especially for the daily Bible expositions of Ephesians by Ajith Fernando from Sri Lanka. The background for their decision is on the Urbana web site:.

“What place will the Bible have at Urbana 2006?

The first objective of Urbana is to declare God’s character and mission as revealed in Scripture. This will be accomplished at Urbana 06 in two primary ways: through the exposition of Scripture in the plenary sessions and secondly through a new Inductive Bible Study program. InterVarsity is committed to Scripture; to its study and to its application in the lives of believers. In keeping with that central element of its character, InterVarsity has trained 120 of its senior staff to lead all participants in a special Bible Study program where inductive manuscript study of Ephesians will be taught as well as practiced.

What translation will Urbana use?Because of our emphasis on Scripture study, we carefully chose a Bible translation that we believe will best meet the needs of today’s students. We selected the Today’s New International Version (TNIV) because (to use the words of two well know biblical scholars) “it is highly successful in combining scholarly accuracy and linguistic relevance” (John Stott). “It is more accurate than its remarkable predecessor, the NIV, while retaining all [its] readability”

22

(D.A. Carson).

All translations of the Bible lie on a continuum from ‘formal equivalent’ to ‘functional equivalent’ translations.

From A User’s Guide to Bible Translations by David Dewey, InterVarsity Press.

Although some like translations that are more of a "formal equivalent" model, most linguists whose field it is to produce usable translations prefer the "functional equivalent" model to better communicate the meaning of what is being translated. Urbana has opted for something in between but that is closer to the formal equivalent side. We believe it matches well those who attend Urbana. Accuracy and ease of language and communication are important.

Is the TNIV a good translation for Evangelicals and those who have a high view of Scripture? Yes. The NIV is the most widely used English translation in churches today. Many of the same scholars who translated the NIV are the ones who have worked to update the NIV to the TNIV. The English language has changed dramatically in the past 25 years, especially among young people, and the TNIV is an adjustment to those changes. It is not a new translation or a new philosophy of translation but rather an updating of a very good translation in order to keep it relevant. Consequently the TNIV uses gender inclusive language, where appropriate, like most other contemporary Bible versions such as the New Living Translation and the Message as well as the NRSV, which Urbana has used for the last three Conventions.

The TNIV does not reflect any specific theological viewpoint on women, and many well-

23

known Evangelical scholars have endorsed it, including many who believe the Bible teaches that women should not be ordained.

Some translations do a better job than others with issues of capturing faithfully the intent of the authors and transmitting that into another language and culture. All translations reflect sometimes difficult choices about how to best communicate the original. A helpful book, especially related to the ways that both men and women are referred to in the text, is Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation & Gender Accuracy, by Mark L. Strauss (IVP, 1998). Available at www.ivpress.com

Does InterVarsity endorse one particular translation?No. Different translations accomplish different things. For example some are better suited to careful word study and exegesis while others may be better for evangelism. It is always a good idea to compare more than one translation when you want to carefully study a particular section of the Bible. It is especially helpful if you can use translations from different parts of the translation spectrum. There is no such thing as a “literal” translation. Every translation does some degree of interpretation. That is why it is helpful to view more than one.

How can I learn more about the reasons behind the translation of particular verses in the TNIV?The rationale for translation, particularly for those that have changed from the NIV to the TNIV can be found here: http://www.tniv.info/bible/sample.php. “

 

Some Personal Thoughts on Inclusive Language 

1. I can’t remember when, years ago, I realized I could avoid identifying gender by the use of “their”: “I got a call from a person who is very upset about what happened to their child in Sunday School.” I keep running across that usage in various written materials, and in the speech of others, and use it myself. I read in the TNIV preface: “Relative to the second of these, the so-called singular ‘they/their/them’, which has been gaining acceptance among careful writers and which has a venerable place in English idiom, [it] has been employed to fill a vocabulary gap in generic nouns and pronouns referring to human beings.” I expect that this usage will become more and more pervasive, just as it is now widely accepted in writing and speaking. Dr, Blomberg, New Testament professor at Denver Seminary, noted, “I am old enough to empathize with those who find such person and number shifts inelegant, but I also recognize that in spoken English I almost never hear anyone any more completing a sentence of the form, ‘Everyone who comes to class tomorrow should bring ______ textbook with _______’ with anything other than ‘their’ and ‘them’ respectively.”

24

2. I am sure I quit using “man” and “he” as generic terms years ago. Our pastor doesn’t use them that way, and students don’t write or speak that way. In fact, in undergraduate and graduate education, including evangelical seminaries, students are encouraged not to write that way, as a matter of sensitivity. Generic usage is disappearing throughout our culture. As a matter of courtesy, lecturers in medical and vet schools no longer say, “When a doctor or a veterinarian finds himself facing a problem- “, especially when the majority of the medical and vet students are women.

3. I have been going through Dr. Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology again with a friend. It is an excellent book, and I notice that, while he is strong about using “Man” in reference to creation, he assiduously uses gender inclusive language everywhere else- “he or she”, “person”, etc.- never male terms in a generic sense. The book was published in 1994.

4. The sharpest quandaries may come to parents when their daughters asks about a Bible passage: “Why didn’t he write to the women in the church?” “But he means men and women, boys and girls, when he says that.” “Then why didn’t he say so?” Dr. Blomberg says: “My girls, now 15 and 11, understand the gender-inclusive debate. . . and can recognize gender-inclusive masculines in the NIV (or NASB, which is our current pastor’s version of choice), but it continues to sound odd and exclusive to them whenever they hear it, because that is not how either their friends or their teachers talk.”

THE ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION- 2001

“Work on this translation began with discontent (largely amongst Evangelical Christians) over the perceived looseness of style and content of recently published English Bible translations, as well as the apparent trend toward gender-neutral language in translations such as the Today’s New International Version and the New Revised Standard Version, among others.

“In 1997 Christian psychologist and radio host James Dobson of Focus on the Family called together a meeting of individuals concerned with these issues, and from it came the ‘Colorado Springs Guidelines’, a set of translation principles that specified when it was and was not appropriate to use gender-neutral language. After this, the group sought and received permission from the National Council of Churches to use the 1971 edition of the RSV as the English textual basis for the ESV.

“In their own words, they sought to follow an ‘essentially literal’ translation philosophy. To that end, they sought as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer, while taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current

25

literary English and the original languages. The result is a translation that is more literal than the popular New International Version, but more idiomatic than the New American Standard Bible (which is commonly known as the most literal of the modern translations).

“The English Standard Version was, first and foremost, a revision of the 1971 edition of the Revised Standard Version, and even so only about 5%–10% of the RSV text was changed in the ESV. Many corrections were made to satisfy objections to some of the RSV's interpretations that conservative Protestants had considered as theologically liberal, for example, reverting from ‘young woman’ back to ‘virgin’ in Isaiah 7:14. The language was modernized to remove ‘thou’ and ‘thee’ and replace obsolete words (e.g., ‘jug’ for ‘cruse’).”

Though it is clear that the publication of the ESV was in part an effort to counter the potential impact of the TNIV, the ESV should be judged on its own merits, regardless of the varied motivations that may have been involved.

An extensive and generally positive review of the ESV is found in “Translation Philosophy and the English Standard Version New Testament”, by Dr. Rodney J. Decker, Associate Professor of New Testament, Baptist Bible Seminary, 34 pages, presented at the Evangelical Theological Society, Nov. 2004. (The article is on Dr. Decker’s web site.) He is aware that Dr. Leland Ryken strongly asserts the superiority of the “style” of the RSV, and hence of the ESV. Dr. Decker concludes, though, that Dr. Ryken’s work, The Word of God in English, “may have some helpful points from time to time, but most of it is filled with linguistic nonsense. It is written by an English professor- and as such he is well respected in his field. But he appears to understand little about translating the biblical languages into English. The book is characterized by overstatement, straw men, invalid assumptions, and faulty conclusions. [He then cites a longer response to Ryken.] The ESV translators understand the issues that Ryken does not, but by allowing someone who does not understand such issues to serve as the defender of the ESV’s translation theory, it is possible that the ESV will not get the hearing it deserves. The ESV overall is good; Ryken’s defense of it is quite bad.” (page 14)

Another discussion of the ESV is in “The English Standard Version: a Review”, by Dr. Allan Chapple, professor at Trinity Theological College [Seminary], Western Australia, from “The [Australian] Reformed Theological Review”, August 2003, 27 pages. He observes that the ESV was produced in an unusually short period of time (apparently, only in three years), retains a good deal of quaint and archaic language, because of its dependence on the RSV, and concludes that “The ESV is essentially the RSV, with only minor changes overall.”

26

WHEN A NEW TRANSLATION IS PURCHASED IN A CONGREGATION

What We Should All Cheerfully Affirm

1. Our pastor prefers it for preaching. We strongly respect that.

2. It is a reliable translation

3. Many people like it

4. No translation is perfect

5. Anyone can continue to use whatever translation they have been using.

6. Anyone coming into a congregation is welcomed warmly, and should feel free to use whatever Bible they have.

7. Some people will always need simpler versions. New readers, whether 7 or 47 years old, would not be asked to use books with a sixth grade reading level. Schools do not do that with children, and sound Christian education of children and adults always seeks to adapt to the reading level of the students. It is true in evangelism. Workers in jails, prisons, juvenile homes, etc. need to be encouraged to find translations or paraphrases suitable for populations with low reading skills. It is important for internationals, special needs people, immigrants, those who read poorly, non-Christians, etc. Fortunately, we are blessed in the U.S. with many children’s Bibles and simpler translations.

8. We recognize the wisdom expressed by the seminary professor who was asked, “What is the best version of the Bible?” He answered, “It is the one you read.”

What We Should All Try Not to Do

1. Don’t grumble or complain

2. Don’t consider the Bible translation that a fellow Christian uses as a mark of their trustworthiness or a mark of suspicion.

3. Don’t pressure people (Sunday School teachers, youth workers, evangelism leaders, international student workers, etc.) to use an “official” version. “Encourage” is different that pressure. Pressure is an expression of power, not of leadership or trust.

4. Don’t speak with condescension about anyone else’s choices.

27

5. Don’t get into discussions about translation details. As a boy I heard my pastor’s wife express unhappiness with the RSV, because it had Christ’s promise as, “in my Father’s house are many rooms”. She preferred the King James, which said, “in my father’s house are many mansions”. Or consider a phrase I found in the TNIV- “malice aforethought”. It is a legal phrase, used in some other translations too, but I think it is cumbersome and obscure. It is a reminder that not everything will be as clear as we might wish, in any translation.

6. Don’t plan for a lifetime- a Christian’s grandchildren (or children) may very possibly use a different translation, hopefully without censure.

Language keeps changing, whether we like it or not. The Roman Catholics were previewing a new translation for public reading. Their draft translation had Paul describing his sufferings: “I was stoned”. They decided to re-word that to avoid having young people or others think immediately of drugs. The King James referred to “gay” clothing, but I am sure that adjective would not be used in a translation now. The word “saints” has been misunderstood by Protestants because of its usage among Roman Catholics. That is why the TNIV preface says, ”current usage (as reflected in major dictionaries of the English language) burdens it [the word “saints”] with meanings that lie outside the sense of the original-language words.” Consequently, they use other words in the Old and New Testament instead of “saints”.

A Biblical word may be precious, but may eventually have to be replaced if it becomes a “blip” (without meaning) in the language. Monumental words like “propitiation” or “expiation” may be disappearing in the English language. If they do, the Lord will give fresh ways to make his word clear. The challenges never end.

28