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 19th
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
2
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
3
“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 heardfrom 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
4
was 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’).
5
“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 17th
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
6
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 secondperson 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:
7
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
Unbelievers
8
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.
“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].
9
“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
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
10
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?
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.
11
“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-forword", etc), found in translations like the New American Standard Bible and the
English Standard Version, and dynamic or functional equivalence ("thought-forthought"), 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.
“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.
12
“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
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.
13
“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
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
14
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
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.
15
“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.
“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
16
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,
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:
17
"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
"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."
18
- 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.
- 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
19
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):
Philip Yancey, author
John Ortberg, Pastor and teacher
Benny Aker, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament and Exegesis, Assemblies of
God Theological Seminary
Myron Augsburger, Th.D., President emeritus, Eastern Mennonite University
Noel Becchetti, President, Center for Student Missions
Tremper Longman III, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical Studies, Westmont College
Alice Mathews, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Educational Ministries and
Women’s Ministries, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
Stuart Briscoe, Phoenix Seminary- Adjunct Faculty, Elmbrook Church (retired
pastor), Telling the Truth Ministries
Jim Cymbala, pastor, Brooklyn Tabernacle
Ed Dobson, Senior Pastor, Calvary Church, Grand Rapids
Ben Patterson, Campus Pastor, Westmont College
Cornelus Plantinga, Jr., President and Professor of Systematic Theology, Calvin
Seminary
Bill Robinson, President, Whitworth College
Ronald Sider, Ph.D, Professor of Theology and Culture, Eastern Baptist
Theological Seminary
Larry Hart, professor of Theology, Oral Roberts University
Mark Strauss, Ph.D., Associate Professor of New Testament, Bethel Seminary
West, San Diego
W. Sherrill Babb, Ph.D., President, Philadelphia Biblical University
Roger Nicole, Ph.D., Professor of Theology, Reformed Theological Seminary,
Orlando
20
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 15page article by Darrell L Bock, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas
Theological Seminary, at Bible.org. He closes his article with this quotation:
“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)”
21
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
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:.
22
“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”
(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
23
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 wellknown 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
24
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.”
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
25
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
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
26
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.”
27
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.
28
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.