A thought about the NIV
I'm not one to bash the NIV, especially not in the 'KJV 1611 only' sort of way, nor do I think of it is the Nearly Inspired Version as if the KJV was somehow purer. That is just silly. In fact, I most enjoy reading biblical prose in the NIV.
But reading through Paul in the NIV recently it struck me that the translators often side with an anthropocentric-individualistic reading. So at key points it has 'a righteousness from God' instead of God's own righteousness, 'faith in Christ' instead of the faithfulness of Christ, 'if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation' (2 Cor. 5:17) instead of 'if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation', 'put to death … whatever belongs to your earthly nature' (Col. 3:5) instead of 'earthly members' (where did the NIV get the word 'nature' from? – Paul thinks of the death of the whole person, not just a bit of the Christian) etc. This is not to say the NIV is wrong about these exegetical judgments (though I think they are), but it is the consistency that gives pause for thought.
So I ask, did the translators of the Pauline sections of the NIV function with a restricted anthropocentric-individualistic hermeneutic, one that Paul would perhaps say has insufficiently grasped the wide creation-to-new-creation scope of the gospel?
Well I think they're funny!
posted by Chris Tilling @ 11:36 PM
17 comments
17 Comments:
Not wishing to accuse you of plagiarism or anything, but funny how the same idea seemed to strike Tom Wright in his new (Justification) book, p35: "...if a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul is talking about." He too has a problem with the "righteousness from God" language. Or is it that your thinking has become so aligned ....?!
Notably, the TNIV corrected the "a righteousness from God" into, properly, "the righteousness of God" (e.g., Rom. 1:17). Corrections like this are why I prefer the TNIV over the NIV. You can go to the TNIV website and find out about more. It has become my favorite translation, though I use it along with more formal equivalent translations like the RSV/NRSV/ESV.
Chris is just a devoted Wrightian, from the tip of his pretty little head to the end of his biggest toe. He's no plagiarist... :-)
Any one ever use the Concordant translation?
Those are some awesome gifs, Chris!
On a very different topic -- but still regarding the translation of Pauline texts, consider 1 Corinthians 7:1 --- "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry." This instead of: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." The meaning is different and is suggestive that Paul is anti-marriage.
Pastor, Paul being anti-sex is hardly better! If I had to choose, I'd choose the former! :)
on a related note, some people (Arminians?) have long complained about the NIV's translation of "sarx" in Paul as "sinful nature"-- perhaps not the kind of thing you are asking about, but it goes to the anthropology of the NIV translators
Arni,
I should have added, that while the Greek seems to suggest that Paul was quoting the Corinthians about sex, the NIV gives no hint that this is so. Gordon Fee made much of this lapse.
The NIV, being a dynamic equivalence translation takes liberties at several points -- which makes all the fuss several years ago about inclusive language so silly. If we assume that the text addresses women, why the big deal. But for the likes of Jim Dobson and his friends, apparently it was a big deal and so Zondervan pulled a healthy revision. Even the New Living Translation had embraced such inclusion.
But, if you read 1 Corinthians 7, Paul prefers celibacy for the sake of the kingdom, but if you're married keep to the marriage bed! And do so with a sense of equality!
This isn't adding much, but I agree. The evangelical piety comes through especially in Paul. As for marriage, note how often the NIV inserts our word ("marriage") where neither the original languages nor the KJV use it.
No wonder so it's so difficult to overcome the overwhelming individualistic soteriology of American evangelicalism. Language is important.
A KJV-only guy showed up at my office and harassed me for 2 hours today. I wish these people would enjoy their 1611 translation and leave the rest of us alone.
Yea, Tim, like Steph said: Not plagarism, just great mings thinking alike :-)
Kevin, you almost tempt me to get a TNIV.
Wes, EXACTLY!
Pastor Bob, like I suspect you - I just don't know what to say if someone gets excited about the 1611! I suppose I am at least glad they are excited about the bible, whatever translation!
Chris and Tom - a couple of like great mings. ;-)
A colleague of mine expressed something similar a couple years back. He says the NIV always opts for a more subjective option when one is available.
Here's another verse, James 1:20, "For man's anger does no bring about the righteous life that God desires."
This is a lame tautology; who ever thought that their anger made them a better individual? But many have thought that their anger was going to contribute to making the world right.
This proves why we all need several translations - and the Greek text - on our shelves. For me, give me the NSRV. I'll often bring my pocket NIV along because of its size, but I'm sorry if it offend anyone that bishop Tom is right (Wright, too) - the NIV will let you down on some critical passages.
For the NT, I think a bookshelf is incomplete without Lattimore's sweet and accurate translation, accomplished without theological agenda; and Bsrclay as well - much to be said for one-translator volumes. Committees make too may mice into elephants.
The NJB, incidentally, translates all of these passages (even those in the combox) appropriately (except for Rom. 3:22, which is kind of confusing given its correct translation of dikaiosune theo: what does the verse mean if it's translated as "God's saving justice given through faith in Jesus Christ"? It would seem part 1, if translated "God's saving justice" would demand that part 2 be translated "exhibited by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ," no?).
Post a Comment
<< Home