Blue Cord

Since I am unfamiliar with the TNIV, I thought I would check out some links to it in light of the discussion that has gone on here in the past couple of days. I found the following statement that was released by a group of evangelicals:

In light of troubling translation inaccuracies - primarily (but not exclusively) in relation to gender language - that introduce distortions of the meanings that were conveyed better by the original NIV, we cannot endorse the TNIV translation as sufficiently accurate to commend to the church.¹

Among the signers of this statement are Albert Mohler, Paige Patterson, and John Piper. Others who oppose the translation are James Dobdon, Jerry Falwell, Dennis Rainey, Pat Robertson, Charles Colson, and Janet Parshall. All do so on the basis of its gender inclusive language, and some state that gender inclusive language is a threat to society and the church.

I have to say that when these particular people condemn something, it counts as a rousing endorsement in my book. It is also very telling that those on the list who are opposing the TNIV are either theologians (Mohler, Piper), evangelists (Falwell, Robertson), or have no formal training in biblical studies or theology (Colson, Parshall). Not a one of the “church leaders” who are listed as opposing the TNIV is a biblical scholar.

This raises the interesting problem of them opposing a translation of the Bible on theological grounds. In other words, the TNIV disagrees with their theology, so they cannot accept it. This is odd, because as evangelicals these people claim that their theology comes from the Bible instead of their theology influencing the Bible. They seem to have it backwards.

I may have to get me a TNIV.

1. Taken from the website of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. [back]

It seems that the question of translational theory and how we label those theories is any important one to many people, given how many comments I have gotten on my two post on the Analysis of the ESV and More on the ESV.

Wayne Lehman, one of the bloggers at TNIV Truth, has responded with an excellent post on translational theory and where different translations fit. I wanted to discuss several points he raises.

First, I think those of us who have been discussing this all agree on the relative positions of the translations. The disagreement is over how to label these texts and the approach their translators followed.

Second, I would assume that everyone recognizes that translational theories exist along a spectrum. Lehman certainly does, as indicated by his statement “The NIV is clearly not as literal a translation as the ESV or NASB, but it is not really a DE translation.” Even when we label something as a formal equivalence translation, we need to define it even more closely. ASV and NRSV are both formal equivalence translations, but are obviously quite different.

Third, I should point that the graph I posted only indicates how close the translations are in their wording. The graph does not indicate the translational theory behind the texts. Two versions may take very different approaches to translation and yet come out with similar working.

With those things in mind, I wanted to address Lehman’s statement that the NIV is more of a formal equivalence translation. While I would place in more of a dynamicequivalence model, I think we are only disagreeing over terminology. The NIV advocated itself as a “sentence by sentence” translation when it came out, which to me indicates a dynamic equivalence. Lehman may be defining the categories somewhat differently. There is certainly no single “official” definition of the categories.

In fact, when I taught my Biblical Interpretation class the last time, I used slightly different terminology for the categories:

• Very Formal: KJV, NKJV, ASV
• Formal: RSV, NRSV, NAB, ESV, NASB
• Functional: NIV, TNIV, NLT, NJB
• Free: LB, The Message, GNB

These categories are taken from Elements of Biblical Exegesis by Michael J. Gorman. I had adoped this book for the class in replacement of How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, with which I was not satisfied. As Gorman points out:

Linguists now prefer the terms formal equivalence and functional equivalence to literal and dynamic equivalence for defining the spectrum. Formal-equivalence translations emphasize the similarity in the linguistic forms (such as vocabulary and grammatical structures) between the source language and the target language. Functional-equivalence translations, on the other hand, stress the similarity in linguistic function (meaning) between the two languages.¹

Before ending this post, I should point out that Lehman was talking a good deal about TNIV, while I have hardly mentioned it. I have never read TNIV and do not own a copy, so I don’t feel free to comment on it. When I have categorized it in my posts, I have done so based on what others have said about it. That is why I have primarily discussed the location of the NIV instead.

1. Gorman 43. [back]

Peter Kirk posted a comment on my ESV post, and I thought I would take a second to address some of his points.

Kirk was surprised that I claimed such a large difference between the NIV and the ESV. He says:

I am surprised how close [the NIV and ESV] are, considering that NIV is a new translation, and ESV is an adaptation of [RSV]¹ which is itself an adaptation of ASV - yet ESV is closer to NIV than to ASV!

It seems to me that similarities between the two are the result in the attempt to do similar things. The NIV attempted to be a new translation, while the ESV was an update of an update. These approaches are both going to lead to more modern language in the translations, which will naturally make them sound somewhat alike. Also, the ESV and NIV are both intentionally evangelical translations, which will lead to even more similarities. I was actually surprised that the ESV was closer to the NRSV.

The similarities do not, however, stem from the translational theory employed. The NIV and ESV are both very clear about their approach. The ESV even makes a point of not following the same translational theory as the NIV. They were are also polemical about not wanting to be like the NRSV, which is why I found it humorous that they came out closest to the NRSV.

Kirk goes on to say:

In fact it is very misleading to claim that NIV uses a a phrase by phrase approach or a ‘dynamic’ approach. . . For a real phrase by phrase or ‘dynamic’ translation, see NLT, TEV/GNT or CEV.

This is the claim that is made by the NIV itself and most scholars would place the NIV into the category of dynamic. Tne New Living Translation is not a dynamic translation but a paraphrase of the KJV,² while the Good News Bible is much looser than a dynamic translation.

When I refer to the ESV NIV as a dynamic translation, I am in no way using that in a pejorative sense. When my students ask what Bible translation they should use, I usually tell them that their main one should be a more formal equivalence translation (such as the NSRV), while their secondary Bible should be a dynamic equivalence translation (such as the NIV).

Kirk adds:

In fact it would be interesting to see your graph redone with those translations added. I suspect that you would find NIV much nearer to ESV than to any of them.

I have no doubt that you are right, although I can’t redo the graph to include those translations. I don’t have any of them on Logos.

Keep in mind that the graph is a relative one. Distances indicate only the differences in translations. The greater the distance, the greater the differences. Direction on the graph is meaningless. If we add looser translations such as the ones suggested above, the graph will have to reshape itself to take those into account. This will automatically move the ESV and NIV closer to each other, although the ESB would still be closer to the NRSV than it would to the NIV.

1. Kirk accidentally wrote “ESV”. [back]
2. In the original version of this post, I confused the New Living Translation, which is a translation, with the Living Bible, a paraphrase. Many thanks to Rick Mansfield for pointing out the mistake. [back]