In my previous blogposts about the NIV 2011, I discussed selectively the history of the English Bible, and discussed the positive features of this version. Now, I wish to look at some of the weaknesses.
Weaknesses in the NIV 2011
There are some niggling issues that need to be mentioned. A few categories will be listed here.
First, along with virtually every other translation on the planet, Mark 16.9-20 and John 7.53–8.11 are found in the text, even though (almost) all the translators considered them to be inauthentic. But the NIV 2011 admirably puts them in a different font and has an in-text note to show that they are rather dubious. The reasons translations keep these verses in the text even when the translators themselves do not consider them authentic is due to a tradition of timidity. But with the publication of Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus (2005), a popular book on the transmission of the New Testament text, the cat is out of the bag. Most biblical scholars—including evangelical scholars—have long recognized that these passages are most likely later additions. We do the living church no service by not fully admitting this fact in our translations. But because these two passages have a long history in printed Bibles and even in the manuscripts, they should not be eliminated altogether. Placing them in the footnotes would seem to be the best policy.
Second, the gender-inclusiveness of the NIV 2011 creates some problems of style and even meaning in a few places. This version has done a significantly better job in both Matt 18.15 and 1 Tim 3.2 than the NRSV, but it still stumbles over Rev 3.20 (“I will come in and eat with that person”), for example. An added note in the places where the modern English generic singular ‘they’ can be misleading, as well as a few similar instances, would more than adequately solve this problem, however. I would encourage the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) to consider adding such moves in the next iteration. At bottom, I think the gender issue has been overblown by people who have reacted to what they thought the TNIV would say, long before it was published, and the same attitude has carried over to the NIV 2011—even though for both translations it is difficult to find passages where they are at fault.
Table 2
NIV 1984 Compared to NIV 2011
|
|
1984 |
2011 |
| Matthew 18.15 | If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. | If your brother or sister sins, go and point out the fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. |
| 1 Timothy 3.2 | Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
|
Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, |
| 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 him, and he with me. | 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. |
A few observations are in order. In comparison with the NRSV, the NIV 2011 has better marks on style and accuracy in Matt 18.15, and accuracy in 1 Tim 3.2. To be noted in Matt 18.15 is that ‘against you’ has been dropped from the text. This is a variant in the Greek, and I believe that the 2011 NIV has got the correct reading. In 1 Tim 3.2, instead of “the husband of but one wife,” the 2011 version interprets the Greek phrase “husband of one wife” to mean “faithful to his wife.” This, however, is but one interpretation among a myriad of views. In this instance, as in many instances throughout the NIV, I would have preferred that the translators retained a more interpretive-neutral stance as long as the English rendition wasn’t nonsense. “Husband of one wife” would fit that principle just fine, and it would not have caused angst for pastors who preach from the NIV but disagree here and there with the interpretive rendering that gratuitously show up. See also 1 Thess 4.15 for a similar text: “according to the Lord’s word” makes it sound as though this is some saying of the earthly Jesus. The problem is that “the word of the Lord” is virtually a technical phrase in the Old Testament for prophecy and Paul seems to be using it in the same way here. But that interpretive option is shut out in the NIV 1984, the TNIV, and the NIV 2011.
Third, as with the original NIV, this recent iteration still breaks up sentences from what they were in the original. Though of course this is due to modern English usage, the real problem comes when the English reader is deprived of meaning that the reader of the (especially) Greek text has. This is no more clearly seen than in subordination of thought. In 1 Peter 5.7, for example, the NIV has “Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.” But the Greek word for ‘cast’ is a participle (ἐπιρίψαντες) and is best seen as subordinate to the main verb of verse 6, “Humble.” The two verses should be read together, rather than as two different commands. 1 Peter 5.6 is calling for believers to “humble yourselves under God’s mighty hand.” But this is not accomplished by negatively prostrating oneself under to God’s almighty thumb, but by positively casting one’s cares on him because he cares so deeply for us! The NIV masks this relationship because of the overarching concern for today’s reader. A simple footnote in such places would resolve the matter, and allow the modern reader to gain a better glimpse of the beauty and significance of the original text. Thus, though not related to the gender issue, I am concerned about the NIV’s gratuitous interpretive renderings when a more neutral translation would be just as readable, giving the added benefit to the English reader of seeing in his or her Bible the interpretive options that the translators wrestled with.
Fourth and finally, the greatest strength of the NIV tradition is also its greatest weakness: the language is so much closer to the way people speak today than just about any other bona fide translation that it is not memorable. This version simultaneously is a joy to read because of its almost conversational style—almost as though one is listening, for example, to Paul preaching—and somewhat forgettable because it lacks the turns of expression that make the KJV, REB, ESV, and (to a lesser degree) the NET the kinds of translations that linger in one’s memory. The tension here for translators is almost palpable: a translator’s goals are fidelity to the original, clarity and memorability in the receptor language. The KJV reigned supreme on memorability (or elegance), while the NIV does this on clarity. It also scores high marks on accuracy. But these objectives—accuracy, clarity, and elegance—are cross-purposed. No translation can do them all justice. There is an old Italian proverb: “Translators, traitors!” This is similar to the English proverb: “Something always gets lost in translation.” By choosing clarity and readability above the other objectives (even though accuracy is listed as its first priority), the NIV stumbles over elegance. One can’t have everything in a translation, but it is possible to have two of the three major features. The NIV is strong on readability and somewhat strong on accuracy, while the ESV is strong on elegance and somewhat strong on accuracy and, less so, on readability. The NET is strong on accuracy, somewhat strong on elegance (though this is patchy), and semi-strong on readability. Perhaps a chart of major English translations with these objectives in mind would help the reader.
Elegance, Accuracy, Readability
in Major English Bibles
(scale of 1-10, with 10 being the best score)
| Elegance | Accuracy | Readability | |
| KJV |
9 |
5 |
3 |
| RV |
1 |
9 |
2 |
| ASV |
4 |
9 |
5 |
| RSV |
7 |
8 |
8 |
| NASB |
4 |
8 |
4 |
| NRSV |
6 |
8 |
6 |
| ESV |
8 |
8 |
8 |
| NIV (whole tradition) |
4 |
8 |
10 |
| NET |
7 |
10 |
6 |
At bottom, there is a variety of factors that one must consider when choosing a translation. The three basic translation philosophies—which, incidentally, correspond to the three periods of English Bible translation: elegance (1536–1881), accuracy (1881-1971), readability (1978–present)—are just one way of looking at these translations.
115 replies to "A Review of the NIV 2011: Part 3 of 4"
Daniel (#45): If you are not a majority text advocate, your view is even harder to defend. You are arguing that the passages that the church has largely accepted at some point in its history but overall in general should be considered as scripture. As I mentioned, that would mean almost 7000 textual variants from the critical text used today. Are we to regard them as scripture just because the church ultimately had a majority of MSS that had these readings? If so, then historical research is dead and the origins of the Christian faith are meaningless.
Dr Wallace #34,
Regarding the translation team, I really didn’t make the claim that Doug Moo was the only complementarian on the panel. I am actually uncertain where Doug Moo now stands on the issue since he has commented over at Denny Burk’s blog to the effect that he now believes the ambiguous translation ‘assume authority’ is the best given the current evidence, thus it is unclear to me how he would still hold to his former essay in RBMW on that verse. In addition to the egalitarians you listed, David Instone-Brewer is an egalitarian and there are two women on it who are both theology professors at Wheaton and Bethel (I think that says a lot).
A general point I would make is that I don’t think anyone of Grudem or Poythress’ stripes would have been welcome on such a committee – the complementarians selected are ones in favor of gender-neutral translation, but this is hardly a fair and representative sample of complementarians.
Adam (#47), I’m not sure what problem you see in the NIV’s translation at 1 Tim 3.8, and 12. This is pretty standard.
henry (#49), before I discuss this issue, I would like you to acknowledge my responses in #33, 34, 35, and 36. I pointed out the fallacy in your thinking about some very important points you raised. All you said was “thank you very much for your engagement.” Then you proceeded to say that I still haven’t answered your questions!
Frankly, I’ve never been impressed with the masculine generic argument. It’s the weakest plank in the complementarian platform. But until I get a response from you on the other points, I won’t comment more.
Dr. Wallace,
In response to post #3 above, I really wasn’t saying I had a problem with the translation choice in Romans 16:1. I was simply asking if “deacon” was the better choice there than “servant” (although I am curious though about the footnoting to 1 Timothy 3:12 since it speaks about deacons being the husband of one wife, etc). As I said in an earlier post, I am not trying to criticize different choices. I am simply trying to sort through these issues and complaints made by CBMW and SBC and see if any are valid points.
I would also like to ask again about your rating of the ESV higher than the NET in “readibility.” I am curious as to what made you rank the NET lower in that area.
Are you prepared to footnote John 21?
I don’t know what the answer is. It seems to me that your approach is a little too tidy. The composition of the text is messier than what you’re suggesting. The historical research reveals this (source crit, redaction crit, text crit, etc.)
Where do revisions and redactions fit in? Most OT scholars believe that the majority of the OT went through multiple and massive redactions. The line between composition and transmission is blurred. It’s not as tidy as you’re suggesting.
We either have to revise the doctrine of inerrancy or we have to revise our understanding of inspiration.
henry, all you’ve said in response to the arguments I’ve given is “thank you for the engagement.” Before I respond to your question about masculine generics, you need to respond to my points in #34, 35, and 36.
Daniel (#6), I disagree. Where is the textual evidence that John 21 was ever not a part of the published text of John? Where is the textual evidence that there were major overhauls in the OT redaction? You mention text-critical evidence as though that’s a done deal, but you haven’t given any concrete data that this is the case. To be sure, books like 1 Samuel and Jeremiah have great differences between the DSS and MT, but this doesn’t mean that such changes were done *during* OT times. Far from it.
“Most OT scholars believe that the majority of the OT went through multiple and massive redactions.” Frankly, I rather doubt that. Certainly, most liberal OT scholars believe this. But evangelical scholars? Most orthodox Jewish scholars?
Adam (#5), I don’t recall you mentioning Rom 16.1 earlier; I thought it was 1 Tim 3.8, 12. I don’t agree with the translation of diakonos in Rom 16.1 as deacon(ness), but I may be wrong. And many complementarians do see it as the correct rendering.
ESV vs. NET: Because Leland Ryken was on the ESV committee, I regard it as both readable and memorable. The NET works very hard at this, but it’s a bit uneven. Second edition is being worked on.
Dr Wallace,
Please would you point out what you feel I have not acknowledged?
I did not claim there was only one complementarian on the translation team and actually asked the question who else was. You pointed out 4 other names and I responded in comment #2 (2nd page of comments) that this still does not establish that complementarians and egalitarians were both equally represented.
As for complementarians not caring for gender-neutral translations you said you disagree and offered the team of translators on the NET bible as evidence. I did not comeback at this because I don’t think it establishes the point that you need to establish if you are claiming that the NIV 2011 was fairly represented by both sides – it seems like only gender-neutral comps were welcome on the board. This is not a fair representation -> most complementarians I know adhere to the CBMW view that is contra gender-neutral. The NET translators do not overthrow the rest of the landscape.
Dr Wallace,
You may have missed all 3 of my responses? (comments #49, #50 and #2 (2nd page of comments)). If not, would you mind pointing out to me where you feel I have not acknowledged substantive points you made? Thanks.
Regarding your response (#35) directed at my comment #20, I felt that you did not really address the question I asked, and you have since seemed to agree that you have not (#4 and #7). So what am I to respond to?
Maybe I’m being dull but I have read it a few times and can’t see how your comment #35 undercuts my comment #20? And I did respond to your argument that ‘language is changing’ in comment #50, indeed it was one of my initial points in comment #21 that I still feel you have not engaged.
This may be the only chance I get to hear why a leading scholar of complementarian persuasions does not think the use of masculine generic language bears any significance. Please do me the kindness of showing me my error, if indeed I am in error.
So, henry (#10), you’re claiming that complementarians aren’t really complementarians if they hold to gender-neutral translation as an acceptable philosophy, right? If that’s the case, then there is no use with me trying to demonstrate that there are real complementarians on the NIV translation committee. Your argument is circular. And William Mounce is a very strong complementarian. Have you read his commentary on 1 Timothy?
Henry (#10) again–
I can’t establish that complementarians were equally represented on the translation committee. But I also can’t establish that egalitarians were equally represented. I can say that D. A. Carson, Mark Strauss, and the majority of the NET Bible translators are complementarians, yet they have no problem with gender-neutral translations. Have you read Strauss’s book, Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation and Gender Accuracy? Or D. A. Carson’s The Inclusive-Language Debate: A Plea for Realism?
Further, why do say that the NET translators don’t count on this issue? It may not be the most popular translation, but it was done by excellent hand-picked scholars. It is also the translation that other translators have said that it was their primary resource for doing their own translation–both translators for the ESV and TNIV.
henry, let me address the masculine generic argument. Frankly, both linguists and exegetes have felt that this was the weakest argument by the complementarians. It’s embarrassing.
Here’s the situation: assuming a language uses one gender to refer to the whole class of people (or animals), then that gender shows how that people view that class of creatures. The problem with this is manifold. First, language plays a funny game: some species are referred to generically by the feminine (e.g., cows even though bulls are included; lions, even though lionesses are included; sheep which includes rams, etc.). Some languages uses the neuter to refer to those not yet in their majority:e.g., τεκνα in Greek, Mädchen in German–referring to a girl. And some languages refer to the Spirit with different genders. Hebrew uses the feminine for the Spirit, while Greek uses the neuter. There is no place in the NT (contrary to public opinion) where Spirit is referred to in the masculine.
Pardon me for going on, but you wanted evidence. Greek also used the neuter to refer to a woman, though the form doesn’t show up in the NT. Should we call the Spirit a “she” or an “it” because that’s what Greek and Hebrew do?
The problem, of course, is the assumption that just because a language uses a masculine generic, this means that the biblical writers thought in such terms. But this doesn’t work with other categories like Spirit, child, woman, etc. I used to think that because Greek has μάμμη (mamme) for grandmother that this was evidence and indeed the norm that would be urged that the grandparents would live with the children and grandchildren.
In Gender Across Languages, Hellinger and Bußmann give examples of feminine nouns that refer to men. Admittedly rare, it still occurs.
We simply can’t assume that the language itself is inspired; it’s the scriptures that are inspired, and the features in the language have some residue that may or may not be true in…
Dr Wallace #12
No not at all, although at this time in my thinking it seems to me that it is a compromised form of complementarianism (just as I’m sure gender-neutral complementarians would think of my view).
Really, as some reviews of the NIV 2011 have pointed out, the fact that NIV 2011 still uses masculine generics in some places shows that even the translators think that they are still understandable in our modern day. If I am honest I think the influence of feminism has played no small part in the gender-neutral drive, some people (although not the average person in the pew, from my experience) are quite offended at patriarchal language forms.
I have not read William Mounce’s commentary on 1 Timothy but am not disputing that he is a complementarian, I know Grudem has referenced him favourably.
henrybish #16, as a complementarian, I think it is essential that we use gender accurate translations. It is only then that we will be able to know what the Bible teachers about the genders. If our translations are gender inaccurate, then egalitarians will reject what is true while rejecting what has merely been translated badly.
Dr. Wallace,
I appreciated your time in answering my questions.
Let’s suppose that you publish multiple editions of your Greek grammar. Let’s suppose that one of your students even produced a revised edition after your death.
Two thousand years later, historians find all of these multiple editions. How do they determine which is the best? Is it the earliest edition? Or is the latest? Or could be that each of the editions has some value in informing us of your thoughts on grammar?
Daniel, it’s not a question of which is best, it’s a question of which one is what the author intended. What evidence is there that Paul published multiple copies of his letter to the Romans? Textual criticism is concerned with getting back to the autographic or Ausgangstext. Further, there is a big difference between speaking about a book that deals with an ancient text and what that ancient text is. You’re mixing apples with oranges with your analogy.
Isn’t textual crit also concerned with the history of transmission?
There is some evidence which suggests Paul produced multiple copies of Ephesians. The LXX has a completely different edition of Jeremiah.
[…] 1: A Selected History of the English Bible Part 2: Praise for the NIV 2011 Part 3: Weaknesses in the NIV 2011 Part 4: […]
[…] Wallace has completed his blog series, reviewing NIV 2011. You can read part three here and the final part […]
Thank you for this review. I disagree with some of your conclusions, but I appreciate the work you’ve done here.
I disagree pretty strongly with giving the NASB a 4 for readability. I think the 1995 Update of the NASB gives it a 6 for readability. I would also give it a 9 for accuracy. I think it’s a stronger translation than your score indicates.
[…] objective and scholarly reviews of Greek New Testament critic Dr. Dan Wallace (Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four). I was an avid reader and promoter of the TNIV, though I admit that the version was not […]
Dr Wallace,
I have been ruminating on your comments for a few days and would like to ask which particular book you would recommend from a gender-neutral perspective that addresses the masculine generic argument? I confess I don’t still don’t quite understand how your argument really undercuts what I said.
Thanks
I don’t see that it is especially critical that other languages don’t have masculine generics since it is Greek and Hebrew that God sovereignly ordained to be used as the blueprints from which other translations would be made from. You may answer that God also wills for there to be translations in the vernacular and this requires using their language constraints, but this is nothing new. Some meaning is always lost in translation, our responsibility is to do the most faithful translation we can, and English has masculine generics that can be used (and indeed were used at times by the NIV 2011 translators).
Regarding other languages that may not have masculine generics (?) I think what I am meaning by a masculine generic is a little different. In many/most cases it is just using a male as the example rather than a female (e.g. Prov 29:6 “A man who flatters his neighbor spreads a net for his feet”) and it is ‘generic’ in the sense that the reader would naturally extend the application to women where appropriate, and surely all languages have a word for ‘man’ and so can do this?
Regarding your point about other animals and generics, I don’t see that as relevant since I don’t think scripture has much prescription of gender roles for other animals. Also I don’t think anyone is arguing that the Spirit is not male or female in the sense that humans are, so I’m not sure how that points bears on my argument. I would like to read more about that though.
Another point I would make is on your view where do you draw the line about what is significant and what is not? Does it matter if God is called ‘Father’ or not? Or is that also just a product of the happenstance of the language/culture?
Are you really saying that the masculine language does not reflect a patriarchal mindset? If so then why are feminists so riled by it? I find it a bit of a stretch to believe that.
Finally,
I still see a simple argument that makes sense:
1) God used patriarchal language forms in scripture (as most opponents I know of concede)
2) Scripture affirms a patriarchy of sorts (disputed)
3) Therefore, if 2) is true then the use of patriarchal language cannot be dismissed as insignificant, but carries meaning component that must be translated where possible.
Daniel/Dr Wallace,
With this whole composition/transmission question, is there not a difference between changing the meaning of what was originally written and adding additional true material such as the John 7:53 piece, which both Bruce Metzger and Don Carson think is probably historical even though it was added later.
This distinction would mean that textual criticism is still needed to correct changes to the original words that have crept in, but would allow the possibility of God providentially having added additional true material a little bit later on. If you think about it, is this not probably how Luke composed his gospel – successively collective true material over the years until the complete document was compiled? (Luke 1:1-4) Just because it is another person who adds John 7:53 to the account does not necessarily invalidate it. I’m not saying this is the correct way to approach it, but just considering the option.
Henry,
I agree completely. Both Matthew and Luke redacted and revised Mark’s gospel. So our view of inspiration needs to be big enough to handle things like this.
BTW, I like your argument in (29).
Thanks Daniel.
Dr Wallace,
An interesting resource page on gender-neutral issues I just came across:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/gender.html
I notice that the author has an article directed in part towards yourself on the translation of ‘aner’, I think you mentioned something about this in an earlier comment, anyway, here it is:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/blomberg.html
Dr. Wallace, Thanks for your remarks on the NIV2011. I too would be very interested in your take on the HCSB. I have enjoyed studying and preaching from it, and have heard some good reviews of it. But it does not seem to have the recognition of some of these other translations. I haven’t decided if I should make the switch and preach from it permanently.
Folks who are commenting more than once in a row, please read the rules. One comment at a time. There is no way for our authors to respond to every comment, much less comment after comment. One comment at a time. NO surrogate blogging. Keep the comments brief and understand that the author may not have the time to responds.
Thanks
Michael Patton
I agree with Eric (#38) that using the singular “they” is very distracting and lessens both the elegance and readability at the same time. I sometimes use the singular “they” in casual conversation, but would never use it in public speaking or formal writing. So as Phil McCheddar (#2) said, it would be wonderful if translators could use some means to give the reader a hint of the speaker or writer’s tone. For example in this case, was Jesus really being super casual, or did he intend a more formal teaching?
I for one get tired of the clunkiness of changing the generic masculine “he” to “he or she”, “him or her”, etc. I wish we could just use “him” and be done with it. As a woman, I don’t find it offensive or exclusive, just more efficient and more timeless.
C Michael Patton,
since you are obviously referring to me, could you clarify what ‘one comment at a time means’? I thought that meant not to post a long comment by splitting it up over a number of entries, and to rather have each comment as a discrete thought? Since you allowed Dr Wallace to do that in answer to me is it not only fair to allow me to do so in answer to him?
In comment #7 Dr Wallace was actually asking me to engage him more. It is impossible to do this and have a conversation here if you are now saying that all arguments that a person must answer must be made in one single 1000 character comment – when the person on the other side is allowed to put forth as many challenges as they wish. How am I meant to do this if you are now saying just a single comment?
Heidi, you make a good point. I agree with you, and apparently so does the REB, even though it is one of the (earlier) gender-inclusive translations. But the language is changing, and I frequently find myself on the outs in terms of my own archaic style preferences.
The way I see it the Bible was canonized with the allegedly added verses so those verse are indeed divinely inspired.
Heidi said:
I’m glad someone agrees with me!
If I were female, I’d probably find it somewhat offensive, which is one reason I don’t use the generic “he” in my writing and agree with the translators that it’s best avoided. Where the singular must be used, I don’t think there’s a good solution. I just think that the singular “they” is the worst of the bad choices. Unfortunately, “he/she” or “he or she” is clunky, and the generic “she” is distracting (even to me, and I use it sometimes).
I agree with henrybish and Daniel about having a bigger view of inspiration.
It seems like the view of inspiration and preservation by New Testament scholars are not consistent with the view of the same by Old Testament scholars. It is accepted that the last chapters of Deuteronomy (Moses V) and Jeremiah were added by anonymous authors after the deaths of the authors who bear the names of the books. We don’t even know when these chapters were added. Yet we includ them as scripture because of their canonicity. Most New Testament scholars, however, have the narrow view that any portion of writing that was added by an anonymous author after the death of the original writer is not scripture. These scholars conflate the search for “the first draft” with the search for “The final form of what God intended the Church to have”. Mainstream textual criticism might be successful at finding “the first draft” but because of this preoccupation it fails to find “The final form of what God intended the Church to have”, which is a question of canonicity. I believe that God intended us to have John 8’s story of the adulteress, for example. It is a canonical account, whether or not it was in John’s first draft.
With respect to preservation, Old Testament scholars are not hesitant to suppose that some original readings could have dropped out of all Hebrew texts only to be preserved in the Greek LXX or Vulgate. Yet it is anathema for New Testament scholars to suppose that some original readings may have dropped out of all extant Greek manuscripts only to be represented in Latin or Syriac translations. It borders on hypocrisy when we rail against the Comma Johanneum because it is only found in the Vulgate tradition when we use that same Vulgate to support a departure from all Hebrew manuscripts (e.g. Genesis 4:8, NIV). Of course, Greek scriptures were penned in more recent history and this might make things different for Greek scriptures, but the question is: Does God use translations to preserve his readings? The answer is inconsistent between Old Testament and New Testament scholars. Yet both the Old and New are God’s words and it seems to me that God would be consistent with the way he inspired and preserved his words.
Lou,
You said “Most New Testament scholars, however, have the narrow view that any portion of writing that was added by an anonymous author after the death of the original writer is not scripture.” There is a good reason for this: those passages that were most likely added to the NT text were done after the death of the last apostle. I take it that inspiration could only take place while apostles or prophets were still alive. Hence, the additions to Deuteronomy, etc., in order to be considered canonical and inspired would have had to happen before Malachi died. There is thus no inconsistency at all.
As for John 8, let’s say it was not added to the Gospel of John until the fifth century, which is certainly the case as far as extant witnesses are concerned. Are you saying that the church’s Gospel of John for the first 300 years after it was written was incomplete? Are you saying that the human author’s intentions could be totally ignored when it comes to what he wanted to communicate? That view moves dangerously close to a docetic bibliology.
And as far as readings not found in the Greek MSS of the NT are concerned, there is another good reason for this: We have an abundance of Greek NT MSS that are early and accurate, which is quite unlike what OT textual critics have to deal with.
I don’t see any inconsistency in these matters because I see quite different situations that OT and NT scholars are facing with respect to their texts.
It’s very telling that Dr. Wallace is unwilling to state that he would discard John 21 if textual evidence is found to support Raymond Brown’s theory concerning John’s composition.
Oh? What does it tell? Perhaps that I don’t see any textual evidence for Brown’s supposition, so unless there is some that is forthcoming I won’t entertain it? As good an exegete as Brown was, he was no textual critic. And the views of exegetes–from Brown to Bultmann–constantly are shipwrecked on the rocks of the text-critical evidence to the contrary.
I just want a yes or a no. Would you scrap it if they found an early manuscript that didn’t have John 21?
I realize that it’s a hypothetical, but it shows your commitment to your approach to text crit.
Daniel, you simply can’t reduce the discipline of textual criticism to such a simplistic approach. In the last 100 years, there has not been a single newly discovered variant that has compelled scholars to accept it as authentic. I rather doubt that this situation will change.
Did Erasmus have access to textual evidence which discredited Mark 16:9-20 when he compiled the TR?
Do you don’t think that there will be any more new discoveries?
1. Yes.
2. I do think there will be plenty more discoveries, and CSNTM is leading the charge in that department. But not a single discovery in the last 100 years has revealed a previously unknown variant that has been so compelling that it is now regarded as authentic.
Just to follow up on a comment Dr Wallace made earlier about the Holy Spirit being a ‘she’ in the OT.
From a report of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod “Biblical Revelation and Inclusive Languages” (p16-18) [note the Greek words did not paste in here]:
It is certainly further true that “spirit” in Hebrew, when used of the Spirit of God, usually is accompanied by feminine verbal forms … However, it is doubtful whether this agreement is anything more than a normal grammatical agreement without any significance for any gender specificity. This is so for the following reasons…
First of all, the grammatical gender of “spirit” in the Greek of the Septuagint and the New Testament is neuter ( ), and the verbal forms accompanying “spirit” in these sources are in the neuter (e.g., John 1:32: “The Spirit coming down [ ] …”24). However, whereas the Hebrew names of God YHWH and Elohim are without exception accompanied by masculine verbal forms in the biblical Hebrew, the word ruach when used of the Spirit of God—although grammatically feminine—is at times accompanied by verbal forms in the masculine gender…
More significant, however, is the use of the personal pronouns and personal suffixes. Although the evidence in the Old and New Testaments of pronominal use referring to the Spirit is scanty, the evidence indicates only masculine forms. No instance analogous with the phrase “I am he” or “You are he” occurs with the Spirit. In fact, neither the masculine pronoun “he” ( ) nor the feminine pronoun “she” ( ) occurs in the Old Testament in reference to the Spirit. There is, however, evidence in the New Testament. In five instances in the Gospel of John the Spirit is referred to through the use of the masculine demonstrative pronoun ( , “that one,” “he”; John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7, 13, 14).
Finally, although no instance of a pronominal suffix in the feminine could be located for the Spirit in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, the use of masculine forms for the Spirit does exist. For example, Isa. 40:13–14:
“Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, or as his counselor has instructed him? Whom did he consult for his enlightenment, and who taught him the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and showed him the way of understanding?”
One other point that I think Dr Wallace made earlier was that because the Spirit has a grammatically feminine gender in the OT that this undermines the argument of those against gender-neutral translations since they do not accept the Spirit as being a ‘she’.
But this is surely a red-herring because the argument is based on pronoun usage not grammatical gender.
I found this footnote in the aforementioned report helpful:
The grammatical gender of a word does not necessarily correspond to the actual gender of the person to whom the word refers. See the discussion in Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 99–102. Waltke and O’Connor relate that in French there are nouns which are feminine in form but refer to men (la sentinelle, “the sentinel”; la vigi, “the night watchman”). Some nouns designating professions are masculine in form even when referring to a woman (le professeur, “the professor”). A New Testament example of this would be the case of Phoebe (Rom. 16:1). Here Phoebe is called “servant,” even though the word for “servant” is , a word whose grammatical gender is masculine.
Thank you for the reference, Henry. Good points on the OT, but their discussion of the NT is flawed. I have argued that the Holy Spirit is never identified grammatically as a ‘he’ in the NT in “Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit,” Bulletin for Biblical Research (the journal of the Institute for Biblical Research) 13.1 (2003) 97–125. The references from John that you mention are all invalid since the word that the masculine pronoun relates to is not ‘Spirit’ at all. Second, in Rom 16.1 ‘servant’ is a second declension noun. This does not make it a masculine noun per se, any more than a host of second declension nouns cannot be labeled masculine for the simplistic reason that they are second declension. The standard lexicon of the NT and early Christian literature, begins the entry on ‘servant’ by noting that the word diakonos takes a masculine or feminine article. As such, it can be masculine or feminine.