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"
Why do you say that ‘the word that the masculine pronoun relates to is not ‘Spirit’ at all’ in John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7, 13, 14?
What other word is the masculine pronoun relating to?
Also may I ask if your article is disputed or widely accepted in evangelical scholarship? Are there conservative scholars who have written in disagreement with you on this?
Henry, although I am sure some evangelical scholars dispute the findings in my article, I do not yet know of any. There has been very wide acceptance of it. The parakletos or ‘Counselor,’ a masculine noun, is in view in all of these passages—even John 16.13, where it is kept in view by pronouns from v. 8 on.
Ah I see, but is this not immaterial? Consider:
1) The ‘Counselor’ is the Holy Spirit, thus the person of the Holy Spirit is the one being referred to with a masculine pronoun, there is no difference to the salient point.
2) The only OT references that exist (which I mentioned earlier) also only refer to the Spirit with the masculine pronominal terms “him”, “his” etc. Thus masculine pronominal usage for the Spirit is consistent in both the OT and NT.
3) Taken in conjunction with the fact that the Spirit is never referred to anywhere in Scripture with feminine pronominal terms (“she”, “her” or equivalent), then this seems to be case closed that as with the Father and the Son, it is only proper to refer to the Spirit with masculine pronouns. The Spirit is a He not a Her.
As an aside, not that it makes any difference to the salient point, but in John 16:13 the closest referent for the pronoun “he” is ‘Spirit of truth’ not ‘Counselor’, so why would you chose the latter as being the referrent?
And perhaps I should have rephrased my question:
Which evangelical scholars have endorsed your article:):)
(You don’t need to answer.)
Henry, it’s quite impossible in the space allowed to lay out the reasons. You’ll just have to read my article. But so far I have not seen any counter-arguments to what I’ve written.
Thank you for responding to me Dr. Wallace.
You said, “I take it that inspiration could only take place while apostles or prophets were still alive.” I take the same position. I just happen to believe that passages like John 8 and the ending of Mark could have been authorized by Apostles, just not written by John or Mark in the original draft. John 8 is more difficult for me to argue for because of the external evidence, but take the ending of Mark. What If an Apostle (probably in or near Rome) came across the Gospel of Mark, and seeing that it was incomplete, added the ending? That would have been a perfectly legitimate thing to do and the account would be inspired and canonical despite being non-Markan and anonymous. By then, “incomplete” versions of Mark would have been widely circulating. Textual critics have laid out a strong case that the ending of Mark is non-Markan and a later addition, but these findings do not refute the canonicity of the passage. I’m just saying that “the original text” should not equal “the canonical text”. You characterize my bibliology as possibly “docetic”, but I think your “once and for all first draft” approach is closer to a docetic bibliology. If human works today go through many drafts and are edited by many editors, and get portions added with the authority of the original authors, then it wouldn’t be strange if the New Testament went through the same process. This is what we would expect for a work that is both divine and human (hence, not docetic).
I agree and disagree with you saying “We have an abundance of Greek NT MSS that are early and accurate”. This statement might be true with the Gospels, for example, but not for books like Revelation. Take into consideration also that the Latin church accepted Revelation as canonical early on while many influential Greek fathers lagged behind. I think a church would take better care of preserving a text which it believed to be inspired and canonical. I believe that at least for Revelation, there is good reason in some cases to prefer Latin manuscripts and Church father quotes over extant Greek manuscripts. My point is that when I say something like this, that a translation (Latin) is more accurate than the Greek for Revelation because of historical realities and manuscript evidence, New Testament scholars think I am crazy (or Catholic!). Yet Old Testament scholars do not hesitate to prefer translations over the originally inspired language when there are historical and textual reasons to do so.
It’s amazing how different OT text criticism is from NT text criticism.
If the principles of OT criticism were brought into play in the NT, then John 8 and Mark 16 would not be marginalized by evangelical scholarship.
BTW, NT Wright points out that Mark 16 contains allusions to Matthew, Luke-Acts, and John.
[…] in a few places”, but he concludes, “At bottom, I think the gender issue has been overblown”. ‘A Review of the NIV 2011: Part 3 of 4’. […]
“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, any ideas on when such an edition would be available? How would it change the grammar and style of the NET?
Chris, I wish I knew!
Dr. Wallace, are you opposed to me borrowing your graph, re-posting it on my blog, and giving you credit for it? I am teaching “how we got the Bible” in our church, and next week’s lesson gets us up to the modern English translations.
I am most appreciative of your balanced approach toward the NIV 2011, and sharing your insight with readers. I’ve had many people ask my opinion on the best translations; and of course my response is, “it depends on what you’re looking for.”
Thanks!
[…] *All reliable translations, and capable of teaching the lost about Christ with great accuracy. While “somewhat biased” is my weakness label for the NIV 2011, I am a fan of it. It is largely accurate it seems, and it has re-placed original text in many of the controversial biased spots of the 1984 NIV. For example, sarx (flesh) in Greek is translated “sinful nature” in the 1984 NIV, which indicates a definite bias toward a doctrine of original sin. Although I am not offended by the phrase, “sinful nature”, it is not necessarily the Biblical meaning for the term flesh. If you are referring to a general state of being lost in the human condition, I’m cool with it. If you’re referring to the idea that I was born as a sinful infant, inheriting the guilt of my fathers, I disagree. However, I’m a fan of the 2011 because although there are a few liberties taken, they appear to be driven by a desire to be combination literal word-for-word, and also phrase-for-phrase. To answer your question… Romans 5 does utilize “flesh” in the NIV 2011, rather than “sinful nature” – although – it does use “sinful nature” in that chapter several times. When I say “somewhat biased,” that’s what I’m referring to. They respect the desire to allow the reader to establish his own meaning for the term, flesh. Another specific example for consideration. In 1 Cor. 6:9, the quite literal NASB (New American Standard Bible) states, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,…” – feel free to look it up by the link and read it in context. HOWEVER, the NIV 2011 translates it like this: ”Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men…” Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts. For that matter, the ESV (English Standard Version) does the same thing for the verse, stating, “nor men who practice homosexuality”. See that verse HERE. Clearly, literal translation in the NASB is somewhat vague in terms in modern English, and misses the Greek meaning of the term malakos. Some of us think we know what “effeminate” means in English; however, the Greek terms malakos and arsenokoites are extremely graphic, and are clarified in the footnote above (taken directly from the NIV 2011 text). Combining those two terms – clearly meaning two different things – does help in the NIV 2011. It helps in the sense that it states unequivocally that homosexuality is sinful in either case; whether one is malakoi (a receiving male prostitute, or youth who is in a relationship with a man) or arsenokoites (one who sodomizes, or lies with a man like he would a woman). In this case, the English of the NIV 2011 spares us some terribly graphic details of Greco-Roman sexuality, and accomplishes the meaning of the passage at the same time. Graph & bottom paragraph below courtesy of: Dan Wallace – A Review of the NIV 2011: part 3 of 4 […]
Drew Ellis, you have my permission.
Thanks, Dr. Wallace.
http://drooellis.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/which-translation-of-the-bible-should-i-use/
I realize that this series of posts were done a year or so ago, but I had one question if possible related to ranking of translations:
It seems that the ESV gets the overall highest marks (8-8-8) for readability, elegance, and accuracy. I was curious if Dan would consider the ESV the best all-around english translation out there right now?