niv 2011 – initial thoughts

Well, I know I said that this blog was over for a while, but I just had to post some of my thoughts on the updated text from the NIV, which appeared on the Biblica website here today. I know that it’s early to say, but I am bowled over by my first impressions and can’t wait for the print edition to hit the shelves in March. Anyway, as for the meat and potatoes, some changes of note:

GOSPELS

• Matthew 1:18 reads “pregnant through the Holy Spirit”  instead of “with child” thus retaining the TNIV’s change.
• Mark 1:1 retains the phrase “the Son of God” which was demoted to a footnote in the TNIV.
• Mark 1:23 reads “impure spirit” instead of “evil spirit”. I suspect this change will be consistent across the board in the gospels. This is a positive move, although I’m unsure as to why “unclean spirit” was overlooked.
• John 1:18 retains the TNIV’s “in closest relationship with the Father” instead of “at the Father’s side”.
• John 11:6 has changed from “yet” to “So”. Read the passage to see why that completely changes the meaning.
• John 15 has the archaic term normally translated “abide” in the ESV consistently rendered as “remain”.

EPISTLES

• Romans 1:3 has changed from “regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God” to the TNIV’s “regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed Son of God in power”.
• Romans 1:5 “obedience that comes from faith” is retained in favour of the TNIV’s “faith and obedience”. Phew.
• Romans 1:7 “saints” is now “holy people”.
• Romans 1:17 has retained the TNIV’s “righteousness of God” instead of “righteousness from God”. This change is consistent throughout the NT.
• Romans 3:20 “observing the law” now reads “works of the law”. Hurrah! This change is consistent throughout the NT.
• Romans 8 is a shocker (in a good way). Sarx has now been consistently rendered as flesh! Hurrah again. This change is consistent throughout the NT except when flesh doesn’t make sense.
• Romans 9:22 rather annoyingly to this Calvinist, inserts “although”.
• Romans 12:1 “spritual act of worship” now reads “true and proper worship”.
• 1 Corinthians 7:1 “It is good for a man not to marry” now reads “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

GENDER

The NIV has largely stuck with the gender inclusive/accurate language of the TNIV, although it seems to have adopted a slightly more sane approach.

• Genesis 1:26 reads “Let us make mankind” instead of “Let us make man”.
• Psalm 1:1 reads “Blessed is the one” instead of “Blessed is the man” and thus avoids the pluralized text of the TNIV here.
• Mark 1:27,28 reads “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” The temptation to translate “man” as “human beings” thus obscuring the link between “man” and “the Son of Man” is avoided.
• Adelphos is consistently rendered brothers and sisters throughout the bible.
• Gender specific pronouns like “he”, “him”, “his”, etc have thankfully been dropped in favour of plural pronouns. This is the way people speak after all. I want a koine translation, not an elitist/archaic one.

QUIBBLES

Minor quibbles I have (and these are down to personal taste):

• I’d have liked to have seen a change from “sacrifice of atonement” (e.g. Romans 3:25) to the superior “propitiation.”
• I’d have liked a “For” at the beginning of Romans 1:18. There must be a good reason for this being the only translation in the English-speaking world to omit it, but I’m unaware of it!
• I’d like to have seen the term rendered “remain” in John 15 consistently translated in John’s letters.
• Romans 9:22 (see above).
• I’d have liked “I have revealed you” in John 17:6 to be rendered “I have revealed your name” cf. v26. Rendering it this way unnecessarily obscures the link to the revelation of the Lord’s name in Exodus 34.

Quibbles aside, I am over the moon at the update. The translation reflects the broad range of influences on the board of translators. It has managed to become more literal while becoming more linguistically relevant at the same time; a truly astonishing feat. Has the huge popularity of the ESV encouraged the translators to move the NIV down this path? Has Doug Moo’s oversight and the more conservative translators (e.g. Mounce) ensured that the gender changes are more felicitous than those of the, at times eccentric, TNIV? Who knows.

What is certain is that the ESV now has a major competitor and I am seriously considering switching this coming March.

Advertisement