I just received from Zondervan a letter announcing that the NIV Bible is to be updated in 2011. The announcement is at this website. Here are some extracts from the full text of the announcement:
The global board of Biblica today announced its intention to update the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, the first time it has been revised since 1984. The Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), the independent body of global biblical scholars solely responsible for the translation of the world’s most popular Bible, is slated to finish its revision late next year, with publication in 2011. …
“We want to reach English speakers across the globe with a Bible that is accurate, accessible and that speaks to its readers in a language they can understand,” said Keith Danby, Global President and CEO of Biblica. …
“As time passes and English changes, the NIV we have at present is becoming increasingly dated. If we want a Bible that English speakers around the world can understand, we have to listen to, and respect, the vocabulary they are using today.”
BBB readers and friends have their opportunity to contribute to the new edition, as explained by Douglas Moo, chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation:
The CBT also reiterated its longstanding openness to receiving input from both external scholars and regular Bible readers.
“The CBT has always proactively sought peer review from qualified biblical scholars, linguists and English stylists and it continues to do so,” said Moo. “Every suggestion presented in writing to the CBT before the end of this calendar year will be considered for the 2011 edition of the NIV Bible. The CBT also values the feedback it receives from NIV Bible readers – be they scholars or not – on the comprehensibility of the text as we continue in our efforts to create a translation that offers English speakers across the world accurate understanding and unobstructed access to God’s unchanging word.”
I understand that this new edition is intended to replace both the 1984 NIV and the 2005 TNIV. I hope to be able to confirm this soon.
UPDATE: There is also an article about this in USA Today, a rather strange article I thought, which concludes with the following:
The T-NIV will be taken off the market when the new Bible is released.
For the 2011 edition, more than a dozen scholars will “review every single gender-related decision we have made and make sure we are putting God’s unchanging word into English people are actually using,” says Douglas Moo, chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation.
Gender issues aren’t the only areas for re-examination, says Moo. “In the 1984 NIV when Paul says (in 2 Corinthians 11:25) ‘I was stoned,’ we changed it to ‘pelted with stones’ to avoid the laughter in the junior high row of the church.”
While the committee has always called on scholars from numerous faiths and disciplines, they’re also now calling for input from the general public at a special new website, NIVBible2011.com.
“I can’t predict what will happen with gender usage. My guess would be we made a lot of the right decisions for the T-NIV but every one of those is open for consideration. We may even be returning to what we had in the 1984 NIV,” says Moo.
Well, I certainly hope they don’t return to what was in the 1984 NIV, which includes clear gender-related errors like this one. But I would be very surprised if they do. Nevertheless I’m sure there will be a lot of wrangling over the next two years about whether to follow NIV or TNIV on debatable matters.
38 Comments
They should add editions with apocrypha/deuterocanonicals, as ESV has done. I’ve suggested this on the NIV site.
Name suggeston: Today’s Even Newer International Version.
I now have confirmation from Zondervan that
Apparently that information was included in a webcast which I have not seen. I think it may have been on the new website when I first saw it, but I didn’t watch it and now it has disappeared. Does anyone know where I can find this?
I’ve used the issue of gender and translation to inaugurate an idea I’ve had for a while: “God Didn’t Say That,” a blog about mistranslations of the Bible.
I’ll be grateful for feedback.
Joel, that sounds a great idea. Do you have a URL? I can’t find it by following your personal link.
Scott, I’m sure they have seen this suggestion, but of course for most evangelicals these books are unimportant.
David, perhaps we can start a competition for the best new name. But I suggest a separate post from you to get this started.
See also the discussion of this new edition at This Lamp.
I liked this comment there, by Jerry B:
Indeed it will be fantastic if the new NIV is in fact a light revision of TNIV. And I wouldn’t be surprised if that is what Biblica, the CBT and Zondervan have in mind. They just don’t want to get in trouble by announcing that now.
Argh. I forgot to include the link. Sorry.
Here it is:
GodDidntSayThat.com
Someone actually sent me an email about the news.
Re: a name for the 2011 NIV revision, my own suggestion would be to keep it NIV. Most Bible versions (including the KJV) have undergone periodic revisions while retaining the same title. Often the revisions are so minor that many readers do not notice them. Revisions for the NLT, however, have been major and are noticed by readers. Yet Tyndale has, wisely, I believe, kept the NLT name.
I am glad to see this change for the NIV. I hope that the needed revisions will be met with greater acceptance than the TNIV itself was.
I also agree that leaving the name simply as NIV is the best. The update or revision can be noted on the title page.
TC, someone sent me an e-mail too. But mine wasn’t “titled They Killed the TNIV” like yours, so I guess it was from a different source.
Wayne and Nathan, I think they have actually said the update will just be called NIV. So anything about new names is probably just a matter of light-hearted speculation. But I suppose if they get a really good suggestion they might change their minds.
Joel, thanks for your link. This is an interesting new blog, which I have just subscribed to (but the feed link on your home page doesn’t work with Bloglines).
Peter: Which link doesn’t work?
Joel, the problem was with the “Entries RSS” link which points to http://goddidntsaythat.com/feed/, which yesterday was not recognised by Bloglines. But I suspect that this was a temporary error, as Bloglines now does seem to recognise this feed.
I got the sense that Moo only meant that any particular change in the TNIV is open to reversion to the NIV rendering if the criticisms offered against it are decisive enough in the minds of the committee (with no alternatives that do the job any better) but that most of them will probably be kept or improved beyond either the NIV or TNIV renderings.
Jeremy, that’s how I read it too. See my reflections on my own blog.
I’m worried that Bible Wars 3 is on the horizon. Just read Lig Duncan’s piece at: http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Ligon-Duncan-Responds-to-NIV-Annoucement
I get the impression that unless the NIV2011 follows the Colorado Springs Guidelines to the letter there will be more silly websites and books written by otherwise great men who unnecessarily divide evangelicalism. Why oppose the translation of Scripture in the language spoken by common people?
I’ve blogged my fears here: http://restlessandreforming.blogspot.com/2009/09/more-bible-wars-on-horizon.html
Nick, I am actually impressed by how moderate Lig Duncan’s response is. He may hope for a major change of heart and direction from CBT, but his closing words show that he doesn’t really expect it:
Yet he commits CBMW to “review [the update] for the larger Christian public with rigor and charity”. Some of the comments on TNIV from CBMW and friends were decidedly lacking in charity. I really hope they will do better this time, even if the new version disappoints them.
So, as I see it, there is a reasonable chance that renewed Bible wars will be averted, and that Carson’s words which you quote in your post will be proved right – except about that the TNIV will have been renamed the updated NIV.
I just hope the new NIV will be honest & not slanted. The Greek word for tradition, paradosis, occurs thirteen times in the New Testament but the English word tradition occurs only ten times in the NIV — i.e. only when it is presented in a negative light.
Did you know that the TNIV is missing an important word, and that missing word makes Jesus into a liar? Check out this short video to see for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7oWuQbgmjY
A ton of English and English expressions came into the language via the rather literal KJV. Some things still exist in English purely because of the KJV. The KJV has pulled stuff into the language, and kept it in there. You know, if everyone switched back to using literal translations, there wouldn’t be any issues about how to translate sarx (flesh), because it would be understood. There are enough Christians that we don’t have to be entirely passive about language, we can define the language. Christians understand what “justification” is, because its in all our bibles. Not because we use it in every day conversation and understand it. If bibles were to stop using that word, it would probably start to drop out of the language entirely, except in its negative sense. No action in English can be passive. It is always partly taking from the common pool of the language, and partly contributing towards the language. Christians shouldn’t be afraid to subtlety push the language where we need it to go. Technical language is a good thing. Not necessarily for everyone. Handing tracts out in the street can’t have technical language. But in the Church it is a good thing.
No, Bibles aren’t the only place where you see discussions of justification. Biblical studies will also still have it. I see it regularly in philosophical literature, although the sense there is a little different. We talk about whether your beliefs are justified or whether you actions are morally justified. In political discussions, you’ll regularly hear people talking about whether a policy is justified by a certain argument or set of facts. It’s a common enough term in English, and I hear my introductory philosophy students use it in ordinary speech all the time.
“In political discussions, you’ll regularly hear people talking about whether a policy is justified”
But that is a different sense. In that case it means “have grounds or reasons for”, not “become righteous”. Obviously the meaning is related, but it is not the same. There is also the negative sense “he tried to justify himself”, which is also not the same.
In fact who other than Christians uses the word the way the bible means it in normal conversation?
I just picked that word, because it was the first one that came to me. Similar arguments could be made for many other technical words.
John, I’m afraid language just doesn’t work the way you want it to. If you ask most people, even most who call themselves Christians (but excepting the minority who really study their Bibles), what “justification” means, their answers will be more like what Jeremy says, a different sense of the word. So when they read “justification” in the Bible, they will completely misunderstand it. Similarly with “flesh” which is being discussed elsewhere. Humpty Dumpty may have tried to redefine words to mean what he wanted them to mean, but it just doesn’t work.
So I am glad that the NIV updaters have committed themselves to using English as it is actually used by speakers as a whole worldwide, not some artificial dialect preferred by a small number of Bible students. The latter group will anyway never be happy with NIV, but they are well served by versions like NASB – and would be well served by ESV if it actually followed its own principles in its translation of words meaning “man” and “human being”.
Ah, but would the original readers have been better off? Did Greeks use justification-language the way Paul did? I’m not sure Jews even did. James certainly didn’t. Was there some universally-understood sense of flesh the way Paul uses the term? Not remotely. Paul’s original readers had to figure out what he meant by context and by comparison with the Hebrew scriptures. If we insist on translating in a way that does that work for people, then it runs the risk of short-circuiting the normal way we do interpretation (which can be fine in a particular instance if the translator gets it right but does rob much of biblical language of its rich connections with terminology and theological background). On one level, all translation has this problem, but I think the so-called more dynamic translations have much more serious problems in this direction, even if the so-called literal or functionally-equivalent ones run other risks and have different problems. I’m not saying any of this as a partisan of one translation or translation philosophy. I’m just trying to resist the notion that one translation philosophy is the right one and is automatically a better reflection of what the Bible says (in particular the more favored translation philosophy here, but I’d be as strongly against anyone favoring the ESV, NASB, or whatever with such language).
Jeremy, you may have a point. But this isn’t really the place to discuss overall translation philosophy. The CBT has made it clear that they plan to revise NIV according to the same principles and philosophy which they have used in the past. They won’t take much notice of proposed changes which go against those principles. Those who prefer more formally equivalent Bible translations already have several to choose between. They shouldn’t expect NIV to become something it never has been and never will be.
“So when they read “justification” in the Bible, they will completely misunderstand it.”
Well, TNIV won’t help since it uses justification.
NLT avoids that, instead saying “made right” (as opposed to wrong perhaps?), and “right relationship” (nice, but not actually what the word means), and occasionally “declared us righteous” (seems biased towards forensic theology, for better or for worse). Not to mention that the NLT is completely incapable of rendering the same word twice the same way.
If Christians don’t understand English, kick their pastors, lobby for dictionaries and interpretive notes in bibles, but don’t dumb down the text.
John, if Christians, and interested non-Christian Bible readers, don’t understand pseudo-English technical terms, use proper modern English in translations, don’t kick their pastors (if they have them), or clutter up their Bibles with unnecessary interpretive notes.
Perhaps the NIV update should drop the word “justification”.
No, John, I want a translation which when ordinary people read it they understand correctly. I don’t want one where they read Romans 3:24,26 as meaning that when they sin they are justified, i.e. did the right thing, in doing so. Do you want a Bible which encourages people to sin? I value correct teaching over the laziness of simply copying a word from a translation 400 years old and denying that English has changed since then.
I don’t know why anybody would interpret any translation that way Peter.
DWDaniels –
Watched your video, you say “according to the Scholar’s bible”. What bible were you talking about? To the best of my knowledge the Scholars Version was never published in a brown leather (though I might be mistaken).
Re: “Scholar’s Bible” comment:
To CD-Host: You heard “According to the Scholar’s Bible.”
When I read your comment, I kept trying to think what it was to which you were referring. Then I understood. I was saying, “According to THIS CALLER’S Bible”
I can *totally* see how you could have heard what you did. I apologize for any confusion.
We should have a choice to keep buying the 1984 edition. Evangelicals are the ones that bought the NIV not liberals. Evangelicals are going to be less apt to buy a gender inclusive edition. Think about this, Evangelicals have about four bibles average per household, liberal (so called) christians have 1 bible per household. This should tell you that the 2011 will never sell like the 1984.They keep trying the same gender inclusive junk (two times already)and they never learn. Remember coca cola in 1984, what happened there. I will go to the NKJV if they will not let us continue to let us have the NIV. Usually in life you do not tamper with a good thing.
They say the language is becomming dated, but I speak the exact same english as I have back in 1984, do you ?
“I speak the exact same english as I have back in 1984, do you ?”
Didn’t you get the Memo?
It doesn’t take detailed knowledge of linguistics to know that languages change. Even individual speakers do change how they speak. Hardly anyone uses the word ‘intercourse’ nowadays for ordinary conversation. I’ve been listening to the Narnia books on CD, and it’s amazing how often he uses the word ‘queer’ to mean something like “strange”. Like it or not, you can’t use that word that way anymore and expect to be understood by most English speakers. Most people know what it used to mean and would know what C.S. Lewis meant, but anyone using it that way now will be initially expected to have meant something else entirely.
Woo Hoo!!! Down with the “sinful nature” and back to the “flesh”!
Basically what I got from this website, that The Holy Word of God is blemished due to “gender mistakes”….. wow… I only use the NIV for reference, but I think the Femenist evangelicals need to get a grip on the reality that God placed in front of us, God said this is how it should be, and that is how I am going to live, the “gender inclusive” is just taking out parts (more so than the NIV already has) that make the man higher than the woman…. 1 Tim 2:12 says women shouldn’t teach men in church, so women shoudln’t teach men in church, 1 tim 3:1 says that a preacher must be the husband of one wife, so guess what only men should preach and they should only be marriead to one person… stop trying to overturn the holy order God has put us in…
Except that the TNIV doesn’t render those passages in that way at all.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. [I Tim 2:12, TNIV]
Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach [I Tim 3:1-2, TNIV]
15 Trackbacks
[...] HT BBB Leave a Comment [...]
[...] HT: Better Bibles Blog [...]
[...] BREAKING NEWS: NIV to be updated! (Better Bibles Blog) [...]
[...] to a report in USA Today (thanks to BBB for noticing), Douglas Moo, chair of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation, promises that the [...]
[...] Peter Kirk and Rick Mansfield are among those noting the next new NIV. Apparently at the moment they intend just to call it the NIV – won’t that get confusing, especially in citations? [...]
[...] is writing about this so I might as well get on the bandwagon. I’ll credit the hat tip to Better Bibles Blog. I’m pretty sure that’s where I read about it first. I’ll let you go there [...]
It’s Time to Say Good-bye to the TNIV…
I got a Telegram-like email today titled They Killed the TNIV (the sender thought I’d be interested).
……
[...] For more discussion of the NIV issue take a look at Scot McKnight’s blog and the Better Bibles Blog. [...]
[...] announcement that Biblica (aka International Bible Society) and Zondervan (aka Rupert Murdoch) are withdrawing the TNIV Bible from sale and will, in a couple of years, update the older NIV is just a small [...]
[...] the NIV Bible is to be updated in 2011. Straight away I reported on this, with little comment, in a post at Better Bibles Blog. Today, in the freedom of my own blog, I would like to make some reflections on this [...]
[...] BREAKING NEWS: NIV to be updated! (Better Bibles Blog) [...]
[...] Breaking News NIV to be update [...]
[...] this is an issue which the CBT is bound to revisit in their renewed discussions in preparation for the NIV 2011 update. And since their chairman is “not sure that [he] agree[s]” with the NIV and TNIV [...]
[...] BREAKING NEWS: NIV to be updated! (Better Bibles Blog) [...]
[...] the Upcoming NIV Revision Thursday, September 3, 2009 By Jason A. Staples Word is out (see the Better Bibles Blog, for example) that an updated version of the NIV will be released in 2011. Mark Goodacre (and a [...]