The Bible: Today’s New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005).
Since the appearance of the English Revised Version in 1870, considered by many the beginning of modern English translations of the Bible, more than 150 translations (often of only the New Testament) have appeared. Many of these are forgotten private translations, although some of the “giants” are still remembered (e.g., James Moffat, E. J. Goodspeed, J. B. Phillips).
The major advance in translation by a committee was made with the appearance of the Revised Standard Version (New Testament 1946; complete Bible, 1952). The next two major moments were the publication of the New English Bible (1961; 2d ed., 1970), a British production with a very interpretive flair, and the New International Version (1973), done in part to have a “conservative” alternative to the RSV.i
In 1989 two major translations appeared. The British produced the Revised English Bible, which was a more traditional revision of the NEB. In the USA, the New Revised Standard Version appeared, which garnered an enthusiastic response. This translation, with the committee chaired by the highly respected Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton, was a significant improvement on the RSV both in terms of accuracy and a more “orthodox tone” on certain Christological texts.ii These translations were also marked by the use of the “horizontal” language of inclusion (e.g., the literal “brother” when referring to all believers translated as “brother and sister” or some other alternative).
Since 1989 more significant translations have appeared. The Contemporary English Version, published by the American Bible Society (New Testament, 1991; complete Bible, 1995) is a good, inclusive language translation, but it is not popular. Eugene Peterson’s The Message (1993) is quite popular, but it is too paraphrastic to be considered as a standard translation for the church. Another translation, known for its rather interpretive renderings, is the Living Bible (1972). It appeared in a revised and significantly improved version (also using inclusive language) as the New Living Translation (1996). It, however, is still too interpretive for wide use in the church. Two more “conservative” translations have appeared, both explicit in the rejection of inclusive language: the Holman Christian Standard Bible (New Testament, 2000; the complete Bible, 2003) and the English Standard Version (2002). The over-done, literal character of these translations does not commend them to the “mainstream” church. A good translation is never a word-for-word equivalence, but one that takes the original language and genuinely expresses its meaning in the translated language.
The most important new translation to appear since 1989 is the Today’s New International Version (New Testament, 2001; the complete Bible, 2005, with revisions to the New Testament), which is a major revision of the 1973 NIV.iii It is the purpose of this review to evaluate the accuracy, quality, and nature of the TNIV, with some comparisons with the NIV and the NRSV, its major alternative for use in the church today.iv
It is important to note that both the NRSV and the TNIV are committed to and consistently use inclusive language in their translations, which is crucial for 21st century English and for integrity with respect to the original intentions of biblical writers. The outcry of many traditionalists and conservatives against this feature in the TNIV grows out of their acceptance of the NIV as “their” translation, not to be changed in this way.
The philosophies of translation used for the NRSV and the TNIV are fundamental differences between the two.
The NRSV stands in the KJV/RSV tradition, seeking to preserve the classic language when possible consistent with improvements in accuracy and the use of modern English. On the spectrum of translations, the NRSV is slightly on the “literal” side of a centrist approach. The TNIV is slightly on the “dynamic equivalent” side of the centrist approach. The TNIV is less bound by traditional language and seeks more explicitly to translate with a freshness that, while committed deeply to accuracy, attempts to use contemporary English to create for its readers the same experience that the original readers had (= dynamic equivalence). Most linguists and biblical scholars agree that a dynamically equivalent translation (better than any “literal” approach) captures the reality with accuracy of the original text along with its sensitivity to the contemporary language of the new audience. The TNIV uses very well contemporary English with awareness of both oral and written styles. On this basis, the TNIV now perhaps should be regarded as the best English (at least for American English) translation available for both Bible study and use in worship.
Given the size of the New Testament, it is difficult to give a set of good examples that demonstrate this approach to translation. Admittedly, some of the differences in language are also differences in a nuanced interpretation. Yet, here are some examples:
One of the common theological “bench marks” for the accuracy and acceptance of a translation is how it renders Christological passages. The RSV was seriously criticized in this regard. The NRSV consistently renders the classic texts of the debate in a way that explicitly attributes deity to Jesus Christ. In Romans 9:5, Philippians 2:6 and Titus 2:13, both the NRSV and the TNIV translate the Christological passages in virtually the same way. In two other well-known texts, the TNIV translates in terms of a high Christology (explicit reference to Jesus as God) that goes beyond the NRSV wording. In John 1.18, a notorious interpretive problem, the NRSV renders the key phrase “It is God, the only Son. …” The TNIV offers a more explicit designation of deity for Christ in a rather interpretive rendering: “… the one and only Son, who is himself God. …”
Another classically difficult text for interpretation is Acts 20:28, which refers to the blood in the death of Christ. The NRSV translates “… with the blood of his own Son,” while the TNIV renders the phrase “… with his [God’s!] own blood.” The TNIV has made some bold interpretive moves in these last two texts; they will delight some and lead others to conclude the translators were too bold.
In the passages that deal with women in the church (and its ministry), the two are virtually identical and translate such texts with support for women (e.g., Romans 16:1, 7).
In four cases, however, the TNIV offers a superior translation. In the much-discussed 1 Corinthians 11:10, the NRSV has “to have a symbol of authority on her head,” although there is no warrant for the term “symbol.” The TNIV has “to have authority over her own head,” which is surely correct (and is now a fairly scholarly consensus). In 1 Corinthians 14:35, the NRSV uses the phrase “ask their husbands,” while the TNIV renders it “ask their own husbands,” which better fits both the line of argument and the Greco-Roman cultural context. In 1 Timothy 2:12 the NRSV reads, “have authority,” while the TNIV has a different nuance with “assume authority,” especially when read in the light of the official footnote at this point (that suggests “teach a man in a domineering way”).
The highly debated 1 Timothy 2:15 also reflects an important interpretive nuance. The NRSV has “she will be saved” (the literal rendering), while the TNIV uses a contextually appropriate non-literal translation of “women will be saved.”
The way text critical problems are handled is also an important aspect of evaluating a translation. Two classic portions, the long ending of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) are similarly treated in the NRSV and the TNIV, but the TNIV does a better job of making the situation clear.
Both texts in the NRSV are clearly marked as questionable, but both remain in the body of the text in the same type font. In the TNIV the dubious long ending of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery appear both clearly marked and in a different type font.
The delicate issues of the New Testament attitudes toward (unbelieving) Jews require comment. One fascinating and difficult text is Galatians 6:16. Is Paul pronouncing a blessing on two groups (believers and ethnic Israel) or on only one group (believers identified as “Israel”)? The NRSV favors the translation indicating two groups; the TNIV sees a reference to only one group, the “Israel of God” (= believers). The NRSV translation is “comfortable” in today’s world and seems to be somewhat consistent with Paul in Romans. The TNIV interpretation is again bold, but may well be correct in assuming that the term “Israel of God” is unique as a New Testament designation of believers. Clearly there is no “anti-Jewish” bias in the TNIV, for it renders some references to “Jews” in the Gospel of John as “Jewish leaders” (e.g., John 18:28, 19:1, 19:38), for which the NRSV retains the traditional literal “Jews.”
Both the NRSV and the TNIV are substantial improvements over their own predecessors. Both newer translations are probably the finest, more accurate, and most readable English translations of the Bible. Overall, the TNIV is preferable for reasons already indicated — its translation philosophy and its sensitive advances in issues related to women, to Jews, to Christology, to textual criticism, and more.
Readers who have for some time been “wedded” to the NRSV ought to give themselves a rich experience in using the TNIV both for Bible study and the public use of the Bible in the ministry of the Word. This could well lead many, like myself, to prefer the TNIV.
David M. Scholer is professor of New Testament and associate dean for the Center for Advance Theological Studies, School of Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, Calif.
i For the purposes and audience of this review, I have omitted one other very significant translation, the New American Bible (1970), produced under the auspices of the Catholic Biblical Association of America and the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Bishops’ Committee.
ii See my review of the NRSV in the Covenant Companion 79:10 (October 1990), 12-15.
iii See my review of the 1973 NIV New Testament in the Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (1974), 591-94.
iv This review will be limited, for practical space reasons and the area of my expertise, to the New Testament. I will make, however, one Old Testament observation. In 1 Samuel 10:27 the NRSV makes a bold move by including in the text a short paragraph not found in the traditional Masoretic text, but found in Samuel text from the Dead Sea Scrolls.The TNIV includes this paragraph only as a footnote.
