The NIV, Paul and N.T. Wright

[Hans Deventer]

I'm reading N.T. Wright's "Justification" and I can keep quoting stuff I like, but this one, wow!

In general, the book is a reply to a book John Piper wrote: "The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright" (Crossway 2007).

Wright shares how he had initially welcomed and even recommended the NIV. But then:

Disillusionment set in over the next two years, as I lectured verse by verse through several of Paul’s letters, not least Galatians and Romans. Again and again, with the Greek text in front of me and the NIV beside it, I discovered that the translators had had another principle, considerably higher than the stated one: to make sure that Paul should say what the broadly Protestant and evangelical tradition said he said. I do not know what version of scripture they use at Dr Piper’s church. But I do know that if a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about.

[Benjamin Burch]

I'm reading N.T. Wright's "Justification" and I can keep quoting stuff I like, but this one, wow!

In general, the book is a reply to a book John Piper wrote: "The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright" (Crossway 2007).

Wright shares how he had initially welcomed and even recommended the NIV. But then:

Disillusionment set in over the next two years, as I lectured verse by verse through several of Paul’s letters, not least Galatians and Romans. Again and again, with the Greek text in front of me and the NIV beside it, I discovered that the translators had had another principle, considerably higher than the stated one: to make sure that Paul should say what the broadly Protestant and evangelical tradition said he said. I do not know what version of scripture they use at Dr Piper’s church. But I do know that if a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about.

1) John Piper's Church uses the ESV formally, if I'm not mistaken
2) Similar problems reamin true in the NRSV, and I'm not sure Paul is free in any English translation - they're very protestant

[Hans Deventer]

2) Similar problems reamin true in the NRSV, and I'm not sure Paul is free in any English translation - they're very protestant

Wright replies: 'Yes, the NRSV sometimes lets you down, too, but nowhere near as frequently or as badly as the NIV. And yes, the NIV has now been replaced with newer adaptations in which some at least of the worst features have, I think, been at least modified."

[Michael Flowers]

Let's just face it, no biblical translation out there is perfect. If someone finds one out there please let the rest of us know!

[Hans Deventer]

Let's just face it, no biblical translation out there is perfect. If someone finds one out there please let the rest of us know!

True. But I have yet to read such a strong condemnation on any, perhaps with the exception of The Message. I found it remarkable.

[Peggy Gray]

Then which translation should the average layperson trust?

[Hans Deventer]

Then which translation should the average layperson trust?

Good question, Peggy! And I'm reading Dutch translations, that he doesn't even know of.

I think in general, the rule of thumb is to compare translations that you know differ strongly. Often, a word in a language has different meanings and translators make different choices. That should already be helpful. And if you are really interested, it can help to read some books discussing the way we should interpret Paul, listen to the arguments, and decide. If possible, such an endeavour would be great material for a study group!

[Michael Flowers]

I'm finding more and more people who are reading the NASB because the NRSV is "too liberal". Personally, I like all three of the NASB, NRSV and NIV (NKJV isn't bad either). While each of them have their issues, it seems to me that people will generally stick with a version if the wording makes sense to them (without considering the implication of the wording itself, I know I'm guilty of that).

[Dennis M. Scott]

The late Dr. Ralph Earle, who was a New Testament scholar and helped with the translation of the Old Testament, was not at all comfortable with the translation of some New Testament passages, and particularly portions of Romans. Dr. Earle was a prolific writer, but after the NIV came out, he wrote considerably about Romans, probably in part to clarify some things. He stated in class that if one only read the NIV, one would never "get" Paul's primary messages of Romans. He said the NIV as it existed at that time was not especially helpful to the holiness message as understood by Nazarenes.

However, his hope was that the NIV would become a popular version because it was generally a considerable improvement over the KJV, and had wide translation participation. Some other versions had been almost boycotted because of having been produced by smaller groups or interests.

[Hans Deventer]

I'm finding more and more people who are reading the NASB because the NRSV is "too liberal". Personally, I like all three of the NASB, NRSV and NIV (NKJV isn't bad either).

Can you explain a little about the NASB and why the NRSV is too liberal, Michael? I can barely keep up with all the Dutch translations being published these days, and that for such a small language group.

[Michael Flowers]

Can you explain a little about the NASB and why the NRSV is too liberal, Michael? I can barely keep up with all the Dutch translations being published these days, and that for such a small language group.

Unfortunately I cannot, that is why I put that the liberal statement in quotes, its simply what I have been told. I do know that I have read a few articles that have stated the same but I cannot remember the reasoning behind it. I'm sure if you check Wikipedia there would be something on the subject, or someone like Ben might even be able to contribute an informed response (I don't know if he has looked into this or not).

[Marissa Lynn Coblentz]

That is indeed quite the statement from N.T. Wright!

I've been taking a class on 1 Corinthians this semester and comparing translations as we go through. It is amazing how lacking the 1984 NIV is. No wonder I never understood Paul! The 2011 NIV does make a lot of helpful corrections. One website that has been helpful is net.bible.org. You can click on a verse and go to the parallel tab and see the verse in 10 different translations: their own, NIV(1984), NASB, ESV, NLT, MSG, BBE, NKJV, NRSV, and KJV. Of course that is only helpful if you have enough exposure to other translations to realize that something is amiss.

Another helpful site shows a verse by verse comparison of all the changes between the 1984 NIV and the 2011 NIV. That website is http://www.slowley.com/niv2011_comparison/.

I've settled on the 2011 NIV for myself. I like the familiarity in some of the wording, so all my years of Bible quizzing aren't completely wasted, and I think it is definitely one of the more readable translations (or more accurately, dynamic equivalents). I've not really studied the NRSV carefully, although I do use it to cite scripture in papers because the professors seem to like it.

We tried to get the professor to settle on one translation that he thought was best, but there are places where he doesn't like all of them. He really prefers his own translation of the Greek. For someone who doesn't know Greek, it seems like reading a variety of translations is one of the best ways to get at what is being said. With the availability of so many translations online, this is a lot more feasible than it used to be.

[Pete Vecchi]

I am by no means a Greek expert, nor a translation expert. But I have found that when I am trying to dig into the meat of a passage, I will often compare and contrast versions. One of my favorite tools has become BibleGateway.com because it offers various translations of the Bible and this makes it a valuable tool in comparing and contrasting.

Through that website, I was finding that I would often like the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). I know that the criticism of that version is often that it's too "Baptist" (at least that's the main criticism I've heard). But as has been said earlier in this thread, no translation is perfect.

One of the problems is that different languages don't always translate word-for-word into other languages; for instance, it may take three words in English to properly translate a word from Koine Greek. One of my favorite tools is a book I purchased in 2004: The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament. There may be a newer version, but the one I purchased new in 2004 was copyrighted in 1990 by Tyndale House. Included along the margins is the parallel of the NRSV.

I do generally prefer the NIV (1984 Version) for public reading. Sometimes I will use the HCSB or another version. But in my preaching, I will often refer to different translations and explain some of the differences if the situation calls for it.

[Meghan Schoonover]

Hans, the NRSV is the translations that mainliners typically use (what we used when I was in the UMC) and so it's got the reputation for being liberal mostly through association, I guess. I'm sure people have their reasons but I'm not aware of them beyond it's the typical version that more liberal denominations use...

[Susan Unger]

He stated in class that if one only read the NIV, one would never "get" Paul's primary messages of Romans. He said the NIV as it existed at that time was not especially helpful to the holiness message as understood by Nazarenes.

This is good to know as I begin my exegetical paper on Romans 8 tonight.

[Steven Burton]

I stopped reading the NIV when I found out it was written to only a certain level of reading. I felt that if I graduated college I should be able to read a book that was written on my level.

[Benjamin Burch]

This is good to know as I begin my exegetical paper on Romans 8 tonight.

If you're looking for any help with sources.... let me know!

[Benjamin Burch]

Can you explain a little about the NASB and why the NRSV is too liberal, Michael? I can barely keep up with all the Dutch translations being published these days, and that for such a small language group.

1) The Translation Committee was ecumenical. There were scholars from Orthodox, Mainline, Evangelical, and Catholic faith.
2) The translation uses gender-neutral language. "Brothers and sisters", etc.
3) It translates "hilasterion" as "sacrifice of atonement" instead of "propitiation", specifically working against PSA.

Aside from that, Meghan's answer sums up the rest. All those heathens use it, it must be bad. Especially when you consider 1,2, and 3!!

[Susan Unger]

If you're looking for any help with sources.... let me know!

Thanks! Check your facebook inbox.

[Roy Richardson]

Unfortunately I cannot, that is why I put that the liberal statement in quotes, its simply what I have been told. I do know that I have read a few articles that have stated the same but I cannot remember the reasoning behind it. I'm sure if you check Wikipedia there would be something on the subject, or someone like Ben might even be able to contribute an informed response (I don't know if he has looked into this or not).

From what I understand, the NASB translators had to sign an inerrancy statement to be on the committee/ The NRSV does try to be gender-appropriate in its translations, which bothers some people.

I personally have a NASB and NRSV in front of me for my adult Bible studies, because the attenders will have KJV, Living Bible, NIV with them. So anything that sounds different, we compare all of them to get the "full flavor" of the text.

IN sermon prep, it is NRSV, CEB and NASB that I use for comparisons.

[Dan Henderson]

What are some thoughts on the New English Translation (NET)? I cannot comment on the quiality of the translation, but I am impressed with the copious amount of notes provided by the translators containing such information as their justification and methods regarding their word/phrase choices when translating. It seems to transend the NIV notes in that the NET notes focus more on why and how rather than just what.

[Michael Flowers]

What are some thoughts on the New English Translation (NET)? I cannot comment on the quiality of the translation, but I am impressed with the copious amount of notes provided by the translators containing such information as their justification and methods regarding their word/phrase choices when translating. It seems to transend the NIV notes in that the NET notes focus more on why and how rather than just what.

I'm not familiar with that translation. I guess I have another one to look into.

[Pete Vecchi]

Wright shares how he had initially welcomed and even recommended the NIV. But then:

Disillusionment set in over the next two years, as I lectured verse by verse through several of Paul’s letters, not least Galatians and Romans. Again and again, with the Greek text in front of me and the NIV beside it, I discovered that the translators had had another principle, considerably higher than the stated one: to make sure that Paul should say what the broadly Protestant and evangelical tradition said he said. I do not know what version of scripture they use at Dr Piper’s church. But I do know that if a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about.

1) John Piper's Church uses the ESV formally, if I'm not mistaken
2) Similar problems reamin true in the NRSV, and I'm not sure Paul is free in any English translation - they're very protestant

Based on these two posts, today I read Galatians in ESV, likely for the first time. I like the way it reads, but I've read mostly in the NIV throughout my life (with the HCSB probably the next most often--especially over the past few years), after having read the ESV today, I can say that if it indeed gives a better understanding of "what Paul was talking about," the ESV has pretty much confirmed what I already thought Paul was talking about.

[Dan Henderson]

I stopped reading the NIV when I found out it was written to only a certain level of reading. I felt that if I graduated college I should be able to read a book that was written on my level.

Anything written by H Ray Dunning should do the trick for you.

[Steven Burton]

Anything written by H Ray Dunning should do the trick for you.

I've looked into some of his stuff. Haven't yet picked up on of his books though. I do like what I have heard about his stuff though. The main point of the post was that from my understanding the NIV was written to someone who has a reading level of less than a middle schooler. I am thinking it was 6th grade level but can not remember.

[Benjamin Burch]

Based on these two posts, today I read Galatians in ESV, likely for the first time. I like the way it reads, but I've read mostly in the NIV throughout my life (with the HCSB probably the next most often--especially over the past few years), after having read the ESV today, I can say that if it indeed gives a better understanding of "what Paul was talking about," the ESV has pretty much confirmed what I already thought Paul was talking about.

I would suggest the NRSV over the ESV. They are both later editions of the same text (RSV) and translations of those manuscripts, while the ESV has a particularly reformed bent to it, while the NRSV avoids this.

[Dan Henderson]

I've looked into some of his stuff. Haven't yet picked up on of his books though. I do like what I have heard about his stuff though. The main point of the post was that from my understanding the NIV was written to someone who has a reading level of less than a middle schooler. I am thinking it was 6th grade level but can not remember.

6th grade is the target level for writing for the masses. It has less to do with illeteracy (in the sense of having less education than another) and more to do with maximizing the opportunity to communicate. A 6th grade reading level does not speak to intelligence or even to comprehension level, it speaks to ease of understanding. I like H Ray Dunning, I do not like how he writes because he does not write to be understood. I have just read two chapters of H Orton Wiley's. From that sample it appears that Wiley wrote to be understood. It looks to be at a reading level similar to the NIV.

Keep in mind that just because someone has a PhD does not mean that they have a PhD reading comprehension level. Reading comprehension level and intellignece do not necessarily have a correlation. Nore does degrees or certifications convey intelligence. Afghans in the mountain regions are largely illeterate, it would be foolish to consider them as a whole as anything but a very intelligent group of people.

[Benjamin Burch]

Keep in mind that just because someone has a PhD does not mean that they have a PhD reading comprehension level. Reading comprehension level and intellignece do not necessarily have a correlation. Nore does degrees or certifications convey intelligence. Afghans in the mountain regions are largely illeterate, it would be foolish to consider them as a whole as anything but a very intelligent group of people.

The idea you are conveying here is true:

Literacy level does not equal intelligence.

However, your initial statement is not only a bad way to articulate your point, but is 100% false:

just because someone has a PhD does not mean that they have a PhD reading comprehension level.

It means exactly that, and may not mean anything other than that. As one who is currently on the PhD track, let me assure you of one thing Mark Quanstrom told me:

"Getting a PhD isn't a matter of how smart you are. It is a matter of how much reading you're willing to do, and how much homework you're willing to do. We all know you're more than smart enough. Just do the work."

A PhD, if it means nothing else, means that a student has done the necessary reading of scholarship in the field and understood it well enough to interact critically with it and write something worthy of publication.

Thus, to have a PhD requires that one has a PhD reading comprehension level.

[Steven Burton]

6th grade is the target level for writing for the masses. It has less to do with illeteracy (in the sense of having less education than another) and more to do with maximizing the opportunity to communicate. A 6th grade reading level does not speak to intelligence or even to comprehension level, it speaks to ease of understanding. I like H Ray Dunning, I do not like how he writes because he does not write to be understood. I have just read two chapters of H Orton Wiley's. From that sample it appears that Wiley wrote to be understood. It looks to be at a reading level similar to the NIV.

Keep in mind that just because someone has a PhD does not mean that they have a PhD reading comprehension level. Reading comprehension level and intellignece do not necessarily have a correlation. Nore does degrees or certifications convey intelligence. Afghans in the mountain regions are largely illeterate, it would be foolish to consider them as a whole as anything but a very intelligent group of people.

I understand that. I just liked to be pushed more when it comes to reading. Hence I don't really read news articles or the paper either. They don't challenge me to better my reading level. They make me stay at my level or lower. But this thread is more about the substance of the book than the reading level so.

[Dan Henderson]

I understand that. I just liked to be pushed more when it comes to reading. Hence I don't really read news articles or the paper either. They don't challenge me to better my reading level. They make me stay at my level or lower. But this thread is more about the substance of the book than the reading level so.

Nor do frequent mispellings (on my part) on a bulletin board system convey idiocy (though it can if you want it to). It merely means that the spell check program wouldn't download for me.

I would really like to see some opinion on the NET. I know the NIV has shortcomings, but....

[Benjamin Burch]

Nor do frequent mispellings (on my part) on a bulletin board system convey idiocy (though it can if you want it to). It merely means that the spell check program wouldn't download for me.

Well, it also means that you are too lazy to spell check your own work! Or, you just stink at spelling.

[Dan Henderson]

Well, it also means that you are too lazy to spell check your own work! Or, you just stink at spelling.

Both

[Eric Frey]

Both

Right there with you brother

[Greg Gates]

My two cents are... scripture is scripture. I believe that God somehow (probably sometimes miraculously) preserves His story regardless of translators, copying monks, and ghost writers. In the USA we have a gazillion versions and a gazillion more horror stories of "Christians" and their antics.

Meanwhile, some lone language group has one poor lady doing her best to translate scripture into a native tongue she had to alphabetize herself.

Does anyone seriously believe any of the converts from her humble ministry don't truly understand Paul as well as any scholar? Jesus opened the minds of his disciples so that they could understand the scriptures. I don't think Bible translator committees have replaced the Holy Spirit yet.

[Greg Gates]

I remember translating for the 1985 General Assembly when a contingent of southerners began arguing for our Sunday School materials to use the KJV.

Wow! I was at a loss trying to explain the reason for the passion the southerners had. I felt the implication was that a Bible translated in 1611 was better able to convey God's message than a Bible translated in 1984.

I was translating into a language that generally used a Bible translated in 1956. Would the southerners recommend that non-English speakers first learn the king's English to best understand Paul?

I know a lot of people fluent in biblical Greek, yet I don't know a single one that attributes that skill to being a better Christian. If being a better Christian were only that easy...

[Dan Henderson]

Being from the South, I always assumed that the Holy Spirit spoke in King's english, "The Lord saith unto meith..." I never heard any voices like that, they were more like "Wazzz up", "Yo", and "look left"

[Benjamin Burch]

I remember translating for the 1985 General Assembly when a contingent of southerners began arguing for our Sunday School materials to use the KJV.

Wow! I was at a loss trying to explain the reason for the passion the southerners had. I felt the implication was that a Bible translated in 1611 was better able to convey God's message than a Bible translated in 1984.

I was translating into a language that generally used a Bible translated in 1956. Would the southerners recommend that non-English speakers first learn the king's English to best understand Paul?

I know a lot of people fluent in biblical Greek, yet I don't know a single one that attributes that skill to being a better Christian. If being a better Christian were only that easy...

Thank you for this, Greg. I quoted a professor of mine on another page. He often says, "you don't need to be a Biblical scholar to read the Bible well."

He often recounts the story of an elderly woman who was a member of his church in Indiana in the 90s, who was in a nursing home. She had a blood tumor in her head, and so every time her heart beat she would get a profound beat in her head. She lived with this every day. To help her deal with the noise/pain she would sing the Psalms to herself in her head. Every minute of every day. This was her scripture. This was her prayer.

I am sure that she knew the "meaning" of Scripture far more intimately than I ever will, regardless of how many graduate degrees I get.

I do believe that those who are not specialists in Scripture can learn a lot about what Scripture "says" or "means" from those who study it for a living.
I do believe that those who are specialists in Scripture can learn a lot about what Scripture "says" or "means" from those who do not study it for a living.

A problem arises only when we foolishly believe that the way that we read Scripture is the right way, and that those who disagree are false teachers or heretics.

[Billy Cox]

Can you explain a little about the NASB and why the NRSV is too liberal, Michael? I can barely keep up with all the Dutch translations being published these days, and that for such a small language group.

For some, all it takes to rate the NRSV "liberal" is that in the proof texts for the virgin birth, the NRSV says 'young woman' instead of 'virgin'.

[Benjamin Burch]

For some, all it takes to rate the NRSV "liberal" is that in the proof texts for the virgin birth, the NRSV says 'young woman' instead of 'virgin'.

True that.

[Dan Henderson]

True that.

My favorite former Lutheran Pastor, current scholar, often translates it that way and does a very good job explaining why. "young woman" that is not "true that". I don't think it makes a bit of difference to the Gospel either way, its still good news --- and oh yeah, I'm still an "inerrant"