I distinctly remember getting hold of my first NIV (quickly christened, the Now Indispensable Bible) when it first came out in 1978. And now we are celebrating its fiftieth anniversary and I am feeling something like fourteen years older than I should.
Actually, this is the fiftieth anniversary of the start of the NIV translation, not it’s publishing date, which is a bit of a relief. In celebration of this anniversary, Douglas Moo has published an excellent essay which looks at some of the underlying principles behind the NIV. Most of what he has to say won’t surprise regular readers of Kouyanet, but it is an excellent summary of some important principles.The bulk of the essay is built around three concepts:
- Linguistics is not a prescriptive but a descriptive enterprise
- Meaning resides not at the level of individual words but at the level of collocations of words in clauses, sentences, and ultimately discourses
- The meaning of individual words is expressed not in a single word gloss but in a semantic field.
As I said, familiar ground for Kouyanet readers.
Moo looks at some contentious issues such as the reading level of the target audience for the NIV and the use of gender-neutral pronouns. I don’t suppose he will convince the die-hards who dislike the NIV, but his points are well made and worth reading.
Translators must work with the language as it is; wishing it were otherwise is vain, and forcing into our translations English meanings and constructions that are no longer current is a betrayal of our mission.
…Should translators bias their English toward the evangelical sub-culture, recognizing that it forms a substantial part of the audience? Or should translators use general English to make sure the Bible communicates well to everyone?
He also has some excellent things to say on the process of translation and on the issue of word-for-word or literal translations.
Translation is not, as many people think, a matter of word substitution: English word x in place of Hebrew word y. Translators must first determine the meaning that the clustering of words in the biblical languages convey and then select a collocation of English words that accurately communicates that meaning to modern listeners and readers. All translations work this way — as they must to be considered translations at all.
…To claim that a word in the biblical languages has a “literal” meaning, capable of being summarized in a single English equivalent, is simply not true. Words occupy a spectrum of meaning, and the range of meaning of particular Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words is never quite the same as the range of meaning of any particular English word.
Three things to note in conclusion. Firstly, if you are interested in comparing English translations, you can do no better than read David Brunn’s excellent One Bible, Many Versions: Are All Translations Created Equal?. Secondly, we need to remember that while we get worked up about different translations in English, there are still millions of people who don’t have a single word of Scripture in their language. This is a major injustice, one which Christians need to get interested in. Finally, thanks to my mate Antony for pointing me to this article via his most excellent blog.
20 replies on “50 Years of the NIV”
Nearly Infallible Version was how it was known in our younger days!
The first hardback version had the loveliest typesetting of any edition I’ve owned.
Tony Watkins liked this on Facebook.
Will Sawers liked this on Facebook.
Only Nearly Infallible Version. My first copy has a typo in Col 3:5 where the word ‘immortality’ is inserted in place of ‘immorality’. I have kept that copy because it still makes me chuckle.
Yes, how come it’s 50?? I too remember it being new in the late 70s – when I was given my first one for going 50 times to my Crusader class.
50 years since they started translation – or possibly started to think about translating it!
Tony, I’ve just realised the typesetting is what I miss about my late lamented first NIV (confirmation present, 1981)! We have several others in the house but they’re just not the same.
Amanda Lannon liked this on Facebook.
The NIV-le.
When we were children, we eagerly awaited the Phillips’ paraphrase as it came out. Then when we were teenagers we got the refreshing drink of TEV. But still for many years we memorized Scripture in KJV. We must be dinosaurs
When I quote Scripture, it still comes out in the KJV, even though I’ve not used it regularly for 35 years.
It’s Nearly Indespensible. There are flaws – the Old Testament poetry was badly done in that it sounds very flat, which is one reason KJV-lovers stuck with the KJV. Also I don’t like the use of ‘sinful nature’ for the Greek word sarx (‘flesh’, if you translate literally), though I struggle to find a better term. Probably we need several context-driven terms.
Elaine Pannell liked this on Facebook.
Rosalind Bagwell liked this on Facebook.
Ruth Marriott liked this on Facebook.
I love the NIV not for any technical or theological reason but because it’s the one I memorised. For study, one translation is never enough. A literal translation (NASB), a dynamic equivalent (NIV, GNB) and a free (living) I find useful. Or even the good old Hebrew or Greek.
Mary Kirkman liked this on Facebook.
Ric Nelson liked this on Facebook.
I had an early compact edition of NIV – which had the classic misprint “flee from sexual immortality”. It is the thing I have always liked most about the NIV