click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
A Review of the NIV 2011: Part 3 of 4
by Dan WallaceJuly 25th, 2011
115 Comments
In my previous blogposts about the NIV 2011, I discussed selectively the history of the English Bible, and discussed the positive features of this version. Now, I wish to look at some of the weaknesses.
Weaknesses in the NIV 2011
There are some niggling issues that need to be mentioned. A few categories will be listed here.
First, along with virtually every other translation on the planet, Mark 16.9-20 and John 7.53–8.11 are found in the text, even though (almost) all the translators considered them to be inauthentic. But the NIV 2011 admirably puts them in a different font and has an in-text note to show that they are rather dubious. The reasons translations keep these verses in the text even when the translators themselves do not consider them authentic is due to a tradition of timidity. But with the publication of Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus (2005), a popular book on the transmission of the New Testament text, the cat is out of the bag. Most biblical scholars—including evangelical scholars—have long recognized that these passages are most likely later additions. We do the living church no service by not fully admitting this fact in our translations. But because these two passages have a long history in printed Bibles and even in the manuscripts, they should not be eliminated altogether. Placing them in the footnotes would seem to be the best policy.
Second, the gender-inclusiveness of the NIV 2011 creates some problems of style and even meaning in a few places. This version has done a significantly better job in both Matt 18.15 and 1 Tim 3.2 than the NRSV, but it still stumbles over Rev 3.20 (“I will come in and eat with that person”), for example. An added note in the places where the modern English generic singular ‘they’ can be misleading, as well as a few similar instances, would more than adequately solve this problem, however. I would encourage the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) to consider adding such moves in the next iteration. At bottom, I think the gender issue has been overblown by people who have reacted to what they thought the TNIV would say, long before it was published, and the same attitude has carried over to the NIV 2011—even though for both translations it is difficult to find passages where they are at fault.
Table 2
NIV 1984 Compared to NIV 2011
|
|
1984 |
2011 |
| Matthew 18.15 | If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. | If your brother or sister sins, go and point out the fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. |
| 1 Timothy 3.2 | Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
|
Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, |
| Revelation 3.20 | Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. | Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me. |
A few observations are in order. In comparison with the NRSV, the NIV 2011 has better marks on style and accuracy in Matt 18.15, and accuracy in 1 Tim 3.2. To be noted in Matt 18.15 is that ‘against you’ has been dropped from the text. This is a variant in the Greek, and I believe that the 2011 NIV has got the correct reading. In 1 Tim 3.2, instead of “the husband of but one wife,” the 2011 version interprets the Greek phrase “husband of one wife” to mean “faithful to his wife.” This, however, is but one interpretation among a myriad of views. In this instance, as in many instances throughout the NIV, I would have preferred that the translators retained a more interpretive-neutral stance as long as the English rendition wasn’t nonsense. “Husband of one wife” would fit that principle just fine, and it would not have caused angst for pastors who preach from the NIV but disagree here and there with the interpretive rendering that gratuitously show up. See also 1 Thess 4.15 for a similar text: “according to the Lord’s word” makes it sound as though this is some saying of the earthly Jesus. The problem is that “the word of the Lord” is virtually a technical phrase in the Old Testament for prophecy and Paul seems to be using it in the same way here. But that interpretive option is shut out in the NIV 1984, the TNIV, and the NIV 2011.
Third, as with the original NIV, this recent iteration still breaks up sentences from what they were in the original. Though of course this is due to modern English usage, the real problem comes when the English reader is deprived of meaning that the reader of the (especially) Greek text has. This is no more clearly seen than in subordination of thought. In 1 Peter 5.7, for example, the NIV has “Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.” But the Greek word for ‘cast’ is a participle (ἐπιρίψαντες) and is best seen as subordinate to the main verb of verse 6, “Humble.” The two verses should be read together, rather than as two different commands. 1 Peter 5.6 is calling for believers to “humble yourselves under God’s mighty hand.” But this is not accomplished by negatively prostrating oneself under to God’s almighty thumb, but by positively casting one’s cares on him because he cares so deeply for us! The NIV masks this relationship because of the overarching concern for today’s reader. A simple footnote in such places would resolve the matter, and allow the modern reader to gain a better glimpse of the beauty and significance of the original text. Thus, though not related to the gender issue, I am concerned about the NIV’s gratuitous interpretive renderings when a more neutral translation would be just as readable, giving the added benefit to the English reader of seeing in his or her Bible the interpretive options that the translators wrestled with.
Fourth and finally, the greatest strength of the NIV tradition is also its greatest weakness: the language is so much closer to the way people speak today than just about any other bona fide translation that it is not memorable. This version simultaneously is a joy to read because of its almost conversational style—almost as though one is listening, for example, to Paul preaching—and somewhat forgettable because it lacks the turns of expression that make the KJV, REB, ESV, and (to a lesser degree) the NET the kinds of translations that linger in one’s memory. The tension here for translators is almost palpable: a translator’s goals are fidelity to the original, clarity and memorability in the receptor language. The KJV reigned supreme on memorability (or elegance), while the NIV does this on clarity. It also scores high marks on accuracy. But these objectives—accuracy, clarity, and elegance—are cross-purposed. No translation can do them all justice. There is an old Italian proverb: “Translators, traitors!” This is similar to the English proverb: “Something always gets lost in translation.” By choosing clarity and readability above the other objectives (even though accuracy is listed as its first priority), the NIV stumbles over elegance. One can’t have everything in a translation, but it is possible to have two of the three major features. The NIV is strong on readability and somewhat strong on accuracy, while the ESV is strong on elegance and somewhat strong on accuracy and, less so, on readability. The NET is strong on accuracy, somewhat strong on elegance (though this is patchy), and semi-strong on readability. Perhaps a chart of major English translations with these objectives in mind would help the reader.
Elegance, Accuracy, Readability
in Major English Bibles
(scale of 1-10, with 10 being the best score)
| Elegance | Accuracy | Readability | |
| KJV |
9 |
5 |
3 |
| RV |
1 |
9 |
2 |
| ASV |
4 |
9 |
5 |
| RSV |
7 |
8 |
8 |
| NASB |
4 |
8 |
4 |
| NRSV |
6 |
8 |
6 |
| ESV |
8 |
8 |
8 |
| NIV (whole tradition) |
4 |
8 |
10 |
| NET |
7 |
10 |
6 |
At bottom, there is a variety of factors that one must consider when choosing a translation. The three basic translation philosophies—which, incidentally, correspond to the three periods of English Bible translation: elegance (1536–1881), accuracy (1881-1971), readability (1978–present)—are just one way of looking at these translations.
Similar Posts:
- A Review of the New International Version 2011: Part 4 of 4
- A Review of the NIV 2011: Part 1 of 4
- What Bible Should I Own (Dan Wallace)
- King James Bible: Historical Timeline
- Bible Translations in a Nutshell
115 Comments
Like or Dislike:
1
That blog post was 10 on elegance, 10 on accuracy, and 10 on readability. Great insights! You always seem to nail the most interesting posts. Thanks Dan. Now get ready for the fire about your comments about John 8 and Mark 16. I’m a’ hiding.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
Daniel wrote: “This version is a joy to read because of its almost conversational style—almost as though one is listening, for example, to Paul preaching.”
I think a conversational style of English is good if the underlying Greek was also written in a conversational style. Therefore I think the high-faluting posh English of the KJV is not appropriate for Paul’s epistles. But what about other parts of the NT? For example, did John write Revelation in a chatty, informal style of Greek? If Revelation was written in a more formal and sober tone, has the NIV2011 (or any other translation) tried to reflect this difference by using a more formal style of English to rtanslate it? In other words, is there a single translation that uses different styles for different books of the NT, depending on the style of the underlying Greek for each book?
Like or Dislike:
0
I am curious to know why the NASB scored lower than the NET on accuracy.
I’ve enjoyed these posts on the NIV update, and am grateful for them. I look forward to the final post.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thank you so much for this series on the NIV2011. So far the NIV2011 is looking pretty good. I’m considering getting a copy for my own use now, though I use my NIV so much that I don’t know if I can completely change over…
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Wallace,
I think it is true to say that most of the criticism of the NIV2011 out there has to do with the “gender” issues. In fact, there has been a substantial amount written on this, whether justified or not.
By contrast your “weakness” section, I have to say, treats the topic in a rather breezy manner, and that sandwiched between remarks that apply to the NIV tradition as in general, rather than anything specific to the 2011 edition.
You characterize objections along this lines as “overblown” and attribute such reactions to a predisposition on someone’s part. (Bulverism?) You also say it is “difficult to find passages where they are at fault.” In fact, since the difficult work has ostensibly been done, and covers quite a bit more that your brief treatment covers, could you not take more specifics in hand to interact with these published comments? Perhaps that is what your part 4 contains.
Like or Dislike:
1
NLT 10 – 10- 10
Like or Dislike:
1
Great article , I prefer the ESV over the NIV. Especially the Study Bible. I didn’t realize that the NET was so strong on accuracy. Now, concerning Mark 16, I always wondered about the picking up of a serpent or drinking poision and not being affected is never mentioned by those who believe in charasmatic gifts, just a thought!
Like or Dislike:
0
This and the other two were great. Looking forward to the fourth post.
Like or Dislike:
0
C. Michael Patton said, “Thanks Dan. Now get ready for the fire about your comments about John 8 and Mark 16. I’m a’ hiding.”
Michael, you have enough room for one more; I’ve seen that discussion come close to blows!?
Dan, I do appreciate your insights on this translation but will likely stick with my “8′s” across the board ESV.
Like or Dislike:
1
Dr. Wallace, with the NET scoring 10 for accuracy, bet you wish you had been involved in the translation…
…oh, wait…
Like or Dislike:
1
Dr. Wallace,
I’m curious as to why you chose not to include the NLT and the HCSB in your list of “major translations.” I was wondering if you could take some time to explain that choice. I would have liked to have seen your take on these two with regards elegance, accuracy, and readability.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m enjoying this series, especially your comparison chart above. But where is the HCSB? How would you rate it?
Like or Dislike:
0
Phil McCheddar,
I am unaware of any translation that completely consistently tries to capture the tone and reading register of the original documents. Indeed, it’s very, very difficult to do.
Part of the problem has to do with the biblical author’s literary skills themselves. Some writers are a bit pedantic, yet it might be considered inappropriate to translate their writings in such a boorish style. Translators have an obligation both to be faithful to the meaning of the original and to try to translate those texts in a way that the biblical author was trying to communicate. Yes, Revelation is very somber in tone; but it is also filled with grammatical errors of the most unspeakable nature! Are these intentional? If so, then can a translation even pick up on such without making it sound stilted? Or consider poetry: How should we translate that? One view is to translate it as literally as possible, but then the emotive power is lost on the modern reader. Tough calls all!
Like or Dislike:
0
William, the reason the NASB scored lower than the NET on accuracy is because it’s not as accurate. It is certainly more literal, but not as accurate. I’ll illustrate this as follows: the Greek word translated ‘city’ is polis. But it doesn’t mean just ‘city.’ It also means ‘town.’ Indeed, there was no other word for ‘town’ in Koine Greek. This is an instance of a word encompassing more in Greek than its corresponding word in English does. But when you think of ‘love,’ there were four words in Greek that are translated by the one English word. There is almost never exact overlap between synonyms in two different languages. This is one reason why a literal translation is not going to be accurate.
What does the NASB do with polis in the New Testament? Every time it occurs, they translate it as ‘city’. Every time. Never as ‘town.’
Continued.
Like or Dislike:
0
What does the NET do with polis in the NT? We looked at every reference and worked up criteria, based on size, status with the Roman government, and other criteria. polis occurs 163 times in the NT; the NASB, as I said, translates it as ‘city’ every single time (it even increases in the NASB 95!). The NET translates it as ‘town’ 76 times, I believe, the rest as ‘city.’ In more than one place whether a city or town is in view is quite important. E.g., Matt 10.23: “You will not finish going through all the {cities/towns} before the Son of Man comes.”
I hope this clarifies the difference between a literal translation–in which there is extensive matching between the original language and the receptor language, even if the two words are not exact synonyms–and an accurate translation that takes a lot of other things into consideration.
Like or Dislike:
0
Marv, there are three basic reasons why I think the reaction to the TNIV and NIV 2011 in reference to the gender issue are overblown: (1) as I said, the reaction was more to what the TNIV was supposedly going to be than to what it was, and the NIV 2011 is just riding on the coattails of the criticisms; (2) the translators of the TNIV and NIV are both complementarians and egalitarians; the translation is not an egalitarian work, in other words; (3) for some reason the evangelical community has gotten up in arms over the gender issue, and in the process has not noticed some exceptional work done by the (T)NIV translators. What doctrines are at stake in this new translation? The constant harping on this one issue is dividing evangelicals, and it’s a very sad state of affairs.
By the way, I did discuss texts that relate to the gender issue: Matt 18.15; 1 Tim 3.2; and Rev 3.20. These are some of the more important ones that fellow complementarians have raised.
Like or Dislike:
1
Adam and Greg,
The reason I didn’t include the NLT is because it’s not a translation; it’s a paraphrase. As for the HCSB, I couldn’t discuss every translation. Maybe I’ll do a review of that translation later.
I would change one thing: I think I gave too high marks for the ASV on elegance. It doesn’t deserve a 4; closer to a 2-3.
Like or Dislike:
2
First, I thank Dr. Wallace for responding to so many comments. I wish all posters here would do that as well.
Hmm. NLT a paraphrase??? I think not. T does stand for “translation” and if I understand correctly, the NLT was done by beginning from the original languages and… translating them into English. I don’t quite understand what part of that does not merit the term “translation.”
Now the Living Bible was produced, I believe, starting from one English translation (KJV) and rewording it. English-to-English… i.e. “Paraphrase,” which is exactly what it stated on the cover.
Somehow “paraphrase” was widely RE-interpreted to mean a translation that did not closely follow the structure of the source language, an “idiomatic” translation, or the so called “dynamic equivalence” translation. Good or bad, the NLT ought to be termed a translation and not a paraphrase (IMHO).
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr Wallace,
I’d like to ask you about this that you said:
(2) the translators of the TNIV and NIV are both complementarians and egalitarians; the translation is not an egalitarian work, in other words;
Is this really true? Was there an equal split on the committee between complementarians and egalitarians? It doesn’t seem so to me looking at the list of translators. How do we know that the egalitarians didn’t dominate by virtue of numbers? I think the majority of complementarians would not favor gender-neutral language, thus they must have been a minority in the committee. Apart from Doug Moo, who else was on the committee that was complementarian? I think it is a bit simplistic to imply that the committee was not biased in this regard just because there was at least one complementarian on the committee.
Thanks
Like or Dislike:
1
Dr Wallace,
I would also like to ask a simple question I can never seem to get past with gender-neutral translations: How is it fair to the reader for the translator to make a judgement for him that the biblical writers use of masculine generics is not important?
Given scriptures teaching on male and female roles there seems a very natural reason why writers use masculine generics – it reflects their belief that men were normally to be the representative leaders their communities, not the women. This seems to be a very obvious and integral meaning component in scripture that is stripped away with gender-neutral translations – to the disservice of the reader.
Why not, at the very least, use masculine generics when they are in the original text and put a translation note saying something like ‘many scholars believe the use of masculine generics by the biblical writers is not significant and does not reflect a belief that men were to be the representative leaders in their…
Like or Dislike:
0
(continued from above…)
communities’
You mentioned in part 2 that:
The preface to the NIV 2011 explicitly notes that it is a translation meant for people today, and it recognizes that the use of ‘man’ in the sense of ‘person’ is no longer a viable option for most English speakers in the 21st century. The fact is, the English language has changed.
If, as suggested here, it it purely a matter of understandibility then I think gender-neutral advocates owe it us to deal with Vern Poythress’ arguments that show that this is not a valid interpretation of the Collins Dictionary data used by the NIV 2011 (see his recent review of the NIV 2011 for example).
I dearly hope that defenders of gender-neutral translations will answer these arguments. If I am wrong on this issue I sincerely would like to know but it is of no help when everyone seems to avoid dealing with the obvious objections to gender-neutral translations philosophy. Please help me see the light if I am…
Like or Dislike:
0
(continued from above…)
Please help me to see the light if I am wrong, really! If God is really happy with gender-neutral translations then I don’t want to oppose him, the converse also.
A final note from a Poythress article that I read:
“Third, and finally, some writers adopt a style in which they oscillate between using generic “she” and generic “he.” This oscillating use is not objectionable to feminists. The oscillating use shows not only that people still understand generic “he,” but also that the real objection is not to a single occurrence of generic “he.” Rather, the objection is to any pattern in which male examples predominate over female ones. The objection is to a pattern of thought. Authors writing in English may of course adapt to the contemporary scene as they see fit. But a translator, in distinction from an author, is not free to change the pattern of thought in Scripture, even if it should prove offensive to some.”
Like or Dislike:
1
Hi Dan,
Can I ask you to please define what you mean by “paraphrase”? I cannot see how you can call the NLT a paraphrase without also calling the ESV one. Your use of this language seems very sloppy, which is a shame considering the quality of this series in general.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Wallace,
Thank you so much for answering my question on the “accuracy” count of the NASB. I better understand now the distinction between “literal” and “accurate.” God bless.
Like or Dislike:
0
Henry
One post at a time. That is why there is the character limit and it says one comment at a time.
Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0
My understanding about the NLT is that it has been “updated” twice from The Living Bible (1996 & 2004) and is much more of a translation that it ever has been. I am also really suprised that the NET bible is ranked so much lower than the NIV for readability and especially lower than the ESV. Is there particular books that make the reading so much more difficult?
Like or Dislike:
0
ah thanks, I didn’t read that!
Like or Dislike:
0
Moses didn’t write the last chapter of Deuteronomy. Why does it matter if Mark didn’t write the “longer ending”? The most of the church throughout history has recognized it as Scripture.
Raymond Brown argued that John 21 was added at a later point. What if we find manuscript evidence that proves him right? Are you going to put John 21 in the footnotes as well?
What if the textual variants come from the author’s own hand? Perhaps Paul wrote more than one copy.
Perhaps our “inerrant in the original manuscripts” viewpoint needs a little work.
Like or Dislike:
1
henrybish, there are strong arguments to be made that the Greek words were also gender-neutral. When the KJV was translated, it translated those words with gender-neutral words like “he”. But English has changed, so we need to change which words we use to be gender accurate.
Like or Dislike:
0
A couple more thoughts.
In relation to my previous comment…
There are many instances where it is difficult to separate composition of the text from the transmission of the text. This is especially true in OT textual crit.
And…
What about instances where the Greek text actually uses the phrase “brother or sister” (1 Cor. 7:15)? Does the NIV’s gender policy obscure the meaning? Now the reader might mistakenly assume that the Greek just mentions the “brother” and that “sister” has been added by the translator.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dannii,
I think you are confusing ‘gender-neutral’ with ‘generic’.
A gender-neutral word would be one like ‘they’ or ‘them’ or ‘anyone’. Those words do not use any particular sex as representative or both men and women – hence ‘gender-neutral’.
But ‘he’ is a masculine word that can be inclusive of females, hence it can be used as a ‘masculine generic’ word. That it can be used as a generic does not make it ‘gender-neutral’ though.
Like or Dislike:
0
henrybish, yes, as I said many argue that Greek words like anthropos and autos are gender-neutral.
Many also argue that such a significant proportion of current English speakers no longer use “he” generically, that it should not be used in translations generically. (You’re right that in KJV times “he” was generic not gender-neutral.)
Like or Dislike:
2
Marv, your comment #18: I believe you’re thinking that a paraphrase cannot be a translation. This is not the case. A paraphrase expresses the meaning of the author using different words, often to achieve greater clarity. This is exactly what the NLT does. I think that the scholars who translated it were outstanding. And, of course, as any paraphrase should, it get exceptionally high marks on readability. The problem is that it is more than a translation. It is highly interpretive. Just look at Rom 3.21-26 and compare it in the NLT with NET, NIV, NRSV, ESV. You’ll plainly see that the NLT is not done the way they are. Further, the NLT often moves in the realm of application–again, look at Rom 3.22 and compare with other translations. The NLT is not a study Bible; it is meant to be read passage by passage, not verse by verse.
Like or Dislike:
0
henry (#19), Do you really think that Doug Moo is the only complementarian on the CBT? Even if that were the case, he is a former member of the CBMW and has written some of the finest work on 1 Tim 2.8-15 in defense of complementarianism. Then there’s William Mounce, whose commentary in WBC on the Pastorals is strongly complementarian. Others have written on behalf of a complementarian hermeneutic, including Bruce Waltke, Ken Barker (former chairman of the NIV Study Bible), Mark Strauss.
As for egalitarians, there’s Gordon Fee, R. T. France, Craig Blomberg, and Ron Youngblood, I believe. I can’t speak for the rest.
But I would disagree with you that complementarians don’t care for gender-neutral translations. The NET Bible considers itself gender-accurate, rather than gender-inclusive or exclusive. And most of those who worked on that translation are complementarians.
In other words, your conclusion is based on faulty assumptions; both of them are wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0
henry (#20), there are so many faulty assumptions here that I don’t know where to begin. But let’s address two words in Greek: anthropos and aner. Both, when used of an individual person, refer to a man. In gender-exclusive translations of a former generation, anthropos in the plural was translated ‘men,’ even though the word did not mean ‘adult males.’ The reason it was translated that way was that English used ‘men’ in the sense of ‘people’ at the time.
Now, aner almost always means ‘adult male’ (though not always; e.g., there are some instances in the LXX, esp. in poetry, where it means ‘person’). And it should thus be translated as ‘man’ in the NT, which it is in these various translations. The NRSV is gender-inclusive, and it sometimes changes aner into ‘person’ or the like; but the NIV is gender-neutral, which means that it tries to be honest with the data and reflect its meaning for modern readers, not change its meaning so that modern readers can accept…
Like or Dislike:
0
henry (#21), the issues related to gender in translation, when the receptor language (in this case, English) is constantly changing, are complex. Poythress’s WTJ article was very thoughtful and handled the Collins study reasonably well. I found a few weaknesses in it, but some good points, too. And, as I mentioned in my review, when a generic singular ‘they’ is used to refer back to an individual in the NIV, I think *IF* confusion over the meaning is involved, a footnote should be added. But I also noted that the number of verses that are impacted by this significantly are few and far between.
Remarkably, although since 1997 the gender issue in translation has been escalating, there doesn’t seem to be much recognition, let alone complaint, that gender-exclusive translations–which were the norm for centuries–distorted the scripture. Obviously, we don’t want to replace one distortion for another, but we also need to recognize that the language itself is changing.
Like or Dislike:
0
Just because Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-11 are not in originals, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are not Scripture.
Authors revise. Editors update. It’s all over the OT. Raymond Brown argued that the gospel of John was revised at least three times.
If you want to reject these pericopes, you need a better reason than “they’re not in the autographs.”
Like or Dislike:
1
For those of us who are sticklers for grammar, the use of the singular “they” is so distracting as to make the translation nearly unusable. That’s a “solution” to the gender problem that should have been left off the table.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Wallace,
I am hoping you could address the following verses cited for inaccuracy by the CBMW:
Romans 16:7 with the choice of Junia being “outstanding among the apostles”
1 Corinthians 14:33-34 with the choice of placement of “as in all the congregations of the saints” postion.
Proverbs 15:5 with the choice of “parents” instead of “father” for ‘ab
Does ‘ish mean “successor” or “person” as it is translated in 1 Kings 9:5 and Proverbs 27:17
With regard to the point you make in post #35 about anthropos would that mean the NIV2011 mistranslates it as “brother and sister”. CBMW claims a single male example is being used.
Finally, does nashim mean “women” as CBMW claims. They cite Nahum 3:13 as an example of a misstranslation as well as Isaiah 19:16, Jeremiah 50:37 and Jeremiah 51:30
I hope you realize I”m not trying to bait you into some sort of argument over those texts. Rather, I”m trying to sort through to understand what if any objections…
Like or Dislike:
0
of the CBMW are valid.
Like or Dislike:
0
Eric, grammar sticklers should really be aware that it’s more accurate to call it the “indefinite they” than the “singular they”…
What about it is distracting?
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel (#28), it is true that the OT text was edited after the author wrote, but the redaction is typically an updating of anachronistic data. And probably most evangelicals would argue that it was done during the time of the prophets, not later.
Mark 16 and John 8 are different: those longer passages were added after the death of the last apostle. And in any event, the human author would no doubt strongly object to these additions to his text. I take it that inspiration took place when either prophets or apostles were still alive. After that, no more. Thus, it does make a difference whether these passages are part of the original text or not. As for John 21, that is Brown’s opinion, but many would disagree with him. I believe that John 21 was added to the Gospel, but by the original author, just before it was dispatched.
If we are going to say that passages that were added later should be considered scripture, this opens pandora’s box.
Like or Dislike:
1
Daniel (#37), if you want these passages to be considered scripture, you need a better argument than that they have appeared in the majority of MSS. If we were to adopt that approach, the Greek text behind modern translations would need to be revised nearly 7000 times! And textual criticism—the hunt for the autographic text—would simply come to an end. We don’t do this with any other ancient literature; why do it with the Bible?
Like or Dislike:
0
Adam (#39), I won’t address all those passages, just the NT texts (due to space concerns and my expertise). Rom 16.7: I agree with you on this. In fact, the CBMW based their criticisms of the NIV translation of this verse on an article that Michael Burer and I co-authored for New Testament Studies.
On 1 Cor 14.33-34: the placement of ‘as in all the congregations of the saints’ the issue is one of punctuation, not translation. There are good reasons on both sides (since the autographs had no punctuation). It should be noted that the NIV gives the alternate in a footnote.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Wallace,
Thanks for your response.
I am not a “Majority Text” advocate. Most majority text advocates would argue that the Majority Text is the best reflection of the autographs.
I would argue that these texts are Scripture because the majority of the church throughout history have recognized them as Scripture. And because they reflect authentic traditions of Jesus’ life. Mark 16 has allusions to Matthew 28, Luke-Acts, and John.
Deuteronomy 31 was written after the death of the prophet.
What if you find a manuscript that doesn’t have John 21?
What if the variants in Ephesians are due to the fact that Paul made multiple copies of the letter and sent it to several different churches? Perhaps in one copy the amanuensis writes “first” in Ephesians 4:9, and he leaves it out in another copy.
Or what about Romans 5:2? The subjunctive has better textual evidence. The indicative makes better sense internally. Metzger argues that the amanuensis…
Like or Dislike:
1
Dannii Willis asked me:
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks for responding to my questions Dr. Wallace. I do wish there was someone who could speak to the questions I have about the translation of some of the Old Testament passages. Regardless, I do have a couple more questions for you. The first one is regarding the translation of “diakonos” as deacon as opposed to servant or even deaconness with footnotes to 1 Timothy 3:8 and 1 Timothy 3:12. Can you speak to that choice a bit.
Secondly, I was wondering if you could explain why you rated the ESV higher on readability than the NET. Also, is there any plan for an “update” to the NET anytime soon?
Like or Dislike:
0
Eric, Strunk and White were stylists, not grammarians/linguists. They couldn’t even correctly distinguish between passive and active! But we could look past that if they at least wrote what they did on the basis of field testing, but as far as I know, they didn’t.
It’s okay for us to each dislike certain things – there are many varieties of English, and we each have our own idiolect too. But if you yourself recognise that you’re in the minority, why do you want to stop the majority from using language which the find very natural?
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr Wallace,
thankyou very much for your engagement. I have a few brief thoughts in response:
I still can’t see that you have engaged the most basic objection that I have made. (Perhaps it was part of your truncated post 35?). That is, if scripture does indeed teach a patriarchy of sorts, then the use of patriarchal language forms by the inspired writers (such as masculine generics, using a male as the representative example rather than a female) is hardly insignificant.
I’m sure you are aware that in Ray Ortland’s chapter in RBMW (that talked about the ‘whispers of male headship’ in Genesis), he made some arguments based on patriarchal language forms such as ‘mankind’ rather than ‘humankind’. That is why to excise patriarchal language from scripture seems a little rash to say the least. Do you not fear that could be unnecessarily removing an important part of the fabric of God’s word that He intends for His people to hear? At the very least leave that decision up…
Like or Dislike:
1
Dr Wallace, #35#36
It will not do to simply say that ‘language has changed’ and that this forces us to abandon masculine generics. That seems to me to be assuming the very argument that needs to be made – Vern Poythress has amply dealt with those arguments based on the Collins Dictionary data in his recent review of the NIV 2011. This really does need responding to. I’m all ears, if I am wrong I would sincerely like to know.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel (#45): If you are not a majority text advocate, your view is even harder to defend. You are arguing that the passages that the church has largely accepted at some point in its history but overall in general should be considered as scripture. As I mentioned, that would mean almost 7000 textual variants from the critical text used today. Are we to regard them as scripture just because the church ultimately had a majority of MSS that had these readings? If so, then historical research is dead and the origins of the Christian faith are meaningless.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr Wallace #34,
Regarding the translation team, I really didn’t make the claim that Doug Moo was the only complementarian on the panel. I am actually uncertain where Doug Moo now stands on the issue since he has commented over at Denny Burk’s blog to the effect that he now believes the ambiguous translation ‘assume authority’ is the best given the current evidence, thus it is unclear to me how he would still hold to his former essay in RBMW on that verse. In addition to the egalitarians you listed, David Instone-Brewer is an egalitarian and there are two women on it who are both theology professors at Wheaton and Bethel (I think that says a lot).
A general point I would make is that I don’t think anyone of Grudem or Poythress’ stripes would have been welcome on such a committee – the complementarians selected are ones in favor of gender-neutral translation, but this is hardly a fair and representative sample of complementarians.
Like or Dislike:
0
Adam (#47), I’m not sure what problem you see in the NIV’s translation at 1 Tim 3.8, and 12. This is pretty standard.
Like or Dislike:
0
henry (#49), before I discuss this issue, I would like you to acknowledge my responses in #33, 34, 35, and 36. I pointed out the fallacy in your thinking about some very important points you raised. All you said was “thank you very much for your engagement.” Then you proceeded to say that I still haven’t answered your questions!
Frankly, I’ve never been impressed with the masculine generic argument. It’s the weakest plank in the complementarian platform. But until I get a response from you on the other points, I won’t comment more.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Wallace,
In response to post #3 above, I really wasn’t saying I had a problem with the translation choice in Romans 16:1. I was simply asking if “deacon” was the better choice there than “servant” (although I am curious though about the footnoting to 1 Timothy 3:12 since it speaks about deacons being the husband of one wife, etc). As I said in an earlier post, I am not trying to criticize different choices. I am simply trying to sort through these issues and complaints made by CBMW and SBC and see if any are valid points.
I would also like to ask again about your rating of the ESV higher than the NET in “readibility.” I am curious as to what made you rank the NET lower in that area.
Like or Dislike:
0
Are you prepared to footnote John 21?
I don’t know what the answer is. It seems to me that your approach is a little too tidy. The composition of the text is messier than what you’re suggesting. The historical research reveals this (source crit, redaction crit, text crit, etc.)
Where do revisions and redactions fit in? Most OT scholars believe that the majority of the OT went through multiple and massive redactions. The line between composition and transmission is blurred. It’s not as tidy as you’re suggesting.
We either have to revise the doctrine of inerrancy or we have to revise our understanding of inspiration.
Like or Dislike:
0
henry, all you’ve said in response to the arguments I’ve given is “thank you for the engagement.” Before I respond to your question about masculine generics, you need to respond to my points in #34, 35, and 36.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel (#6), I disagree. Where is the textual evidence that John 21 was ever not a part of the published text of John? Where is the textual evidence that there were major overhauls in the OT redaction? You mention text-critical evidence as though that’s a done deal, but you haven’t given any concrete data that this is the case. To be sure, books like 1 Samuel and Jeremiah have great differences between the DSS and MT, but this doesn’t mean that such changes were done *during* OT times. Far from it.
“Most OT scholars believe that the majority of the OT went through multiple and massive redactions.” Frankly, I rather doubt that. Certainly, most liberal OT scholars believe this. But evangelical scholars? Most orthodox Jewish scholars?
Like or Dislike:
0
Adam (#5), I don’t recall you mentioning Rom 16.1 earlier; I thought it was 1 Tim 3.8, 12. I don’t agree with the translation of diakonos in Rom 16.1 as deacon(ness), but I may be wrong. And many complementarians do see it as the correct rendering.
ESV vs. NET: Because Leland Ryken was on the ESV committee, I regard it as both readable and memorable. The NET works very hard at this, but it’s a bit uneven. Second edition is being worked on.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr Wallace,
Please would you point out what you feel I have not acknowledged?
I did not claim there was only one complementarian on the translation team and actually asked the question who else was. You pointed out 4 other names and I responded in comment #2 (2nd page of comments) that this still does not establish that complementarians and egalitarians were both equally represented.
As for complementarians not caring for gender-neutral translations you said you disagree and offered the team of translators on the NET bible as evidence. I did not comeback at this because I don’t think it establishes the point that you need to establish if you are claiming that the NIV 2011 was fairly represented by both sides – it seems like only gender-neutral comps were welcome on the board. This is not a fair representation -> most complementarians I know adhere to the CBMW view that is contra gender-neutral. The NET translators do not overthrow the rest of the landscape.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr Wallace,
You may have missed all 3 of my responses? (comments #49, #50 and #2 (2nd page of comments)). If not, would you mind pointing out to me where you feel I have not acknowledged substantive points you made? Thanks.
Regarding your response (#35) directed at my comment #20, I felt that you did not really address the question I asked, and you have since seemed to agree that you have not (#4 and #7). So what am I to respond to?
Maybe I’m being dull but I have read it a few times and can’t see how your comment #35 undercuts my comment #20? And I did respond to your argument that ‘language is changing’ in comment #50, indeed it was one of my initial points in comment #21 that I still feel you have not engaged.
This may be the only chance I get to hear why a leading scholar of complementarian persuasions does not think the use of masculine generic language bears any significance. Please do me the kindness of showing me my error, if indeed I am in error.
Like or Dislike:
0
So, henry (#10), you’re claiming that complementarians aren’t really complementarians if they hold to gender-neutral translation as an acceptable philosophy, right? If that’s the case, then there is no use with me trying to demonstrate that there are real complementarians on the NIV translation committee. Your argument is circular. And William Mounce is a very strong complementarian. Have you read his commentary on 1 Timothy?
Like or Dislike:
0
Henry (#10) again–
I can’t establish that complementarians were equally represented on the translation committee. But I also can’t establish that egalitarians were equally represented. I can say that D. A. Carson, Mark Strauss, and the majority of the NET Bible translators are complementarians, yet they have no problem with gender-neutral translations. Have you read Strauss’s book, Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation and Gender Accuracy? Or D. A. Carson’s The Inclusive-Language Debate: A Plea for Realism?
Further, why do say that the NET translators don’t count on this issue? It may not be the most popular translation, but it was done by excellent hand-picked scholars. It is also the translation that other translators have said that it was their primary resource for doing their own translation–both translators for the ESV and TNIV.
Like or Dislike:
0
henry, let me address the masculine generic argument. Frankly, both linguists and exegetes have felt that this was the weakest argument by the complementarians. It’s embarrassing.
Here’s the situation: assuming a language uses one gender to refer to the whole class of people (or animals), then that gender shows how that people view that class of creatures. The problem with this is manifold. First, language plays a funny game: some species are referred to generically by the feminine (e.g., cows even though bulls are included; lions, even though lionesses are included; sheep which includes rams, etc.). Some languages uses the neuter to refer to those not yet in their majority:e.g., τεκνα in Greek, Mädchen in German–referring to a girl. And some languages refer to the Spirit with different genders. Hebrew uses the feminine for the Spirit, while Greek uses the neuter. There is no place in the NT (contrary to public opinion) where Spirit is referred to in the masculine.
Like or Dislike:
0
Pardon me for going on, but you wanted evidence. Greek also used the neuter to refer to a woman, though the form doesn’t show up in the NT. Should we call the Spirit a “she” or an “it” because that’s what Greek and Hebrew do?
The problem, of course, is the assumption that just because a language uses a masculine generic, this means that the biblical writers thought in such terms. But this doesn’t work with other categories like Spirit, child, woman, etc. I used to think that because Greek has μάμμη (mamme) for grandmother that this was evidence and indeed the norm that would be urged that the grandparents would live with the children and grandchildren.
In Gender Across Languages, Hellinger and Bußmann give examples of feminine nouns that refer to men. Admittedly rare, it still occurs.
We simply can’t assume that the language itself is inspired; it’s the scriptures that are inspired, and the features in the language have some residue that may or may not be true in…
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr Wallace #12
No not at all, although at this time in my thinking it seems to me that it is a compromised form of complementarianism (just as I’m sure gender-neutral complementarians would think of my view).
Really, as some reviews of the NIV 2011 have pointed out, the fact that NIV 2011 still uses masculine generics in some places shows that even the translators think that they are still understandable in our modern day. If I am honest I think the influence of feminism has played no small part in the gender-neutral drive, some people (although not the average person in the pew, from my experience) are quite offended at patriarchal language forms.
I have not read William Mounce’s commentary on 1 Timothy but am not disputing that he is a complementarian, I know Grudem has referenced him favourably.
Like or Dislike:
0
henrybish #16, as a complementarian, I think it is essential that we use gender accurate translations. It is only then that we will be able to know what the Bible teachers about the genders. If our translations are gender inaccurate, then egalitarians will reject what is true while rejecting what has merely been translated badly.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Wallace,
I appreciated your time in answering my questions.
Let’s suppose that you publish multiple editions of your Greek grammar. Let’s suppose that one of your students even produced a revised edition after your death.
Two thousand years later, historians find all of these multiple editions. How do they determine which is the best? Is it the earliest edition? Or is the latest? Or could be that each of the editions has some value in informing us of your thoughts on grammar?
Like or Dislike:
2
Daniel, it’s not a question of which is best, it’s a question of which one is what the author intended. What evidence is there that Paul published multiple copies of his letter to the Romans? Textual criticism is concerned with getting back to the autographic or Ausgangstext. Further, there is a big difference between speaking about a book that deals with an ancient text and what that ancient text is. You’re mixing apples with oranges with your analogy.
Like or Dislike:
0
Isn’t textual crit also concerned with the history of transmission?
There is some evidence which suggests Paul produced multiple copies of Ephesians. The LXX has a completely different edition of Jeremiah.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] 1: A Selected History of the English Bible Part 2: Praise for the NIV 2011 Part 3: Weaknesses in the NIV 2011 Part 4: [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Wallace has completed his blog series, reviewing NIV 2011. You can read part three here and the final part [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Thank you for this review. I disagree with some of your conclusions, but I appreciate the work you’ve done here.
I disagree pretty strongly with giving the NASB a 4 for readability. I think the 1995 Update of the NASB gives it a 6 for readability. I would also give it a 9 for accuracy. I think it’s a stronger translation than your score indicates.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] objective and scholarly reviews of Greek New Testament critic Dr. Dan Wallace (Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four). I was an avid reader and promoter of the TNIV, though I admit that the version was not [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr Wallace,
I have been ruminating on your comments for a few days and would like to ask which particular book you would recommend from a gender-neutral perspective that addresses the masculine generic argument? I confess I don’t still don’t quite understand how your argument really undercuts what I said.
Thanks
Like or Dislike:
0
I don’t see that it is especially critical that other languages don’t have masculine generics since it is Greek and Hebrew that God sovereignly ordained to be used as the blueprints from which other translations would be made from. You may answer that God also wills for there to be translations in the vernacular and this requires using their language constraints, but this is nothing new. Some meaning is always lost in translation, our responsibility is to do the most faithful translation we can, and English has masculine generics that can be used (and indeed were used at times by the NIV 2011 translators).
Like or Dislike:
1
Regarding other languages that may not have masculine generics (?) I think what I am meaning by a masculine generic is a little different. In many/most cases it is just using a male as the example rather than a female (e.g. Prov 29:6 “A man who flatters his neighbor spreads a net for his feet”) and it is ‘generic’ in the sense that the reader would naturally extend the application to women where appropriate, and surely all languages have a word for ‘man’ and so can do this?
Like or Dislike:
0
Regarding your point about other animals and generics, I don’t see that as relevant since I don’t think scripture has much prescription of gender roles for other animals. Also I don’t think anyone is arguing that the Spirit is not male or female in the sense that humans are, so I’m not sure how that points bears on my argument. I would like to read more about that though.
Another point I would make is on your view where do you draw the line about what is significant and what is not? Does it matter if God is called ‘Father’ or not? Or is that also just a product of the happenstance of the language/culture?
Are you really saying that the masculine language does not reflect a patriarchal mindset? If so then why are feminists so riled by it? I find it a bit of a stretch to believe that.
Like or Dislike:
0
Finally,
I still see a simple argument that makes sense:
1) God used patriarchal language forms in scripture (as most opponents I know of concede)
2) Scripture affirms a patriarchy of sorts (disputed)
3) Therefore, if 2) is true then the use of patriarchal language cannot be dismissed as insignificant, but carries meaning component that must be translated where possible.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel/Dr Wallace,
With this whole composition/transmission question, is there not a difference between changing the meaning of what was originally written and adding additional true material such as the John 7:53 piece, which both Bruce Metzger and Don Carson think is probably historical even though it was added later.
This distinction would mean that textual criticism is still needed to correct changes to the original words that have crept in, but would allow the possibility of God providentially having added additional true material a little bit later on. If you think about it, is this not probably how Luke composed his gospel – successively collective true material over the years until the complete document was compiled? (Luke 1:1-4) Just because it is another person who adds John 7:53 to the account does not necessarily invalidate it. I’m not saying this is the correct way to approach it, but just considering the option.
Like or Dislike:
0
Henry,
I agree completely. Both Matthew and Luke redacted and revised Mark’s gospel. So our view of inspiration needs to be big enough to handle things like this.
BTW, I like your argument in (29).
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks Daniel.
Dr Wallace,
An interesting resource page on gender-neutral issues I just came across:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/gender.html
I notice that the author has an article directed in part towards yourself on the translation of ‘aner’, I think you mentioned something about this in an earlier comment, anyway, here it is:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/blomberg.html
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Wallace, Thanks for your remarks on the NIV2011. I too would be very interested in your take on the HCSB. I have enjoyed studying and preaching from it, and have heard some good reviews of it. But it does not seem to have the recognition of some of these other translations. I haven’t decided if I should make the switch and preach from it permanently.
Like or Dislike:
0
Folks who are commenting more than once in a row, please read the rules. One comment at a time. There is no way for our authors to respond to every comment, much less comment after comment. One comment at a time. NO surrogate blogging. Keep the comments brief and understand that the author may not have the time to responds.
Thanks
Michael Patton
Like or Dislike:
0
I agree with Eric (#38) that using the singular “they” is very distracting and lessens both the elegance and readability at the same time. I sometimes use the singular “they” in casual conversation, but would never use it in public speaking or formal writing. So as Phil McCheddar (#2) said, it would be wonderful if translators could use some means to give the reader a hint of the speaker or writer’s tone. For example in this case, was Jesus really being super casual, or did he intend a more formal teaching?
I for one get tired of the clunkiness of changing the generic masculine “he” to “he or she”, “him or her”, etc. I wish we could just use “him” and be done with it. As a woman, I don’t find it offensive or exclusive, just more efficient and more timeless.
Like or Dislike:
0
C Michael Patton,
since you are obviously referring to me, could you clarify what ‘one comment at a time means’? I thought that meant not to post a long comment by splitting it up over a number of entries, and to rather have each comment as a discrete thought? Since you allowed Dr Wallace to do that in answer to me is it not only fair to allow me to do so in answer to him?
In comment #7 Dr Wallace was actually asking me to engage him more. It is impossible to do this and have a conversation here if you are now saying that all arguments that a person must answer must be made in one single 1000 character comment – when the person on the other side is allowed to put forth as many challenges as they wish. How am I meant to do this if you are now saying just a single comment?
Like or Dislike:
0
Heidi, you make a good point. I agree with you, and apparently so does the REB, even though it is one of the (earlier) gender-inclusive translations. But the language is changing, and I frequently find myself on the outs in terms of my own archaic style preferences.
Like or Dislike:
0
The way I see it the Bible was canonized with the allegedly added verses so those verse are indeed divinely inspired.
Like or Dislike:
0
Heidi said:
I’m glad someone agrees with me!
If I were female, I’d probably find it somewhat offensive, which is one reason I don’t use the generic “he” in my writing and agree with the translators that it’s best avoided. Where the singular must be used, I don’t think there’s a good solution. I just think that the singular “they” is the worst of the bad choices. Unfortunately, “he/she” or “he or she” is clunky, and the generic “she” is distracting (even to me, and I use it sometimes).
Like or Dislike:
0
I agree with henrybish and Daniel about having a bigger view of inspiration.
It seems like the view of inspiration and preservation by New Testament scholars are not consistent with the view of the same by Old Testament scholars. It is accepted that the last chapters of Deuteronomy (Moses V) and Jeremiah were added by anonymous authors after the deaths of the authors who bear the names of the books. We don’t even know when these chapters were added. Yet we includ them as scripture because of their canonicity. Most New Testament scholars, however, have the narrow view that any portion of writing that was added by an anonymous author after the death of the original writer is not scripture. These scholars conflate the search for “the first draft” with the search for “The final form of what God intended the Church to have”. Mainstream textual criticism might be successful at finding “the first draft” but because of this preoccupation it fails to find “The final form of what God intended the Church to have”, which is a question of canonicity. I believe that God intended us to have John 8‘s story of the adulteress, for example. It is a canonical account, whether or not it was in John’s first draft.
With respect to preservation, Old Testament scholars are not hesitant to suppose that some original readings could have dropped out of all Hebrew texts only to be preserved in the Greek LXX or Vulgate. Yet it is anathema for New Testament scholars to suppose that some original readings may have dropped out of all extant Greek manuscripts only to be represented in Latin or Syriac translations. It borders on hypocrisy when we rail against the Comma Johanneum because it is only found in the Vulgate tradition when we use that same Vulgate to support a departure from all Hebrew manuscripts (e.g. Genesis 4:8, NIV). Of course, Greek scriptures were penned in more recent history and this might make things different for Greek scriptures, but the question is: Does God use translations to preserve his readings? The answer is inconsistent between Old Testament and New Testament scholars. Yet both the Old and New are God’s words and it seems to me that God would be consistent with the way he inspired and preserved his words.
Like or Dislike:
0
Lou,
You said “Most New Testament scholars, however, have the narrow view that any portion of writing that was added by an anonymous author after the death of the original writer is not scripture.” There is a good reason for this: those passages that were most likely added to the NT text were done after the death of the last apostle. I take it that inspiration could only take place while apostles or prophets were still alive. Hence, the additions to Deuteronomy, etc., in order to be considered canonical and inspired would have had to happen before Malachi died. There is thus no inconsistency at all.
As for John 8, let’s say it was not added to the Gospel of John until the fifth century, which is certainly the case as far as extant witnesses are concerned. Are you saying that the church’s Gospel of John for the first 300 years after it was written was incomplete? Are you saying that the human author’s intentions could be totally ignored when it comes to what he wanted to communicate? That view moves dangerously close to a docetic bibliology.
And as far as readings not found in the Greek MSS of the NT are concerned, there is another good reason for this: We have an abundance of Greek NT MSS that are early and accurate, which is quite unlike what OT textual critics have to deal with.
I don’t see any inconsistency in these matters because I see quite different situations that OT and NT scholars are facing with respect to their texts.
Like or Dislike:
0
It’s very telling that Dr. Wallace is unwilling to state that he would discard John 21 if textual evidence is found to support Raymond Brown’s theory concerning John’s composition.
Like or Dislike:
0
Oh? What does it tell? Perhaps that I don’t see any textual evidence for Brown’s supposition, so unless there is some that is forthcoming I won’t entertain it? As good an exegete as Brown was, he was no textual critic. And the views of exegetes–from Brown to Bultmann–constantly are shipwrecked on the rocks of the text-critical evidence to the contrary.
Like or Dislike:
0
I just want a yes or a no. Would you scrap it if they found an early manuscript that didn’t have John 21?
I realize that it’s a hypothetical, but it shows your commitment to your approach to text crit.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel, you simply can’t reduce the discipline of textual criticism to such a simplistic approach. In the last 100 years, there has not been a single newly discovered variant that has compelled scholars to accept it as authentic. I rather doubt that this situation will change.
Like or Dislike:
0
Did Erasmus have access to textual evidence which discredited Mark 16:9-20 when he compiled the TR?
Do you don’t think that there will be any more new discoveries?
Like or Dislike:
0
1. Yes.
2. I do think there will be plenty more discoveries, and CSNTM is leading the charge in that department. But not a single discovery in the last 100 years has revealed a previously unknown variant that has been so compelling that it is now regarded as authentic.
Like or Dislike:
0
Just to follow up on a comment Dr Wallace made earlier about the Holy Spirit being a ‘she’ in the OT.
From a report of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod “Biblical Revelation and Inclusive Languages” (p16-18) [note the Greek words did not paste in here]:
It is certainly further true that “spirit” in Hebrew, when used of the Spirit of God, usually is accompanied by feminine verbal forms … However, it is doubtful whether this agreement is anything more than a normal grammatical agreement without any significance for any gender specificity. This is so for the following reasons…
First of all, the grammatical gender of “spirit” in the Greek of the Septuagint and the New Testament is neuter ( ), and the verbal forms accompanying “spirit” in these sources are in the neuter (e.g., John 1:32: “The Spirit coming down [ ] …”24). However, whereas the Hebrew names of God YHWH and Elohim are without exception accompanied by masculine verbal forms in the biblical Hebrew, the word ruach when used of the Spirit of God—although grammatically feminine—is at times accompanied by verbal forms in the masculine gender…
More significant, however, is the use of the personal pronouns and personal suffixes. Although the evidence in the Old and New Testaments of pronominal use referring to the Spirit is scanty, the evidence indicates only masculine forms. No instance analogous with the phrase “I am he” or “You are he” occurs with the Spirit. In fact, neither the masculine pronoun “he” ( ) nor the feminine pronoun “she” ( ) occurs in the Old Testament in reference to the Spirit. There is, however, evidence in the New Testament. In five instances in the Gospel of John the Spirit is referred to through the use of the masculine demonstrative pronoun ( , “that one,” “he”; John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7, 13, 14).
Finally, although no instance of a pronominal suffix in the feminine could be located for the Spirit in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, the use of masculine forms for the Spirit does exist. For example, Isa. 40:13–14:
“Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, or as his counselor has instructed him? Whom did he consult for his enlightenment, and who taught him the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and showed him the way of understanding?”
Like or Dislike:
0
One other point that I think Dr Wallace made earlier was that because the Spirit has a grammatically feminine gender in the OT that this undermines the argument of those against gender-neutral translations since they do not accept the Spirit as being a ‘she’.
But this is surely a red-herring because the argument is based on pronoun usage not grammatical gender.
I found this footnote in the aforementioned report helpful:
The grammatical gender of a word does not necessarily correspond to the actual gender of the person to whom the word refers. See the discussion in Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 99–102. Waltke and O’Connor relate that in French there are nouns which are feminine in form but refer to men (la sentinelle, “the sentinel”; la vigi, “the night watchman”). Some nouns designating professions are masculine in form even when referring to a woman (le professeur, “the professor”). A New Testament example of this would be the case of Phoebe (Rom. 16:1). Here Phoebe is called “servant,” even though the word for “servant” is , a word whose grammatical gender is masculine.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thank you for the reference, Henry. Good points on the OT, but their discussion of the NT is flawed. I have argued that the Holy Spirit is never identified grammatically as a ‘he’ in the NT in “Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit,” Bulletin for Biblical Research (the journal of the Institute for Biblical Research) 13.1 (2003) 97–125. The references from John that you mention are all invalid since the word that the masculine pronoun relates to is not ‘Spirit’ at all. Second, in Rom 16.1 ‘servant’ is a second declension noun. This does not make it a masculine noun per se, any more than a host of second declension nouns cannot be labeled masculine for the simplistic reason that they are second declension. The standard lexicon of the NT and early Christian literature, begins the entry on ‘servant’ by noting that the word diakonos takes a masculine or feminine article. As such, it can be masculine or feminine.
Like or Dislike:
0
Why do you say that ‘the word that the masculine pronoun relates to is not ‘Spirit’ at all’ in John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7, 13, 14?
What other word is the masculine pronoun relating to?
Also may I ask if your article is disputed or widely accepted in evangelical scholarship? Are there conservative scholars who have written in disagreement with you on this?
Like or Dislike:
0
Henry, although I am sure some evangelical scholars dispute the findings in my article, I do not yet know of any. There has been very wide acceptance of it. The parakletos or ‘Counselor,’ a masculine noun, is in view in all of these passages—even John 16.13, where it is kept in view by pronouns from v. 8 on.
Like or Dislike:
0
Ah I see, but is this not immaterial? Consider:
1) The ‘Counselor’ is the Holy Spirit, thus the person of the Holy Spirit is the one being referred to with a masculine pronoun, there is no difference to the salient point.
2) The only OT references that exist (which I mentioned earlier) also only refer to the Spirit with the masculine pronominal terms “him”, “his” etc. Thus masculine pronominal usage for the Spirit is consistent in both the OT and NT.
3) Taken in conjunction with the fact that the Spirit is never referred to anywhere in Scripture with feminine pronominal terms (“she”, “her” or equivalent), then this seems to be case closed that as with the Father and the Son, it is only proper to refer to the Spirit with masculine pronouns. The Spirit is a He not a Her.
As an aside, not that it makes any difference to the salient point, but in John 16:13 the closest referent for the pronoun “he” is ‘Spirit of truth’ not ‘Counselor’, so why would you chose the latter as being the referrent?
Like or Dislike:
0
And perhaps I should have rephrased my question:
Which evangelical scholars have endorsed your article:):)
(You don’t need to answer.)
Like or Dislike:
0
Henry, it’s quite impossible in the space allowed to lay out the reasons. You’ll just have to read my article. But so far I have not seen any counter-arguments to what I’ve written.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thank you for responding to me Dr. Wallace.
You said, “I take it that inspiration could only take place while apostles or prophets were still alive.” I take the same position. I just happen to believe that passages like John 8 and the ending of Mark could have been authorized by Apostles, just not written by John or Mark in the original draft. John 8 is more difficult for me to argue for because of the external evidence, but take the ending of Mark. What If an Apostle (probably in or near Rome) came across the Gospel of Mark, and seeing that it was incomplete, added the ending? That would have been a perfectly legitimate thing to do and the account would be inspired and canonical despite being non-Markan and anonymous. By then, “incomplete” versions of Mark would have been widely circulating. Textual critics have laid out a strong case that the ending of Mark is non-Markan and a later addition, but these findings do not refute the canonicity of the passage. I’m just saying that “the original text” should not equal “the canonical text”. You characterize my bibliology as possibly “docetic”, but I think your “once and for all first draft” approach is closer to a docetic bibliology. If human works today go through many drafts and are edited by many editors, and get portions added with the authority of the original authors, then it wouldn’t be strange if the New Testament went through the same process. This is what we would expect for a work that is both divine and human (hence, not docetic).
I agree and disagree with you saying “We have an abundance of Greek NT MSS that are early and accurate”. This statement might be true with the Gospels, for example, but not for books like Revelation. Take into consideration also that the Latin church accepted Revelation as canonical early on while many influential Greek fathers lagged behind. I think a church would take better care of preserving a text which it believed to be inspired and canonical. I believe that at least for Revelation, there is good reason in some cases to prefer Latin manuscripts and Church father quotes over extant Greek manuscripts. My point is that when I say something like this, that a translation (Latin) is more accurate than the Greek for Revelation because of historical realities and manuscript evidence, New Testament scholars think I am crazy (or Catholic!). Yet Old Testament scholars do not hesitate to prefer translations over the originally inspired language when there are historical and textual reasons to do so.
Like or Dislike:
0
It’s amazing how different OT text criticism is from NT text criticism.
If the principles of OT criticism were brought into play in the NT, then John 8 and Mark 16 would not be marginalized by evangelical scholarship.
BTW, NT Wright points out that Mark 16 contains allusions to Matthew, Luke-Acts, and John.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] in a few places”, but he concludes, “At bottom, I think the gender issue has been overblown”. ‘A Review of the NIV 2011: Part 3 of 4’. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
“ESV vs. NET: Because Leland Ryken was on the ESV committee, I regard it as both readable and memorable. The NET works very hard at this, but it’s a bit uneven. Second edition is being worked on.”
Dr. Wallace, any ideas on when such an edition would be available? How would it change the grammar and style of the NET?
Like or Dislike:
0
Chris, I wish I knew!
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Wallace, are you opposed to me borrowing your graph, re-posting it on my blog, and giving you credit for it? I am teaching “how we got the Bible” in our church, and next week’s lesson gets us up to the modern English translations.
I am most appreciative of your balanced approach toward the NIV 2011, and sharing your insight with readers. I’ve had many people ask my opinion on the best translations; and of course my response is, “it depends on what you’re looking for.”
Thanks!
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] *All reliable translations, and capable of teaching the lost about Christ with great accuracy. While “somewhat biased” is my weakness label for the NIV 2011, I am a fan of it. It is largely accurate it seems, and it has re-placed original text in many of the controversial biased spots of the 1984 NIV. For example, sarx (flesh) in Greek is translated “sinful nature” in the 1984 NIV, which indicates a definite bias toward a doctrine of original sin. Although I am not offended by the phrase, “sinful nature”, it is not necessarily the Biblical meaning for the term flesh. If you are referring to a general state of being lost in the human condition, I’m cool with it. If you’re referring to the idea that I was born as a sinful infant, inheriting the guilt of my fathers, I disagree. However, I’m a fan of the 2011 because although there are a few liberties taken, they appear to be driven by a desire to be combination literal word-for-word, and also phrase-for-phrase. To answer your question… Romans 5 does utilize “flesh” in the NIV 2011, rather than “sinful nature” – although – it does use “sinful nature” in that chapter several times. When I say “somewhat biased,” that’s what I’m referring to. They respect the desire to allow the reader to establish his own meaning for the term, flesh. Another specific example for consideration. In 1 Cor. 6:9, the quite literal NASB (New American Standard Bible) states, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,…” – feel free to look it up by the link and read it in context. HOWEVER, the NIV 2011 translates it like this: ”Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men…” Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts. For that matter, the ESV (English Standard Version) does the same thing for the verse, stating, “nor men who practice homosexuality”. See that verse HERE. Clearly, literal translation in the NASB is somewhat vague in terms in modern English, and misses the Greek meaning of the term malakos. Some of us think we know what “effeminate” means in English; however, the Greek terms malakos and arsenokoites are extremely graphic, and are clarified in the footnote above (taken directly from the NIV 2011 text). Combining those two terms – clearly meaning two different things – does help in the NIV 2011. It helps in the sense that it states unequivocally that homosexuality is sinful in either case; whether one is malakoi (a receiving male prostitute, or youth who is in a relationship with a man) or arsenokoites (one who sodomizes, or lies with a man like he would a woman). In this case, the English of the NIV 2011 spares us some terribly graphic details of Greco-Roman sexuality, and accomplishes the meaning of the passage at the same time. Graph & bottom paragraph below courtesy of: Dan Wallace – A Review of the NIV 2011: part 3 of 4 [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Drew Ellis, you have my permission.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks, Dr. Wallace.
http://drooellis.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/which-translation-of-the-bible-should-i-use/
Like or Dislike:
0
I realize that this series of posts were done a year or so ago, but I had one question if possible related to ranking of translations:
It seems that the ESV gets the overall highest marks (8-8-8) for readability, elegance, and accuracy. I was curious if Dan would consider the ESV the best all-around english translation out there right now?
More Comments: