However, while I believe that the Bible is inerrant, I do not believe this is the linchpin of Evangelicalism, much less Christianity. While I agree with most of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, I think I disagree with it when it says that one cannot deny inerrancy without incurring “grave consequences” on his or herself (XIX). “Grave” is a very strong word. Too strong, in my opinion. Nevertheless, inerrancy is important because it speaks to the nature of Scripture being in harmony with the nature of God. I have looked enough into this issue to believe that I probably won’t ever change my stance here. It is one of those issues that is pretty well settled in my theology.

However, if I were to find something that I believed was a legitimate error in the Scripture, I don’t think my faith would be affected too much. Why? Because the central truths of the Christian faith are not affected by inerrancy. I come across so many people who think that if they expose one error in the Bible, the entire Christian worldview will fall apart like the proverbial house of cards. This is simply not true.

Consider this illustration that Mike Licona gives: There were 712 survivors when the Titanic sank. These survivors were divided as to how the ship went down. Some said it broke in half, then went down. Others said it went down intact. There is a contradiction in testimony, right? So what do we do with this contradiction? Of all the options, there is no sane person out there who would say, “Well, since we don’t have consistent testimony as to what condition the Titanic was in when it sank, we have to give up our belief that it sunk altogether.” Yet that is exactly what some skeptics propose we do with the story of Christ and his resurrection. Every testimony that we have in the Gospels says that Christ died on a cross and rose from the grave. Just because we may have some conflicting accounts as to the details does not mean we abandon the consistent testimony about the main event.

Now, I believe that what most people see as conflicting accounts in the Gospels only strengthen their testimony, since the accounts show that they are looking at the same event, from different perspectives, without collaboration among the authors. However, even if they do conflict here and there, there is no rational reason to deny the resurrection of Christ any more than we would deny the sinking of the Titanic due to conflicting accounts.

I think this is a fundamental principle that inerrantists such as myself need to be more vocal in conceding in today’s world. I find many people who wear inerrancy on their sleeve just as prominently as historicity. This can get us into trouble as we tie inerrancy too closely with the Gospel. Historicity is the issue. Did the central events actually occur? If they did, Christianity is true, no matter how many angels John says were at the tomb, not matter whether Abiathar was high priest at the time of David, no matter what Pilate wrote on the sign above the cross, and no matter how Judas died. I believe in inerrancy because I believe in the historicity of the central Gospel message. I don’t believe in historicity because I believe in inerrancy. Christianity is true if Christ historically rose from the dead, period. It is false if he historically did not rise from the dead, period.

Think about this for a moment. I have argued that the central truths of Christianity are not dependent on inerrancy. But I would also say Christianity is not dependent on the inspiration of the Bible either. In other words, the Bible does not even have to be inspired for Christianity to be true. We could just think of the eyewitness accounts in what we call the New Testament as twenty-seven ancient historical documents. Being such, we could simply evaluate their truthfulness like we would any other historical document. If the document passes the tests of history, then that which it records (the resurrection of Jesus) is true. Hence, Christianity is true. No inspiration needed.

In fact (to take this one step further), we don’t even necessarily need the Scripture at all for Christianity to be true. Think about it. What if God had not given us the twenty-seven New Testament books? Would that mean that historically, Christ did not rise from the dead? Of course not. Why? Because Christ’s advent and resurrection did not happen because the Bible says they did, the Bible says they did because historically, they happened. But what if we did not have the New Testament? Well, we would be in good company, as there have been innumerable Christians throughout the history of the church who did not have access to the New Testament. How did the earliest church receive the Gospel? Through preaching, unwritten tradition, and generally reliable hearsay. God could have used any number of means to communicate the advent, death, and resurrection of his Son other than pen and paper. Direct prophecy, dreams, angelic encounters, or even the mouths of donkeys are all possible means by which the central truths of the Christian faith could have been preserved. The point is that Christianity is not dependent upon an inerrant text.

Again, having said all of this, I do believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I love the Scripture because I love God. But I worship Christ, not the Bible. I thank God that he gave us an inerrant Bible. I believe that having an inerrant text can make us more confident in not only the central truths, but also the details of God’s will. I do believe that inerrancy is important and that we should continue to argue with some energy that the text is true in everything it teaches. However, this energy needs to be residual energy. Our primary energy needs to focus on the primary issue: did Jesus rise from the dead historically. All dominoes fall from there.

Inerrancy is important, but not cardinal. And while it may be a defining characteristic of Evangelicalism, it is not the defining characteristic of Evangelicalism.

(However, I must admit something: I probably would never hire someone to be a fellow at Credo House who did not believe that the Bible was true in everything it teaches. Maybe this is an inconsistency. I don’t know.)Similar Posts:

• The Danger of Inerrancy
• The Danger of Inerrancy
• "If the Bible is Not Inerrant, then Christianity is False" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• Evidence for the Resurrection: Part 2 – External Evidence
• A Possible Error in the Bible?

Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Scripture is the only source of spiritual insight.

Spiritual insight can come from any number of sources, both secular and Christian. I remember in 1995, I received quite a bit of spiritual motivation and inspiration from the movie Braveheart. The idea of a person giving up his life for something bigger than himself possessed my thoughts and hopes. There are many things – songs, wise words, books, and movies (Christian and secular), among other things – that can be sources of insight and inspiration. Remember, all truth is God’s truth. It does not have to be in the Scriptures to be true.

Sola Scriptura does not mean that there are not other authorities in our lives.

We believe that the Scriptures are our final and only infallible authority, but not that they are our only authority. For example, we believe that our pastors and church leaders have authority in our lives. Hebrews 13:7 says that we are to obey our leaders. Wives are to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:2). People are to obey the government (1 Pet. 2:13). Children are to do what their parents say (Eph. 6:1). There can be no excuse like, “Dad, the Bible does not say I have to clean my room, so I choose not to.” Or “Officer, it says nothing specific about running red lights in the Bible.”

As well, tradition (church history) is an authority in our lives. Those who have gone before us in the faith must be respected. Their collective and unified influence creates an authority which, I believe, is second only to Scripture. After all, they had the same Holy Spirit as us, didn’t they? The Holy Spirit does not teach us everything new as individuals, but educates and inspires us in and with those who have gone before us. That is why I love dead theologians!

As I read through the Institutes of John Calvin this summer, I did so with a fine-toothed comb, underlining every time another source was referenced, especially a source from another church father. One cannot study the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura and come away with the idea that the Reformers ever meant that the Scriptures were our only authority. Ultimate, yes. Only, no.

None of these are our final authority, and if the Scriptures contradict what these authorities say, the Scriptures trump.

Sola Scriptura does not mean that if it is not in the Bible it is not divinely binding.

Romans 1 speaks of the binding authority of the message of creation: “For since the creation of the world, his eternal attributes, divine power and nature have been clearly understood so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). As well, in Romans 2, we are told that our conscience testifies to us about God’s will (Rom. 2:14-16). As Christians, we must be willing to take our cue from all forms of what we call “general revelation:” rationality, moral conscience, and the message of creation all qualify.

Whether it is rationality or the message of creation and the conclusions drawn from it, we cannot turn a blind eye and say that since it is not in the Scripture, it does not make any difference.

Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Scriptures are an exhaustive source for us to know how to live our lives each day.

Think about how many things the Bible does not tell us. It does not tell us any particulars about where to work, whom to marry, what to eat, how often to shower, how many elders to have, or how, exactly, to conduct a Sunday morning service. It gives us general principles and then extends lots of freedom for the wisdom in each of us to work out the details.

The Scriptures equip us spiritually for every spiritual service (2 Tim. 3:17). There is no knowledge deposit or missing database which contains essential information about how to have a right relationship with God. In this, Scripture is completely sufficient for every spiritual task.

In the end, the doctrine of sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the final and only infallible source of divine revelation and is, therefore, the ultimate guide for the conscience of the Christian.

I think this is an accurate way to put it:

The Bible is carried by reason, aided by experience, guarded by tradition, but ruled by none.Similar Posts:

• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Two – Martin Luther
• Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part One – Authority Across the Spectrum
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Eight – What about all the divisions?
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Three – An Argument for the Dual-Source Theory

Part 1

Part 2

A standard evangelical approach to dealing with the stylistic differences of, say, Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastorals from the rest of Paul’s letters, is to argue that the penman or secretary of these letters may have had a larger role than merely copying down via dictation what Paul said. Ehrman, however, argues (135):

Did the secretaries contribute to the contents of [Paul’s] letters? … Despite what scholars often claim, all of the evidence we have suggests that the answer is no. The same evidence applies to the authors of 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and in fact to all the other early Christian writers.

Ehrman interacts in this section with but one author who makes the claim of heavy secretarial involvement, E. Randolph Richards, whose doctoral dissertation was published in 1991 as The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (Tübingen: Mohr). In spite of denying that Richards has produced any evidence along these lines, his discussion of secretary as editor, coauthor, and even composer is collectively replete with primary documentation (43–56). Richards’ evidence for the secretary as coauthor is the weakest. Yet in his section on the secretary as composer—a role which is significantly greater than coauthor—Richards offers irrefutable evidence. He notes that, when Cicero was imprisoned, he asked his friend Atticus to compose letters on his behalf (noted on p. 50 in Richards’ monograph):

I should like you to write in my name to Basilius and to anyone else you like, even to Servilius, and say whatever you think fit. (Cicero, Atticus 11.5)

If they look for [my missing] signature or handwriting, say that I have avoided them because of the guards. (Cicero, Atticus, 11.2.4)

Now if Cicero could authorize a trusted secretary to compose letters in his own name—letters that he himself never even saw—then surely the lesser deed of editing or coauthoring must also have occurred. Ehrman camps on the latter without acknowledging the former.

And it is significant that in 2 Thessalonians 3.17 Paul says, “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, which is how I write in every letter.” We can infer such a note by Paul in Romans (see 16.22), Galatians (6.11), and elsewhere. In other words, Paul apparently never authorized a secretary to compose a letter in his name that he did not see, but he did employ secretaries as editors and virtual coauthors. That he would write something at the end of all his letters would be proof that the letter was genuine, and it would indicate that Paul had authorized its contents. It should also not go unnoticed (though Ehrman never mentions this) that the only letters disputed on linguistic bases in the Pauline corpus are those that were written toward the end of his life (Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastorals; 2 Thessalonians is disputed on other grounds)—after Paul had spent years with some companions who could be trusted to flesh out his thoughts on paper.

Conclusion

Ehrman offers many other arguments that cannot be addressed in a short review. I must conclude with a final observation. The fact that Bart Ehrman has put forth a trade-book rather than a scholarly monograph on ancient pseudepigrapha allows him the luxury of not having to deal with counter-evidence or peer review. Nowhere does he cite E. Earle Ellis, D. A. Carson, Leon Morris, Douglas Moo, Donald Guthrie (except for one note on an article, ignoring his massive work on NT introduction), Andreas Köstenberger, L. S. Kellum, Charles Quarles, Richard Longenecker, Anthony Kenny, Martin Hengel, Alan Millard, K. J. Neumann, David Dungan, T. L. Wilder, Harold W. Hoehner, or countless other scholars whose research disputes his conclusions. To the unsuspecting layperson, Forged looks like a death knell to the NT canon. To those who labor in the discipline of NT studies, it looks like yet another sensationalist book from Ehrman that is heavy on rhetoric and light on facts.Similar Posts:

• Book Review of Bart D. Ehrman’s “Forged” – Part 2
• Book Review of Bart D. Ehrman’s Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are
• What If We Found The Original New Testament But Did Not Know It?
• Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin
• The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) is proud to announce the SMU Debate between two noted New Testament scholars, Dr. Bart D. Ehrman and Dr. Daniel B. Wallace

Part 2: Statistics on Writing Styles

So, how does Ehrman attempt to prove forgery in the NT? He uses the traditional arguments that have been debated for centuries: differences in style, conceptual/theological differences, and historical discrepancies from known facts. Arguments on both sides have been made, and continue to be made, in the scholarly literature. There is a ready answer to arguments that the authors of the NT are not those claimed; see, for example, the NT introductions by Carson and Moo; Guthrie; and Köstenberger, Kellum, and Quarles.

Ehrman however ratchets up the discussion with statistical analysis. After discussing only a part of the data (word usage) that makes up an author’s style, Ehrman concludes: “In almost every study done [in the last ninety years], it is clear that the word usage of the Pastorals is different from that in Paul’s other letters” (98). The documentation at this point cites but one author, Armin Baum, who argues, contra Ehrman, that Paul wrote the Pastorals! Further, Ehrman fails to mention the most recent sophisticated computer-assisted researches by Anthony Kenny, A Stylometric Study of the New Testament (NY: Oxford University Press, 1986), and K. J. Neumann, The Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles in the Light of Stylostatistical Analysis (Atlanta: Scholars, 1990). Kenny’s research concludes that, according to computer analysis, only 1 and 2 Timothy of the Pastorals are Pauline, while Titus is not. Yet no scholar, as far as I know, makes this claim on other grounds: the Pastorals are virtually always seen as a unit, written by the same author, whether Paul or someone else (though sometimes 2 Timothy, not Titus, is viewed as written by a different author than 1 Timothy and Titus). And Neumann, in spite of expecting quite different results, notes somberly that “The hopes did not materialize that the greater labor connected with several syntactic-category indices might produce some very significant criteria. … there is more variability within authors than anticipated” (205). In one test, 2 Thessalonians and 1 Peter both lined up with Paul’s writing style perfectly; in another, Revelation, chapters 2 and 3 were considered Pauline! No wonder Neumann concludes, “Christian authors, especially Paul, are not distinguished by the indices chosen” (213). Surely, these are not the modern sophisticated statistical studies that Ehrman is thinking of, but neither does he mention any in support of his views.Similar Posts:

• Book Review of Bart D. Ehrman’s “Forged” – Part 3
• Book Review of Bart D. Ehrman’s Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are
• The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) is proud to announce the SMU Debate between two noted New Testament scholars, Dr. Bart D. Ehrman and Dr. Daniel B. Wallace
• I Don't Get Bart Ehrman
• Common Errors in Bible Interpretation

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3

Conclusion

In sum, what can we say overall about the NIV 2011? First, it is a well-thought out translation, with checks and balances through rigorous testing, overlapping committees to ensure consistency and accuracy, and a publisher willing to commit significant resources to make this Bible appealing to the Christian reader. The commitment of the CBT, Biblica, the NIV translators, and Zondervan is truly stunning. A serious investment of money and manpower has produced this translation. And why? To encourage the believer in Jesus Christ to seek his face in the scriptures, and to grow in grace because of what he or she sees. The obvious dedication of all the principals to the Bible as God’s Word must not go unnoticed. This is a translation by believers for believers. And precisely because the translators represent various denominations and countries, as well as positions about the role of women in the church, the NIV 2011 has an incredibly strong foundation. The unity that is the NIV produced from such diversity speaks well for the health of the Church today. The translators model what believers are to be like.

Second, the scholarship that produced this version is excellent, both in text and translation decisions. The textual basis and rendering of difficult expressions in the original are bold features that warrant our gratitude. This is no fly-by-night operation. Unspeakable effort has gone into the production of this version of the Bible, with thousands of decisions being made by individuals and committees, all under the purview of the prime mandate of the CBT. For this, believers everywhere can and should thank God for the NIV, because it is what it purports to be: the eternal word of God in the language of English-speaking people today.

Third, there are problems with this translation, of course. But there are problems with every translation. Not a single one is perfect, though some are significantly better than others. The New World Translation, because of its strong sectarian bias and downright impossible renderings of the text in many places where the original text contradicts the core beliefs of this group, is far and away the worst translation in English dress. On the other end of the spectrum are some gems, and the NIV 2011 is one of them. Although it is easy for people to become pseudo-informed about Bible translations through the Internet, a far more valuable exercise would be to find a good version and read it. And for readability, the NIV 2011 has no peers. Debates over which translation is better ultimately are a major distraction whose fire the Enemy loves to stoke. As with the handful of other exceptional translations, the NIV 2011 definitely should be one that the well-equipped English-speaking Christian has on his or her shelf, and one that they consult often for spiritual nourishment. Tolle lege!Similar Posts:

• A Review of the NIV 2011: Part 3 of 4
• King James Bible: Historical Timeline
• A Review of the NIV 2011: Part 1 of 4
• A Review of the NIV 2011: Part 2 of 4
• Bible Translations in a Nutshell

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

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)

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

In my previous blogpost, I discussed selectively the history of the English Bible, and brought us up to speed on the NIV 2011. Now, I wish to look at features of the NIV 2011. This blogpost will focus on the positive features.

What Makes for an Accurate Translation?

Before discussing the NIV’s strengths, I need to address a misperception of my first post—a misperception that I unwittingly contributed to. In discussing the history of the English Bible, I noted that the KJV was a literary translation while the RV was a literal translation. I also suggested that the RV was more accurate than the NRSV and the KJV. What I need to do here is correct the frequent perception that literal = accurate, and not-so-literal = inaccurate.

Anyone who has ever learned a foreign language knows that the structure, idioms, vocabulary, and syntax between the two languages are not identical. To be sure, some languages are closer to each other than others (e.g., Northwest Semitic languages, such as Hebrew and Aramaic, are very similar), but there is never complete overlap. And although Greek, being an Indo-European language like English, is closer to English’s structure and style, Hebrew is a different animal altogether. For this reason, since a translation of the Bible is not simply a translation of Greek to English but a translation of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into English, a formally equivalent, or ‘literal,’ translation of the Bible will inevitably be uneven and inaccurate. Even if the original text of the Bible were only in Greek, a so-called literal translation would still miss the mark. Taking just idiomatic expression as an example, consider Matt 1.18. English translations speak of Mary’s pregnancy as follows: 

A glance at the list of 15 translations shows that “she was found” is the wording of all but three, and “with child/have a baby” is part of the translation all but four times. One might conclude that since these translations vary from formal equivalent to functional equivalent the Greek text must have both of these phrases in it. Otherwise, how could so many translations have identical renderings? The reality is that all these translations are putting a Greek idiom in English dress and changing it to meet English usage. And, whether acknowledged or not, they are largely influenced by the KJV—even the 1984 NIV and the Roman Catholic translations (NAB, NJB). It may surprise you to know that the Greek text here says, “she was found having [it] in the belly.” That’s very vivid language; any woman who has ever been pregnant knows what it’s like to be having it in the belly! But it’s not English idiom, so translations have had to change the Greek idiom to one that was acceptable in English. It is interesting that two of the least ‘literal’ translations in the chart—the REB and TEV—are the only ones listed to actually read ‘have’ here; none of the others use that word, even though it is in the Greek.

What this text illustrates is that a faithful translation to the meaning of the original does not have to be faithful to the form of the original.

Consider another example, this time the Greek expression μὴ γένοιτο (me genoito). This is used 15 times in the NT, once by Luke and 14 times by Paul. Luke uses it in the more classical sense of “I hope this won’t happen [but I fear it will].” It is found in Luke 20.16 and gives the reaction of the people to Jesus’ parable about the vineyard owner who will come to destroy the tenants. But Paul doesn’t use the expression that way. For him, it has the sense of abhorrence, revulsion, of vehement and categorical denial of the truth of the supposition. For example, in Rom 7.7, Paul says, “Is the law sin? Absolutely not!” Even within the NT the same words bear a different idiom for two different authors. So, how is this two-word clause translated? These two passages will be used. 

μὴ γένοιτο is a Greek idiom that should not be literally translated. Literally, it reads “May it not be.” (Neither ‘God’ nor ‘forbid’ are in the Greek, but the KJV and several others have rendered this rather idiomatically, not literally.) But it is a request using the optative mood, which in Attic Greek and, under normal circumstances, even in Koine, had a weakened force. The optative was also used in prayers to deities in Greek (perhaps because the petitioner had little hope that the god would answer his or her prayer). It’s like when a child sheepishly asks her mother if she may stay up two hours past her bedtime to watch a movie on a school night: “Couldn’t I please stay up?” But Paul has utilized the same form but invested it with his own idiomatic meaning.

Two points here: First, the idiom in Paul is different from that in Luke and should be translated differently. Significantly, the only versions in the list above to render both instances the same way are the KJV, ASV, and NASB. Though claims are made that these versions are the most literal, they are not the most accurate. Second, no translation renders this exactly literally in any place it occurs. To do so would be to pervert the meaning of the text.

Often I am asked, “What is the most accurate translation today? What is the most literal, word-for-word translation?” I point out that those are two separate questions, and that the answer for one will be different from the answer for the other. The most literal, word-for-word translation is probably the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is slavishly literal to the point of being bad English much of the time—except where the Greek or Hebrew text affirms a doctrine that is contrary to what this sect believes. In those cases, the translation becomes paraphrastic, but illegitimately so.

At bottom, the best translation is one that is faithful to the meaning of the original text. That does not always, nor even usually, mean a literal translation.

Specifics of the NIV 2011

Praise for the NIV 2011

Charts and tables and databases of the differences between the NIV (1984, the revised edition of the 1978 version), the TNIV, and the NIV 2011 have been produced. These are indeed helpful, but since they focus on statistics more than on reading, the data can give a false impression. For example, some of them note that the NIV 2011 is closer to the TNIV than to the NIV 1984 its gender language. True enough. But then they make the illegitimate leap that as such the NIV 2011 is not accurate. 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 21^st century. The fact is, the English language has changed. In order to render the meaning of the original text in the language that people understand today, revisions are constantly needed. There is no final word on the Word of God. The King James translators knew this, as have the translators of virtually every translation done since. The NIV 2011 is no exception.

The primary focus of the NIV 2011 is an accurate translation (more on this later), and one has to admit that they have accomplished this objective admirably. Although there are, to be sure, some verses that one might take objection to, overall the translation is extremely well done. And it is fresh and ‘breezy’—in the sense that it is easy to read, not in the sense of being nonchalant or indifferent to the weighty matters of rendering God’s Word into a modern language.

The scholarship behind the NIV 2011 is probably as good as it gets. And the textual basis is both bold and exceptionally accurate. 1 Thess 2.7 now describes Paul and Silvanus as “little children” instead of “gentle”; Mark 1.41 speaks of Jesus as “indignant” instead of “filled with compassion”; John 1.34 has John the Baptist speaking of the Lord as “God’s Chosen One” instead of “the Son of God.” These are disturbing readings, yet scholars in recent years have come to recognize that most likely they reflect accurately the original wording was. No doubt Gordon Fee, a world-class textual critic, had a large role in these decisions. (Two of these readings already found their way into the NET Bible, and the next iteration will probably follow the third, too.) I wish they had been so bold in Jude 5, and followed the reading “Jesus” in the place of “the Lord,” especially in light of Philipp Bartholomä’s article, “Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt? A Re-examination of a Textual Problem in Jude 5,” Novum Testamentum 50 (2008) 143-58. (See also, for example, Mark 1.1 and 7.4 for places where I think the NIV has deleted the true reading.) The text of 1 Cor 14.34-35, which Fee and a few others have strongly argued should be excised in spite of the lack of external evidence, is retained. And the preferred reading in John 1.18 was not changed from the 1984 NIV (Greek: “God” instead of “Son”), while other modern translations have capitulated to Bart Ehrman’s poorly-based arguments on this verse.

In most places, the text hardly changes from the earlier NIV. Yes, it was that good, especially in the Old Testament. Before the NIV was originally published in 1978, I was taking a course on the Hebrew text of Isaiah at Dallas Seminary from Dr. Ken Barker, one of the NIV translators. We translated Isaiah and compared the NIV to the Hebrew text. My admiration for the NIV—before the whole Bible was ever published—grew significantly because of that course.

This is not to say that the New Testament has been translated poorly. Not at all. In 1 Cor 13.5, it says that love “does not dishonor others”—a decisive improvement over the much weaker “it is not rude” of the earlier NIV. Gone are the more correct, but equally more cumbersome, relative pronouns in many verses (e.g., Matt 1.16: for “of whom was born” referring obliquely to Mary, the new NIV has “and Mary was the mother of”—a strong improvement in clarity even though not as ‘literal’). In 1 Cor 6.9, the old NIV and the TNIV speaks of “male prostitutes” and “practicing homosexuals,” while the NIV 2011 speaks of “men who have sex with men.” On the one hand, this turns these two substantives into a single phrase, therefore rendering it other than literally. But it is much more accurate. The footnote here correctly states, “The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.”

The alternative renderings that are listed in the footnotes are also refreshing for their honesty (see above on 1 Cor 6.9). The text of Rom 3.22 says, “This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ…” while the alternate rendering is, “This righteousness is given through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ…” (The NET Bible continues to be the only committee-produced English Bible that reads “faithfulness of Jesus Christ” in the text here, as far as I am aware.) This alternative received only a passing note in Cranfield’s magisterial two-volume commentary on Romans (1975-79); it cannot so readily be dismissed today, even though other recent translations do indeed dismiss it readily.

All in all, this is a fine translation and is the culmination of the efforts of many decades, scholars, countries, denominations, and ideologies. Yet everyone associated with the NIV is unswervingly committed to the Bible as the word of God written. Their joyous wonder at the beauty and majesty of the scriptures comes through loud and clear in this superb version.Similar Posts:

• What Bible Should I Own (Dan Wallace)
• King James Bible: Historical Timeline
• A Review of the New International Version 2011: Part 4 of 4
• A Review of the NIV 2011: Part 3 of 4
• A Review of the NIV 2011: Part 1 of 4

So, I must do this review in haste for the sake of peace in my home. But that doesn’t mean that it’s a careless review. I have read several reviews of the NIV 2011—some positive, some not—and have checked numerous passages to form a judgment of my own. As one who has been a consultant, proofreader, translator, or editor of a few Bible translations, I come with some experience in the matter.

A Selected History of the English Bible

First, for a brief history lesson. The NIV was one of the first English translations of the modern era to consciously depart from the King James Bible tradition. That tradition—reaching as far back as William Tyndale (1525)—has had successors in the Revised Version (1885), American Standard Version (1901), Revised Standard Version (1952), New American Standard Bible (1971), New Revised Standard Version (1989), and English Standard Version (2001). This tradition involves a heavy amount of infighting: The revisers of 1885, mostly British scholars, were slammed by those devoted to the King James Bible. Chief among them was John Burgon, whose main complaint was over the textual basis of the RV New Testament, a work that was largely a translation of the Greek text that Westcott and Hort had published in 1881. Apart from the textual base, the RV also suffered from its position of touting the triumph of “King Truth” over “King James.” The RV was literal, and slavishly so; it was the ugly step-child of King James, and had a poor following. Contrary to what many KJV Only advocates believe, the KJV was not a literal translation; it was a literary translation (as H. L. Mencken—no friend of Christianity once quipped—the King James Bible is “unquestionably the most beautiful book in the world”). It was a literary masterpiece that, in this regard, has been unmatched by any English translation of the Bible since. But its accuracy of text and translation were long overdue for a major overhaul when the RV came along.

On the Revised Version translation committee were some Americans who, by agreement with the syndics of the RV, would not publish their own translation for fourteen years. In 1901, the American Standard Version appeared, and it had significantly improved English over the RV. This was the first English Bible produced by a committee, since the KJV, which was actually put in tolerable English.

Fifty-one years later, the RSV appeared. And that’s really where our story begins. The RSV had “young woman” in Isa 7.14, which was an affront to many fundamentalist and evangelical churches, so much so that one pastor even lit a copy of the RSV on fire from the pulpit and sent the ashes to the RSV committee chairman. (Dr. Bruce Metzger, who as the chairman of the NRSV committee inherited the ashes of this Bible, once showed me the urn that housed them. He quipped, “I’m so glad to be a Bible translator in the twentieth century: they only burn the translation, not the translators!”) The furor over the translation of ‘almah in Isa 7.14 was so strong that other translations sprang up in reaction to the purportedly liberal bias in the RSV. The NASB was chief among them, since it was within the same Tyndale-KJV-RV-ASV tradition. It intended to offer a conservative alternative to the RSV, based on the same tradition. But it could be argued that the original NIV (1978) was also stimulated in part by the RSV’s defection from the KJ tradition. Translation is always a tricky business, and part of the balancing act for translators is to be as faithful as possible to the original text while making a translation that the average Christian will embrace. Jerome found this to be a problem when a riot broke out in Tripoli in AD 403 when they read his translation of Jonah 4.6—more specifically, his translation of  ‏קיקיון in Jonah 4.6 as ‘ivy’ (hederem) instead of the traditional ‘gourd’ (cucurbita). Augustine even found it necessary to write to Jerome about the situation, pleading with him to temper how much he tampered with the traditional Latin text. Now, if the rendering for a plant could cause a riot, how much more would treating a key prophetic text such as Isa 7.14 cause upheaval? Yet, truth be told, ‘young woman’ is almost surely what the Hebrew word means. In Matt 1.23, the evangelist is quoting from the Septuagint of Isa 7.14, and clearly the Greek word for ‘almah means ‘virgin.’ (See the note in the NET Bible at both texts for discussion.)

After the RSV fiasco, English Bible translations started reproducing like rabbits. To this day, the reaction to the RSV is visceral. Yet, surprisingly, the NIV 2011, although it adopts ‘virgin’ in Isa 7.14, lists ‘young woman’ as a viable alternative. The old battle lines have worn down to sometimes barely recognizable historical relics, reminders from the past of what once divided us.

In 1952, one woman was at the center of the storm of Bible translations; beginning in 1989, all women were the focus. And, once again, it was the (N)RSV that was the instigator. In that year, the New RSV appeared. With its gender-inclusive language, the NRSV seemed to go beyond the limits of accuracy and good English style in a fair number of texts. The table below shows what the RSV read in comparison with the NRSV in three verses: 

Table 1

RSV Compared to NRSV

 In Matt 18.15, the NRSV is an ugly translation. This is due to an overriding principle of making the translation gender inclusive, even if the English ends up being terrible. Who speaks like this: “If the member listens to you, you have regained that one”? In this respect, the NRSV has gone retro, mimicking the homeliness of the old RV, but without its accuracy. Ironically, the NRSV committee’s attempt at avoiding sexual connotations by replacing ‘brother’ with ‘member’ results in creating sexual connotations of another sort! (One of the major tasks of Bible translators these days is to get rid of what one scholar calls the ‘snicker factor’—those places where bathroom humor or sexual innuendo need to be changed, making the translation junior-high-boy foolproof. The NRSV succeeded on several fronts, changing what the RSV had—e.g., Ps 50.9 [“I will not accept a bull from your house” vs. “I will accept no bull from your house”]. But not all: see, for example, Matt 8.20.) Further, by stretching the limits of gender inclusiveness to the breaking point, the NRSV distorts the text here: ‘brother’ is a familial term, and in the context of church discipline has connotations of warmth and commitment to each other that ‘member’ lacks. What is left is a cold harshness in the context of discipline, far removed from what the Matthean saying originally intended to convey.

In 1 Tim 3.2, “married only once” translates the Greek phrase, “husband of one wife” (though some evidence has been suggested that this phrase might mean simply “married only once”). The text now sounds like Paul would allow women to be elders/bishops, but that seems to be a case of historical revisionism.

And in Rev 3.20, the singular of the Greek text is lost in modern English since we no longer distinguish singular from plural with the second person. The warmth and emphasis on the individual in the Lord’s invitation is thus toned down because of other concerns.

So, what does this have to do with the NIV 2011? Just as with the evangelical and fundamentalist reaction to the RSV, there has been yet another spate of translations in response to the NRSV. The ESV and HCSB are leading the charge, keeping the gender-inclusive language in check. I won’t comment on the value of those translations here, except to note that the ESV, largely because of Leland Ryken’s role in the work, brings an understated elegance to the translation. In a word, the ESV is memorable, something we will address later on.

But four other translations of note have appeared since, or contemporaneously with, the NRSV, and none of them seems to go nearly as far as the NRSV in its inclusive agenda. The REB (1989), which is a revision of the NEB (1970)—both produced by British scholars—is also a gender-inclusive translation. But the translators explicitly noted that gender inclusiveness would not trump good English style. (Just check the REB in the three verses already discussed to see that they were true to their word.) The Brits apparently learned a big lesson from the RV’s failure: the NEB and REB stand as probably the best English renderings of the Bible in terms of style done in the twentieth century. (Look at Luke 11.48 and John 1.1 for illustrations of accuracy that simultaneously involve great style.)

The NET Bible (2005) should also be mentioned: it does not take sides on the gender issue, but intends to be gender accurate. That is, it is not gender inclusive if the Greek or Hebrew explicitly refer to males, but it is likewise not gender exclusive if the original languages have in view both sexes.

Finally, the TNIV (2005) and NIV 2011 should be mentioned. These are gender-inclusive translations or perhaps gender neutral, but not nearly to the extent as the NRSV. And on the translation committee—indeed, the chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation, Douglas Moo—are those who would be styled ‘complementarians.’ That is, these translators (by no means all, but a good portion of them no doubt) generally believe in male leadership in the home and church. The opposing group is known as egalitarians, those who believe essentially that men do not have the sole rights as leaders in the home or church. The remarkable thing about these two newer translations is that such scholars could work together to produce them. And all of them are evangelicals. This speaks very highly for the TNIV and NIV 2011 and serves as an implicit endorsement of the translation by both groups. Although ‘over 100 scholars’ seems like overkill for a good translation (a much smaller group could do as good a job if not better), the NIV’s multinational and multidenominational workforce removes it from any charges of sectarian bias. This really has to go for the gender issue, too, because of both complementarians and egalitarians on the translation committees.Similar Posts:

• A Review of the NIV 2011: Part 3 of 4
• King James Bible: Historical Timeline
• A Review of the New International Version 2011: Part 4 of 4
• What Bible Should I Own (Dan Wallace)
• A Review of the NIV 2011: Part 2 of 4

• How to Study the Bible in a Nutshell
• Credo Clip: Is the Bible Reliable?
• Credo Clip: What Books Belong in the Bible?
• It Does Not Matter What the Bible Means to You
• Should I Go Out to Dinner Tonight? Let’s See What the Bible Says

This is true. I am looking on page 23 of my Bible and it has the list of books. The books all together number 66, 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. This is often referred to as the “canon” of Scripture. “Canon” (Gk. kanon) means “rule” or “measuring rod.” The canon of Scripture is the collection or a “rule” of books that Christians believe belong in the Bible. There are some variations among Christian traditions concerning the number of books. The Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox churches all use different canons (as well, some eastern churches will vary still). The Catholic and Orthodox include a group of books in their Bibles referred to as the Deuterocanonical books (”second canon”) or, as Protestants would call it, the “Apocrypha” (although the Orthodox church is not quite as settled upon the status of the Apocrypha).

The question How do you know what books belong in the Bible? is a significant one indeed and presents, what I believe to be, the most persuasive argument against sola Scriptura that there is. The Catholics and Orthodox will normally refer to the establishment of these books as part of the canon by fourth century councils. Catholics would further refer to the teachings of the council of Trent (1545-1563) which dogmatically and infallibly declared the current Catholic canon (including the Apocrypha) as being authoritative.

I believe that the 66 books of the Protestant canon belong in the Bible, no more no less. I believe that all 66 books are inspired, inerrant, and infallible. Yet the list on page 23 of my Bible is not part of the canon. In other words, the list itself is not part of the inspired word of God. I am using the New American Standard Bible, but it is the same in any version of any language. Even the NET Bible does not have an inspired list—even in the footnotes! There is no early Greek or Hebrew manuscript that solves the problem either. Therefore I have a potential difficulty. Since do not believe in an infallible human authority that has determined what books belong in the Bible, how can I be certain what books belong in the Bible and still profess sola Scriptura?

It would seem that the Scripture alone is not sufficient to establish the Scripture alone! Do we have an fallible canon of infallible books?

It was R.C. Sproul who first made the claim (that I know of) that Protestants have a fallible canon of infallible books. A fallible canon of infallible books? What good is that? Catholics often jest about the seemingly ironic situation in which advocates of sola Scriptura find themselves. Catholics claim that they, due to their belief in a living infallible authority, have an infallible collection of infallible books, and that we are just borrowing from them!

Not only this (as an aside), but what about interpretation? Not only do Protestants not believe in an infallible authority to dogmatize which books belong in the Bible, but they don’t believe in an infallible authority to interpret the Bible. Therefore, we can take this to the next level. Protestants have a fallible interpretation of an fallible canon of infallible books. Ouch! Sounds like it is time to convert to Catholicism, eh?

Not so fast. In the end, this is an issue of epistemology. Epistemology deals with the question “How do you know?” How do we know the canon is correct? How do we know we have the right interpretation? Assumed within these questions is the idea of certainty. How do you know with certainty? Not only this, but how do you know with absolute certainty?

The question that I would ask is this: Do we need absolute infallible certainty about something to 1) be justified in our belief about that something, 2) to be held responsible for a belief in that something? I would answer “no” for two primary reasons:

1. This supposed need for absolute certainty is primarily the product of the enlightenment and a Cartesian epistemology. To say that we have to be infallibly certain about something before it can be believed and acted upon is setting the standard so high that only God Himself could attain to it. Outside of mathematics and analytical statements (e.g. a triangle had three sides), there is no absolute certainty, only relative certainty. This does not, however, give anyone an excuse or alleviate responsibility for belief in something.

For example, I believe that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. I prepare each day with this belief in mind. Each night, I set my alarm clock and review my appointments for the following day, having a certain expectation that the next day will truly come. While I have certainty about the sun rising the next day, I don’t have infallible certainty that it will. There could be some astronomical anomaly that causes the earth to stop its rotation. There could be an asteroid that comes and destroys the earth. Christ could come in the middle of the night. In short, I don’t have absolute infallible certainty about the coming of the next day. This, however, does not give me an excuse before men or God for not believing that it will come. What if I missed an early appointment the next day and told the person “I am sorry, I did not set my alarm clock because I did not have infallible certainty that this day would come.” Would that be a valid excuse? It would neither be a valid excuse to the person who I was supposed to meet or to God.

We have a term that we use for people who require infallible certainty about everything: “mentally ill.” Remember What About Bob? (I just watched that again three days ago…hilarious!) He was mentally ill because he made decisions based on the improbability factor. Because it was a possibility that something bad could happen to him if he stepped outside his house, he assumed it would happen. There are degrees of probability. We act according to degrees of probability. Simply because it is a possibility that the sun will not rise tomorrow does not mean that it is a probability that it won’t. Simply because there is a possibility that when you step outside your house you might get hit by a bus or catch a life-threatening deceases, does not make probability.

The same can be said about the canon and interpretation of Scripture. Just because there is a possibility that we are wrong (being fallible), does not necessarily make it a probability. Therefore, we look to the evidence for the degree of probability concerning Scripture.

2. The smoke screen of epistemological certainty that seems to be provided by having a living infallible authority (Magisterium) disappears when we realize that we all start with fallibility. No one would claim personal infallibility. Therefore it is possible for all of us to be wrong. We all have to start with personal fallible engagement in any issue. Therefore, any belief in an infallible living authority could be wrong. As Geisler and MacKenzie put it, “The supposed need for an infallible magisterium is an epistemically insufficient basis for rising above the level of probable knowledge. Catholic scholars admit, as they must, that they do not have infallible evidence that there is an infallible teaching magisterium. They have merely what even they believe to be only probable arguments. But if this is the case, then epistemically or apologetically there is no more than a probable basis for Catholics to believe that a supposedly infallible pronouncement [either about the canon or interpretation of the canon] of their church is true” (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, p. 216).

Here is a graph to illustrate what I mean (“Dual-Source” is the Roman Catholic view—but it is really three sources: 1) written tradition (the Bible), 2) unwritten Tradition, and the Magisterial authority of the church to interpret infallibly (Popes and bishops)):

This means that we are all floating in the same river, just different boats. Catholics (Dual-Source Theory) have a fallible belief about an infallible authority; Advocates of sola Scriptura have a fallible belief about an infallible authority. Both authorities must be substantiated by the evidence and both authorities must be interpreted by fallible people. In the end, what is the difference? Advocates of sola Scriptura just cut out the infallible middle man due to a lack of theological warrant.

Do advocates of sola Scriptura have a fallible collection of infallible books? Yes. We concede such. When all is said and done, all of our beliefs are fallible and therefore subject to error. But remember, the possibility of error does not necessitate the probability of error. We have to appeal to the evidence to decide. God would [probably] accept nothing less. Similar Posts:

• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Seven – What About the Canon?
• Why I Believe the Canon is Fallible . . . And am Fine with It!
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Eight – What about all the divisions?
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Three – An Argument for the Dual-Source Theory
• Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?