“Wheaton (Illinois) College English professor Leland Ryken, however, is unimpressed with the NIV translators’ use of a ‘dynamic equivalency’ translation….”

The question left unanswered is, why the new translation?

Holy Scripture makes the culture. Culture does not make Holy Scripture.

Don

I would like to see an evangelical translation of the Bible that includes the seven books of the ‘tween the testaments Apocrypha (aka deuterocanonical books). After all, our lectionary includes them, and they were part of every translation of the Bible up until the late 1800’s.  That way, I wouldn’t have to take a separate book with me when the readings include them.

The ESV committee has been promising an edition with these books (probably from a British publisher, the committee has said they wouldn’t be doing it themselves) for some time now, but has yet to produce it.

Bring it on already!

Jim Elliott <><

libraryjim,

The ESV with Apocrypha has bee available since early this year. (I own a copy.)  It is published by Oxford University Press, and is available at the usual places—Amazon, christianbook.com, Barnes and Noble.

So far it is available in only one edition—a bright red hardback with san serif font, and paper so thin that the text on the other side reads through.  But it is available.

Hmmm, re-translating the NIV.  A good idea, if the retranslation were aimed at making the NIV a more accurate translation as opposed to a rendering based on current theological buzzwords and cultural opposition to gender-based pronouns.  I cannot help thinking how many Christians might realize the silliness of the genetic-behavioral theory in vogue if the most popular translation referred more often to the “flesh” as opposed to “sin nature”.

Thanks, William!

Didymus,
Agreed.  Maybe the re-translation will not have such an evangelical bias.  It seems the original group of translators had a fear of using any Catholic terminology - and in the process straying from an accurate translation.  Some examples for those unfamiliar:

2 Thess 2:15
RSV: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

NIV: So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

1 Cor 11:2
RSV: I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

NIV: I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.

James 2:24
RSV: You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

NIV: You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Why should there be an “evangelical” translation of the Bible. Should not accuracy and sound scholarship be all that is required?

I don’t object to an ‘evangelical’ Bible translation any more that I would object to a ‘Catholic’ translation like the Jerusalem Bible. Different readerships are looking for different things. As an evangelical I am looking for a careful and fairly literal translation.

My objection to the NIV, and the reason why I stopped reading it some years ago, is that it is ‘evangelical’ in the wrong sense. As previous comments have pointed out, there are places where it protects the evangelical reader from having his or her assumptions questioned, by writing in an ‘evangelical’ interpretation to the translation.
To my mind that seems a form of dishonesty. If there’s a problem, the reader ought to know about it - as evangelicals our grasp of the whole counsel of God ought to be brought to the bar of scripture. We might even have something to learn!

Here’s my instance of lack of integrity in the NIV:
Jeremiah 7.22: NIV ‘For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices’
There is nothing in the Hebrew to correspond to the word ‘just’. It was added (presumably) because this is a locus classicus for the critical reconstruction of the OT, according to which the sacrifical laws were added at a late stage to the Pentateuch and Jer 7.22 shows that Jeremiah knew a Pentateuch without such laws. Even if you disagree with the construction put on this verse, it is just plain wrong to add a word in order to protect your interpretation.

Oh, pooh! I went to Borders, as I had a coupon for 40% off one book, and they did not have the ESV with apocrypha in stock.  I’ll have to wait on it.

:-D

Jim <><

libraryjim,

I hope they ordered it for you.  As I mentioned, you can also order it online.  If you’d like, you can even order a copy from the Trinity School for Ministry bookstore, which has several.

The ESV is poised to benefit from any failure of the NIV revision. According to the CBA, the NIV currently is the top-seller in both dollar sales and unit sales. The ESV is fifth in dollar sales and fourth in unit sales.money The KJV and the NKJV are above the ESV in both categories. See this link: http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/BSLs/Bible_Translations.pdf

#6 That’s funny, considering in my youth I was often exposed to Jack Chick KJV-only tracts that claimed the NIV was a tool of the Catholic Church to lead all good Christians astray into Freemasonry.

#11 dickwire—interesting.  I note that the fine print at the bottom of that list says that it’s based on sales in “Christian retail stores.”  I wonder if the numbers would change at all if they had included secular bookstores?