The NIV has always been an agenda-driven translation, and the agenda is evangelical. The introduction to the NIV Study Bible says it quite clearly:
All [scholars involved] confess the authority of the Bible as God's infallible word to humanity... Doctrinally, the NIV Study Bible reflects traditional evangelical theology.Which is at least up-front. Beloved of evangelical Christians, the 1984 NIV has become the translation of choice for many, and perhaps most, and the officially sanctioned version of several denominations (including GCI). When the TNIV was launched in 2001 however, it was not received with a chorus of hallelujahs. Conservative evangelicals, knickers tightly knotted, were selectively appalled at the updated language, and especially the move to be more gender inclusive. Plans to replace the NIV with it were quickly withdrawn.
That said, the TNIV seems a far improved translation. Gender inclusive language is the way we speak today, whether the old NIV curmudgeons like it or not. The two versions were however still shackled together. The introduction to the NIV Study Bible (2008) begins: "The New International Version of the Bible (NIV) is unsurpassed in accuracy, clarity and literary grace." Be that as it may, the introduction to the TNIV Study Bible (2006) begins: "Today's New International Version of the Bible is unsurpassed in accuracy, clarity and literary grace." Uh? Okay... maybe someone can explain how that could be...
And of course, identical words to those first quoted above are also used to outline the excellencies of the TNIV's evangelical credentials. The new edition will be more of the same, but a more cautious foray into the twenty-first century than TNIV attempted. It's intended to replace both the existing NIV and TNIV, so get your copies while stocks last. But it must now compete with the ESV, another agenda-driven translation with even greater pretensions, despite being little more than a doctored rehash of the old 1950s RSV. Sadly, the really worthwhile English versions sell far fewer copies because they don't pander to biblicist insecurities.
The 2011 NIV has already hit the bookshelves, though I haven't seen one in my corner of the Antipodes yet. I suspect, though, that it too will be "unsurpassed in accuracy, clarity and literary grace."
Ah yes, advertising's hackneyed "New and Improved" product (New Blue Cheer has TWO new additives! Our whopper has .2 ounces of additional beef! And it comes in a smaller, more convenient size at the same price!).
ReplyDeleteAccuracy, clarity and literary grace be damned. Show me the money! New version! The Old Republic is swept away... er... uh... I think I just got too wrapped up in this. This is like getting a new flag for your country and whipping up patriotism. Let's get a new hymn of the republic and get behind this new movement. To which I say,
Bah. Humbug.
It's no where near Christmas.
If it isn't free and I can't download it from e-sword, forget it. I'll be just fine.
Everybody has an agenda. It's really hard to declare your own personal Jihaad, what with everybody else trying to distract you with their new and improved baubles. It's like the next i-phone. Just look out for those mysterious charges that show up even if you haven't used it for 10 days. And so it is with version after version of something which is, after all, rather static. Sure, society is changing -- and if the Armstrongists and Harold Camping are any indicators, definitely not for the better. The new version panders (in the full traditional sense of the word) to those who want a new humanist liberal religion supported by their fave interpretation.
If there's really a vote, I'm voting millstone. What replaces it is more like a continent.
Creating new, newer, newest versions of some old copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies with about a million mistakes in all the copies with no originals doesn't mean a whole lot to me.
ReplyDeleteAbout the only thing you can be sure of that the original author said is pure hearsay from hearsay from hearsay from hearsay etc. on back for no telling how many generations before anyone wrote a single word.
So, okay, we have a new "translation" of hearsay...so?
Corky, I'd be interested in whether you feel the same way about new translations of the Gilgamesh Epic, or the Iliad and the Odyssey. Lot of "hearsay" there too no doubt.
ReplyDeleteNot that I want to put words in the Corkster's mouth, Gavin, but back when I was an atheist (thanks to two Baptists), my stock response would have been "But they're all fairy tales."
ReplyDeleteOf course, the Bible is not a fairy tale. But it is a lot of hearsay, as Corky points out, and copies of multiple copies, each copy being infused with each copyist's personal agenda.
The power of the Holy Spirit doesn't shed any clarity on Gilgamesh or the Illiad when you read them, though (which it does, when studying the Bible); also, there aren't multiple translations of the mythical texts floating around, either, with arguments on what the texts mean, all based on an agenda driven by the god of this world.
So, really, neither you, nor Corky, have made very salient points, IMO.
"The power of the Holy Spirit doesn't shed any clarity on Gilgamesh or the Illiad when you read them, though (which it does, when studying the Bible)"
ReplyDeleteQuite likely you're right Velvet,, but I have to put a plug in for poor old Gilgamesh which, if folk were to read it, might well be a conduit for the good spirit to speak to them through. It's tremendous literature and a source for later Bible writers who stole some of its best bits.
Perhaps the Epic of Gilgamesh would be the official bible of the realm if folks had been forced to believe it on pain of death.
ReplyDeleteThere would, no doubt, be revisions of the flood story in it as time passed and more and more power would be given to the priesthood until there was a reformation.
But no, the Gilgamesh Epic and Iliad and the Odyssey weren't told as gospel truth so there was no need to mistranslate them to add religious bias and agenda to the stories.
It's kind of funny how not having doctrines to defend make for better translations that don't change every year.
I use the TNIV Study Bible, and have found much information contained in the footnotes to be both spiritually sound, and enlightening. However, I do compare amongst several versions when certain scriptures appear questionable or obscure.
ReplyDeleteJust as we learned from our past experience that no one church has 100% truth, I believe that no one version of the Holy Bible is 100% perfect or infallible. However, I do believe that Bibles and churches alike have resources to share which do lead to salvation. It's not about phariseeism, it's about the relationship we cultivate and share with God through His son, Jesus Christ.
I've also come to realize that there is no such thing as an atheist. There are, however, people who for one reason or other are in a state of alienation from God. They simply think that they are atheist.
BB
Byker Bob said...
ReplyDeleteI've also come to realize that there is no such thing as an atheist. There are, however, people who for one reason or other are in a state of alienation from God. They simply think that they are atheist.
And, there are more and more people who think they are atheist all the time. It must be some bug called "rationality" going around. It spread from Europe, as I understand it, and it has now infected 40 million people here in the United States.
When I first came down with the bug about 32 years ago, I thought I could just shake it off like the common cold but it just seems to be here to stay. I don't know...maybe it's just the whole reality thing about it.
"I have to put a plug in for poor old Gilgamesh which, if folk were to read it, might well be a conduit for the good spirit to speak to them through."
ReplyDeleteEh, it's on my bucket list. Not quite so certain Homer falls into the same category, though.
Zoids,
ReplyDeleteRe: "The Chronicle Project" here are the choice quotes that jump out at me:
"It is the application of the newly discovered Self Defining Hebrew or SDH system which was built into the ancient Hebrew language by its creator(s)."
....
"Please do not send emails regarding the history of the language as is presently understood. We are well versed regarding history, development, and present understanding of the language..."
As the Doctor would say, "Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah, NO."
So, I managed to scratch Gilgamesh off my bucket list.
ReplyDelete"....I have to put a plug in for poor old Gilgamesh which, if folk were to read it, might well be a conduit for the good spirit to speak to them through. It's tremendous literature and a source for later Bible writers who stole some of its best bits."
Yeah, I recognized some of those "best bits;" some bits of Ecclesiastes, David and Jonathan and the bit with the arrows, and selections from Samuel, off the top of my head; I downloaded a PDF that I don't have the link handy to, for the version that I read, but it included translations of all twelve tablets in one file.
As for it being "a conduit for the good spirit to speak to them through?"
Eh. Those "best bits" were just about the only parts that could qualify...and, as you point out, they did end up in the Bible....The rest of it just seemed rather disjointed and, at points, little more than your average Heroic Quest Fiction.
Sorry, Gavin. As epics go, it's not half-bad (Once you get past the first bit, and the fact that the text repeats itself at several points, particularly where the characters repeat the same dialogue again and again. And again.), but imbued with "the good spirit?" I just didn't see it, personally. Sorry!