New Bibles and old debates
In
March, U.S. publishers released new editions of two of the most widely read
English-language Bibles: the Catholic New American Bible and the evangelical
New International Version. These updates are intended to reflect modern idioms
and the latest scholarly research, while also responding to changes in the
(niche-philic) scripture marketplace.
Since
its inception in 1965, the Committee on Bible Translation--the group responsible for the NIV changes--has
aimed to represent the best in evangelical biblical scholarship and
confessional integrity across multiple traditions. The original NIV charter
requires the group to monitor developments in biblical scholarship and changes
in English usage.
Based
on the number of word changes, the new NIV text remains about 95 percent the
same as the 1984 version it replaces. But there is a lot to be said about that
5 percent.
Perhaps
most controversial is the partial rescinding of gender-neutral language that
publishers appropriated into Today's New International Version (2005), the publication of which was soon
halted amid criticism. (For more on conservative opposition to the TNIV, see this
Southern Baptist resolution and this Council on Biblical Manhood and
Womanhood statement.) In the new version's rendering of
Genesis 1:26, God says, "let us make mankind in our image." The 1984 NIV said
"man"; the TNIV went with "human beings."
Elsewhere
the language is softer, more equivocal, than in the 1984 version. When it comes
to ecclesiastical authority (Romans 16:1-2, 1 Corinthians 11:10, 1 Timothy
2:12, 1 Timothy 3:11), the new NIV prohibits women not from
"exercising" it but from "assuming" it--language that
delegates final interpretation to the individual. The nature of sin is even an
open question: "flesh" replaces "sinful nature" in several instances.
(1 John 2:16 now reads "the lust of the flesh" instead of "the cravings of
sinful man.") It's up to the reader to determine whether sin is inherent or an
external force.
The
CBT reportedly
mined the Collins Bank of English--a database of more than 4.4 billion
words drawn from text publications and spoken-word recordings worldwide--for
objective, statistically significant data on modern English. This helped to
arbitrate the use of generic pronouns and determiners.
But
did the CBT compromise on "controversial" verses to appease critics?
Any
judgment should keep in mind that a single, univocal version of the Bible is
not really an option. Instead, our democratic impulses and consumer culture
create demand for multiple dynamic-equivalence
translations that attempt to keep a critical distance with regard to
history--while updating syntax and grammar. This is clearer than ever today, when we have ready
access to not only different translations but adventure Bibles for children,
"FaithGirlz" Bibles that tell young girls that they sparkle and The Bible
Experience, an audio
presentation by almost 400 actors and musicians and others.
It's
also important to remember that the CBT isn't a magisterium--it represents no
single tradition, and it makes no claim to absolute authority. It is, however,
a representative body, comprised of evangelicals from across national and
denominational lines. As such, the CBT isn't really in the business of
silencing popular opinion.
There
are other reasons to trust the committee's process as well. It isn't beholden
to publisher agendas--neither Zondervan (the U.S. publisher) nor Biblica (the
worldwide one) has a seat. And its voting procedure is wholly democratic: any
change must be ratified by a 70 percent majority vote. This process is innately
conservative, erring on the side of responsible skepticism toward change.
If
you take as a given that translation should be a well-informed and relatively
open process, then it's difficult to argue with the CBT's work.
