Today’s New International Version:

New Testament

Committee on Bible Translation

Zondervan, 2001, 367 pages (Preview Edition)

Review by Barry Cramer (2002)

First published in 1973 and revised in 1984, the New International Version is a collaboration among The International Bible Society (to be distinguished from the American Bible Society), a 15-member Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), and Zondervan Publishing (the exclusive marketer of the various products using the NIV text). It has been wildly popular among Evangelical Christians constituting "by far," according to news releases, "the most read, most trusted English translation worldwide" and reportedly has accounted for half of all Bible sales. The NIV is the official or preferred biblical text among a wide variety of conservative Protestant denominations, including the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, the Assemblies of God and the Christian Reformed Church, among others. Today’s New International Version (Today’s NIV, or TNIV) continues the same tradition with "new translation treatments" for about 7 percent of the text of the original.

I reviewed the Preview Edition with an eye toward several concerns: general impressions; inclusive language for people; treatment of language about Jews; Christ-hymns and fragments; the issue of time-keeping in the Gospel of John; and clobber texts used against homosexual persons.

Besides looking at selected passages, I opted to read the Gospel of John, the book that contains the most references to the "Jews" and has one of the best-known of the Christ-hymns. I also was reading during the Season of Lent when the Gospel readings in the Revised Common Lectionary tend to be taken from John during Year A.

General Impressions

I remember the first time I read a contemporary translation of the Bible. I was particularly impressed with the page layout: topic headings, standard paragraphs (verse numbering placed in superscript), and sections lined-out as poetry in places. Today’s NIV, along with all other contemporary translations, follows this pattern. It is easy to read.

Writing teachers advocate for strong descriptive verbs. I found an example of that in the narrative of Jesus’ appearance before Pilate, just before his (Jesus’) crucifixion (John 18:28-40). There he posits that he came into the world to testify to the truth. Pilate responds with a question. The New American Bible (1970) has, "’Truth!" said Pilate, ‘What does that mean?’". Today’s NIV comes close by translating, "’What is truth?’ retorted Pilate." This dynamic verb adds an element to the narrative that is missing in other translations that blandly state that Pilate "asked" or "said" this line.

I appreciated the points at which the translators differentiate between the plural "you" and its familiar form, "you" in the singular, a differentiation that the English language has lost through the demise of "thee" and "thou". This is done through the use of footnotes. Curiously, however, the plural is indicated in the footnotes; more logically, since "you" is grammatically a plural, it is the singular that should be indicated in the footnotes.

English Bible translations are typically done in language at the average adult reading level (sadly, 7^th to 8^th grade); most likely TNIV is, as well. Nevertheless, the TNIV is not necessarily a Bible for young readers or young Christians. It presupposes a certain theological understanding that not all readers will have: concepts such as justification and sanctification. The Contemporary English Version (American Bible Society, 1995) may be a better choice in those situations. It is written at the 5^th to 6^th grade level and contains a glossary in the appendix.

Footnotes are helpfully used to explain cultural elements that may be unfamiliar to contemporary readers (explaining, for example, that the Feast of Dedication is Hanukkah).

Weights and measures are converted to contemporary units (curiously, since this is an "international" version, the text utilizes American units—miles and pints, for example---while units in the metric system, the international standard by far---kilometers and liters---are relegated to the footnotes). Spelling also is in the American style, so one plausible explanation is that this is the Yankee edition, and that one or more other editions are being published for Aussies, Brits, Canucks, Kiwis, and other English-speaking peoples; but nothing in the book or the publicity material so indicates. Since one use of an "international" English version would be in multi-national English-speaking congregations in non-English-speaking countries, it would seem that a less Americanized version would be preferable.

Inclusive Language

When I studied anthropology in college I studied the human race in general, not just the males of the species. So when the Greek biblical text utilizes the same root word, "anthropos", I consider it to be appropriate that it be translated in a way that clearly indicates its inclusion of women as well as men, girls as well as boys. The TNIV does this.

While the CBT uses the term "gender-appropriate" language and its detractors use the term "gender-neutral", I will use the term "inclusive language", as I believe that is the more normative one for the broader Christian community. The inclusive language usages that the CBT uses are the same as those by which I write and that I encourage from my writers and reviewers. Other Bible publishers have made inclusive language versions available for over a decade, so Zondervan, in some sense, is just catching up. Criticism on this point is kindly labeled as misguided at best. I commend the TNIV on this point.

The traditional practice of using male-gendered language ("man", "he", "him", "his") when referring generally to persons of both sexes has been the accepted practice in English. Many may remember our grammar school teachers stressing the use of the generic "he". But that practice has been changing over the last couple decades as women (men, too) have recognized the essential oppressiveness of trying to include women under "men" and referring to persons of undesignated sex as "he".

Such concerns are taken seriously by the TNIV. One result, for example, is John 6:35: ". . . Jesus declared, ‘I am the bread of life. Whoever [rather than ‘he who’] comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty."

The Committee notes in its introductory "Word to the Reader" the appropriateness of using "they", "their", and "them" in the singular, citing a "venerable" tradition of the practice. They don’t elaborate, but a curious reader can find verification of this in the Oxford English Dictionary. There, under the three separate entries, they will find evidence of such usage dating back to the 16^th century.

TNIV continues to designate "men" and "women" when those are clearly indicated in the original manuscripts. And even though using inclusive language regarding humankind, the TNIV does not use inclusive (or "expansive" language, as some would term it) it referencing God. It continues to use male-gendered language in referring to God.

Ioudaios

Bruce Malina, a professor of theology at Creighton University, believes he was the first to call attention to "the inadequacy and fundamental incorrectness of translating the Greek ‘Ioudaios’ with the contemporary English, ‘Jew.’" The reason for the inaccuracy, he says, is that the social setting that makes the terms "Jew" and "Jewish" meaningful did not come into existence until after the 4^th century C.E., when Judaism as we know it today began to take shape. Dr. Malina recommends use of the word "Judean", meaning "of or pertaining to Judea." (Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels [with Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Fortress Press, 1992], pp. 168-9). Dr. Malina made this point for several years in scholarly discussions before writing about the issue in a book review in 1988, and since then numerous other scholars have issued the same caution as well (From personal communication with this writer).

The CBT is aware of this issue, noting in its publicity material, "Like many Greek words, ‘Ioudaioi’ has a range of meaning: It can refer to (1) Jewish people in general, (2) to a localized group of Jews, or (3) to Jewish religious authorities."

I perused the Gospel of John with this issue in mind, and was surprised at the number of times "Judean" might have fit as well as, or even better than, "Jew", "Jewish", or "Jewish leader". This is particularly so when the context presents a geographic reference point, along with other geographic references in the Gospel narratives: Galilee, Samaria, and Perea. The TNIV accedes to this possibility in at least one such passage: "Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside. . ." (John 3:22). I was disappointed that the CBT had not done more of its revision along this line.

Christ-Hymns and Fragments

Hymns used in the worship of the earliest Christians have been detected in the pages of the New Testament and may be indicated as poetry. A prime example is Philippians 2:6-11, where believers are encouraged "[to] have the same attitude of mind Christ Jesus had:

that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

Another example is I Timothy 3:16: "Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:

Scholars have noted several more of these "Christ-hymns" or fragments thereof. The two above have been set as poetry in the TNIV, but most are not (John 1:1-5, 10-12, 14, 16; Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews 1:3; I Peter 1:18-21; I Peter 2: (21) 22-25; I Peter 3:18, 22).

Even though some of these Christ-hymns are interspersed with commentary from the writer of the particular gospel or epistle, they might nevertheless have been set as poetry, with the writer’s comments being set as narrative. The Prologue to John (1:1-18) is a prime example. That passage, much loved by many and utilized in most lectionaries as a Christmas reading, rings poetic at points, yet readers are denied seeing the poetry itself. Perhaps it could have been set something like this:

There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.

(John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying :This is he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’")

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

Such treatment would resemble the treatment of the Christ-hymns already quoted, and to the quotations and running commentary of the Letter to the Hebrews. One wonders at this uneven treatment.

Time-keeping in the Gospel of John

R.V.G. Tasker, in his commentary on John in the Tyndale Bible Commentaries series (Eerdmans, 1960), suggests that John utilized a manner of reckoning time that was in use in Asia Minor (reckoning from midnight to noon and from noon to midnight), rather than that used in Jewish custom and utilized in the other Gospels (reckoning from sunrise and from sunset). The time references in John are at 1:39, 4:6, 4:52, and 19:14. It was at the "sixth hour" (KJV) when Jesus conversed about living water with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well near Sychar (4:6). Many, if not all, contemporary translations flatly state that this was noon, as does TNIV, with no footnote suggesting otherwise. If Tasker’s surmise is correct, it would be early evening. Satoko Yamaguchi unwittingly lends plausibility to Tasker’s thesis in Mary and Martha: Women in the World of Jesus (Orbis Books, 2002). She tells us that it was the custom of that day, at least among peasant farmers, to eat only two meals a day, morning and evening, adding weight to the notion of an evening encounter, when Jesus and his disciples were tired and hungry. (Yamaguchi, herself, does not catch this, for she, too, accepts the assumption that this was a noon-time encounter.) "Most people ate two daily meals," says Yamaguchi. "The evening meal, eaten at twilight, was the main meal of the day. . ." (p. 19).

This matter of time becomes more significant when one reads the respective Passion narratives in John and Mark, the other Gospel writer who keeps time, and tries to determine the hour at which Jesus died. Mark 15:25 records that Jesus was nailed to the cross at "nine in the morning" (TNIV; King James Version: "the third hour"); John 19:14 records that Pilate rendered judgment at "about noon" (TNIV; "the sixth hour", KJV), an obvious discrepancy for TNIV readers since the judgment preceded the crucifixion.

R.V.G. Tasker proposed that the judgment was around 6:00 a.m. and the crucifixion around 9:00 a.m., eliminating the discrepancy. If the Romans had a practice of dividing the day into sixteen 90-minute periods, beginning at midnight, as Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase & Fable states (1981 edition; entry under "cock-crow"), and that is the context for John, then the sixth "hour" in John for the judgment, from 7:30 to 9:00 a.m., would synchronize precisely with Mark’s chronology for the crucifixion ("third hour", "9:00 in the morning"). While the Gospels may have divergent views on precisely which day Jesus was crucified, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they don’t have convergent views as to the time of day.

Speaking of "cock-crow" raises the question of why, if time-keeping is being simplified, Jesus’ prediction, in all four Gospels, of Peter’s denial of Jesus "before the cock crows" isn’t noted as a possible time indicator as well. Thus, the translation of John 13:38 might read, "Very truly I tell you, before sunrise you will disown me three times!", with a footnote indicating the literal phrase.

For anyone like me who takes Bible study seriously but cannot read the texts in their original languages, these simplifications are a hindrance rather than a help. Certainly the placement of footnotes indicating the literal readings would be warranted.

Clobber Passages

Two New Testament passages typically cited to demonstrate that the Bible condemns homosexual activity are I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10. The first editions of the NIV (1973, 1984) translated these, respectively, as "homosexual offenders" and "perverts". TNIV has revised those to read "practicing homosexuals" and "those practicing homosexuality". The King James renders them, respectively, "abusers of themselves with mankind" and "them that defile themselves with mankind." The term used is rare, perhaps even a neologism. It proscribes specific conduct.

In his compendious work, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon Press, 2001, pp. 300-1), New Testament professor Robert A.J. Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, notes that in these two references (I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1:10) "Paul focused only on male homosexual activity".

Translating as they have, CBT has committed two errors:

In brief, the Committee has been both overly inclusive and overly exclusive. It has written in females under a proscription that does not apply to them and has written out heterosexual males to whom it does apply. The translations here are simply untenable and reveal a heterosexist bias.

Summary

Evangelicals should have a Bible translation they can trust, and one that breaks free of the sexism of the past. Even with its faults Today’s New International Version will fill the bill for many. This is a good translation for the most part. As with any translation it has some shortcomings, even errors. Under those circumstances, it’s hard to know how to rate a book, so I will leave it unrated.

Committee on Bible Translation

International Bible Society

Dr. Ronald F. Youngblood
Chairman of the Board of Directors, International Bible Society
Bethel Seminary San Diego, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament and Hebrew
Denominational Affiliation: Baptist General Conference