I got an e-mail from Stacy Harp whose media empire includes mediasoul and einvolved.org. She’s always out in front on a lot of important issues, and both her sites are worth checking out.

She sent me an e-mail about the TNIV, which for those of you who aren’t in the loop, is Zondervan’s “Today’s New International Version of the Bible”. It’s generated a fair amount of controversey since the idea first emerged in 1997. Stacy picked up on an article in USA Today that reports that the complete TNIV translation will be out next month. A number of people aren’t happy with the translation.

But first, the backstory …

The controversey began back in 1997 when Zondervan first announced plans to publish a complete revision of its popular NIV translation of the Bible. The actual work of translation falls to the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), which produced the original NIV and the major revision that was released in 1984. CBT is an independent group of scholars and linguists that has existed since 1965. CBT is sponsored by by the International Bible Society (IBT), which is a non-profit organization tasked to faithfully translate and reach out with God’s Word. The copyright for the NIV is held by the International Bible Society (IBS). Zondervan licenses the NIV from the IBT to publish various products that are then distributed to stores.

In March of 1997, World Magazine published an article entitled “Stealth Bible” (which I can’t seem to locate a link to), in which it charged that the CBT had been co-opted by liberals and feminists and was planning to release an inclusive language version of the NIV. In fact, an inclusive language had already been released in Great Britain in 1996. This ignited a very public spat between World Magazine and Zondervan. Charges of unethical journalism were hurled at World by Zondervan.

By May of that year, Focus on the Family and the Southern Baptist Convention both began to flex their muscles, demanding that Zondervan and the IBS abandon their plans for an inclusive language NIV or lose the business of both organizations. This was a major threat since both Focus and the Southern Baptists publish a lot of material that uses the NIV translation. Dobson also gathered a number of evangelical leaders and scholars to oppose the inclusive language translation on theological grounds. Using his media power, Dobson began a powerful lobbying campaign to shutdown the CBT’s work on the new translation, the IBS’s sponsorship of the effort, and Zondervan’s publishing plans.

At the time, Dobson brought leaders from IBS and Zondervan to the Focus headquarters in Colorado Springs, along with Wayne Grudem of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and a number of others, and got them to agree to “Guidelines for Translation of Gender-Related Language in Scripture.” Absent from the list of signees is any official representative from CBT. Two members did sign on, but there was never an official agreement from CBT. Instead, Zondervan and IBS put out a press release agreeing to not pursue an inclusive lanuage version of the NIV. They essentially reaffirmed their commitment to the 1984 revision of the NIV, which would continue to be printed and promoted as the NIV.

No one seemed to tell CBT to stop their work, as they quietly continued developing an inclusive language translation. In early 2002, IBS announced that CBT had completed work on a new version of the New Testament, called the TNIV — Today’s New International Version. It would be published by Zondervan.

Of course, this infuriated Dobson and his cabal of inclusive language opponents, because they felt it violated the spirit of the 1997 agreement in Colorado Springs. To that, Ronald Youngblood, a CBT member and chairman of the IBS board at the time, told Christianity Today, “The purpose of CBT is to translate the Bible into contemporary language … We are not catering to any group. We do not have any kind of social agenda.”

The public relations battle raged anew, with Dobson, Grudem, R.C. Sproul, Al Mohler and a number of other scholars and leaders using their bully pulpits to rally the faithful against the grand feminist conspiracy behind the TNIV.

The only problem is that there IS no grand feminist conspiracy, liberal conspiracy, politically correct conspiracy, or any other kind of conspiracy.

The translators of the TNIV are all mainstream evangelical scholars with no political axes to grind. From the CBT website:

Dr. Ronald Youngblood, retired professor of of Old Testament and Hebrew at Bethel Theological Seminary in San Diego for 40 years.

Dr. Kenneth Barker, holds a ThM from Dallas Theological Seminary and a PhD from the Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning. He has served as Academic Dean of Capital Bible Seminary, Professor of Old Testament at three theological seminaries, and Visiting Professor at two others.

Dr. Larry Walker, holds a PhD from Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning. He has taught Hebrew and other ancient languages (such as Aramaic, Akkadian, and Ugaritic) at the seminary level for 30 years. Although retired, he currently is a Visiting Professor at Beeson Divinity School of Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama.

Professor John H. Stek, retired Professor of Old Testament at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where he continues to teach part-time. He holds a BD degree from Calvin Theological Seminary and a ThM from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; he attended the Divinity School of the University of Chicago and received a Doctoradus degree from the Free University of Amsterdam.

Dr. Donald H. Madvig, retired minister and Professor of Biblical Studies at Bethel Theological Seminary. He holds a PhD from Brandeis University.

Dr. Gordon Fee, Professor of New Testament at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia. He received a PhD in New Testament studies from the University of California. He has taught at Wheaton College and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

Dr. Richard T. France, worked in the 1970s as a lecturer in religious studies at the University of Ife in Nigeria. From 1981 to 1988 he taught at London Bible College in New Testament studies and from 1989 to 1995 he was Principal of Wycliffe Hall at Oxford University. He was a parish minister in England and Wales from 1995 until his retirement in 1999.

Dr. Karen H. Jobes, associate professor of New Testament at Westmont College in Santa Barbara. She holds a PhD in Biblical Hermeneutics from Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia).

Dr. Walter Liefeld, serving this year as Interim President of Tyndale Theological Seminary in the Netherlands, and is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois.

Dr. Douglas Moo, Blanchard Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School.

Dr. Martin Selman, teaches Old Testament at Spurgeon’s College in London, England, where he is now the Deputy Principal. He received his university education at the University of Wales in Cardiff.

Dr. Bruce K. Waltke, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament Studies at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia and Professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando, Florida Campus). He holds a ThD from Dallas Theological Seminary and a PhD from Harvard University. He has also taught at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and Dallas Theological Seminary.

The problem that opponents have with the TNIV is that they just don’t like change. I can appreciate that. The NIV has been a perfectly acceptable translation for a long time. People especially don’t like it when you make changes to the Bible.

What most people don’t understand is that the NIV — or the KJV, the RSV, the NASB — or any other translation is just that — a translation. It’s the best efforts of a translator or team of translators to represent an idea or concept in the English language of the modern day from an original text that was written in Greek or Hebrew thousands of years ago. Not to mention that there isn’t just one text. There are a number of fragments, none of which are even the originals.

This business of Bible translation is a tough task for a number of reasons. Chief among them is that launguage changes. Americans write and speak differently today than they did 200 years ago, 500 years ago, or even longer. The meanings of words change as does the usage of those words.

There are two basic strategies for translating the Bible. The first is what’s called formal equivalence, in which the translator attempts to find a target language word that most closely aligns with each manuscript word in the most unambiguous sense. The end result is usually a painstakingly crafted translation with long, hard to read sentences, that accurately capture the grammar and structure of the original text. This kind of translation is evident in the KJV and RSV translations. The downside of this kind of translation is that it’s hard to read and often hard to understand. While it may capture the precise language of the author as best it can be represented in modern English, it often fails to adequately transmit the idea being expressed in the passge.

The flipside is a strategy called dynamic equivalence, which holds that biblical translations should have the same dynamic impact on modern readers as the original conveyed to its first audience. If formal equivalence aims to produce a “word for word” translation, dynamic equivalence aims for a “thought for thought” translation. This often means using alternate receptor words to hopefully produce the original impact or dynamics to the modern reader. This remains difficult because historical and cultural differences usually need explaining, and objective, non-assuming interpretation is a very delicate process. The end result is usually a very readable text that attempts to get across the ideas of the original author, while using words and structures that may seem more appropriate for the modern reader. Of course, this often means that new meanings, not in the original text, may arise from the translator’s attempts to express the ideas. It also means that delicate analogies or concepts get mangled in the effort to get overall idea across the reader.

There are several other translation strategies that have gained popularity in recent years, most notable the paraphrase method and the thematic method. The quick acceptance of Eugene Peterson’s The Message goes to show that we’re comfortable with translators taking liberties with the text when it serves a purpose.

So … back to the TNIV. The fact remains that the NIV was never a formal equivalence translation. It’s always been more dynamic. As a result, it’s going to make compromises in an effort to get ideas across. It’s always done that. Even before the evil feminists and liberals came on the scene. The CBT translators are doing their best to capture the meaning of the text for the modern readers. Increasingly, that means using language that may at one time have seemed uncomfortable or inaccurate, but today resonates with meaning for the reader.

I have no problem if James Dobson or anyone else doesn’t want to use the TNIV for Bible study or devotional reading. He’s free to use any version he wants. In fact I’d encourage everyone to own several translations of the Bible and to use them all.

I just wish opponents of the TNIV would stop trying to assign motives to a cause that is clearly doing the hard task of translating an ancient text into modern language.