By Mark S. Krause
Last week we looked at numbers eight through five on the list of top-selling English Bibles. The article included a survey of the presuppositions behind the translations, and their audiences. This week we will look at the top four. As before, we will compare the treatment of Psalm 8:4 and Matthew 16:18 in each version reviewed (see bottom for fuller explanation of our test verses).
4. New Living Translation
The New Living Translation (NLT) first appeared in 1996 with a substantial update in 2007. Its roots can be traced to Kenneth Taylor”s The Living Bible (TLB). Taylor was the founder of Tyndale House Publishers, originally created to publish his TLB. Recently, this company has been very successful through sales of the Left Behind series and other popular books, and desired to pour some of these profits back into ministries of various types. One of these was the decision to do a new version of TLB.
The resources of Tyndale House allowed for the assembling of a top-flight translation team, including many of the finest Evangelical scholars in the world. Quickly, this project morphed from being a revision of TLB into a full-scale fresh translation based on the original language texts, but with an attempt to retain the vibrancy of TLB.
The translation team embraced the dynamic equivalency translation theory with open arms, wanting to be “both exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful.” In practice, however, this seems to mean that the NLT neutralizes many of the idioms and metaphors of the Bible, giving simple statements based on interpretations of the text. This may be a noble goal, but sometimes it seems to go too far.
Consider the grand declaration of Jesus in John 8:58, “Before Abraham was, I am” (King James Version). The NLT gives, “I existed before Abraham was even born!” (1996) and “Before Abraham was even born, I Am” (2007). OK, that translation gets part of it, but Jesus is not saying, “Before Abraham was, I was.” He is claiming the divine, “I am” name of God in a powerful way that resists being put in the translation box that the NLT wants to give it.
Another example can be found at Acts 2:38, a verse near and dear to Christian church folk. Where the KJV has “Repent and be baptized every one of you,” the NLT has “Each of you must turn from your sins and turn to God, and be baptized” (1996) and/or “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized” (2007). I guess the translation committee figured that readers would not know what it means to repent, so the work is done for the reader with a brief explanation of repent.
In our test verses, we can observe two things about the NLT. First, it has a strong commitment to gender-neutral language. Psalm 8:4″s “What is man?” becomes “What are mortals?” in the NLT (1996), and the parallel phrase, “[What is] the son of man?” (KJV) becomes “mere humans.” The NLT is consistent in a gender-neutral approach throughout the Bible.
In Matthew 16:18, the 1996 NLT rendered the Peter/rock section in terms that are nearly identical to the KJV with updated grammar. In 2007, however, the NLT committee changed this to say, “that you are Peter (which means “˜rock”) and upon this rock I will build my church.” We are given a parenthetical note to indicate the translators believe the rock is Peter. The NLT, disappointingly to me, gives the KJV“s “gates of hell” as the “powers of hell” in both the 1996 and the 2007 versions, although including a footnote indicating the Greek is “the gates of Hades.”
This said, we should recognize that the NLT presents the Bible in a way that non-Christians and new believers seem to readily understand. It reads well in public, so I have used the NLT for teaching and preaching with good response. I have also given away my copy to inquirers several times. They seem to take to it readily, even eagerly. I think it will have a growing audience, especially if the translation committee remains active and continues to refine it. I”m not sure it is my favorite translation, but it is close.
3. New King James Version
The New King James Version (NKJV) translation was the brainchild of Arthur Farstad of Dallas (Texas) Theological Seminary. Farstad and his coworkers claimed their work was an update to the “vocabulary, punctuation, and grammar” of the 1611 KJV. Two things were not updated: the “thought flow” of the KJV and the original language texts behind the 1611 translation. Therefore, although a great majority of New Testament scholars (including some of the most conservative ones in the world) believes the Greek text of the New Testament available in 1611 is inferior to what we now have, the NKJV folks chose to use it.
Why is this? The answer is complex, but the short version seems to be a love and respect for the KJV that was so strong the NKJV translators did not want to depart from the KJV“s Greek text. That being said, just as there are Christians who love the 400-year old KJV, there are those who have accepted the NKJV and use it with great profit and zeal. God”s Word is powerful enough to transcend the shortcomings of any translator, and this is true for all of the Bibles discussed in these articles. We are wrong to dismiss the NKJV too quickly because the verses in question are few in number, and there are many positive things to recommend this translation.
The NKJV began in the 1970s, the era in which the new translation theory of dynamic equivalence was first being employed. The NKJV committee rejected dynamic equivalence emphatically. They called their theory “complete equivalence,” which is what we have called “formal correspondence,” a word-for-word translation approach. Those familiar with the language of the KJV will quickly notice that the NKJV has dropped archaic English forms such as “thee” in pronouns and verbal endings such as “eth” and “est.” In other ways, the NKJV retains an older flavor in its readings, sometimes even keeping the “Behold!” expression used by the 1611 translators.
We can see this at Psalm 8:4. The NKJV has only changed two words in this verse. The KJV“s “thou” becomes “You,” and “visitest” becomes “visit.” There is no concern to update the male referents “man” and “son of man” to something more inclusive. At Matthew 16:18 there is a surprise for us. The “Peter” and “rock” part of this verse is an update of the KJV, wisely leaving the identity of the rock to be interpreted by the reader, but the KJV“s “gates of hell” is now “gates of Hades” in the NKJV. This is a positive move!
The position of the NKJV on the list of best-selling Bibles shows that it has found more than a niche position in the marketplace. Now nearly 30 years old, it has proved to be durable and popular. We can expect that the NKJV will remain so for many years, because it is now moving into a second generation of readers. In other words, if someone says, “I”m going to use the Bible my momma used,” it might be the NKJV.
2. King James Version
What more to say about the King James Version? You either love it and don”t understand why anyone would need another translation, or you dismiss it as archaic and needing to be put out to pasture. It was published long before anyone thought of gender-neutral language or dynamic equivalence translation theory, so it would be unfair to use these categories in looking at it. I think it still has a place, and will retain a large market share for many years to come. I especially like using it for a Christmas Eve service when we do quote familiar Scriptures to retell the Nativity story.
1. New International Version
Finally, we come to the Goliath of Bible translation sales, the New International Version (NIV), estimated to represent one-third to one-half of all Bible sales worldwide. This has become a family of translations, including the Today”s New International Version (TNIV) and the New International Reader”s Version (NIRV). The NIRV was published in the 1990s to serve an audience with lower-level English skills, particularly those for whom English was a second language. It is targeted at a fourth-grade reading level and has a limited vocabulary and shorter sentences than the NIV. The TNIV“s New Testament section came out in 2002 and was both hailed and vilified for its use of gender-neutral language.
The NIV itself began as a project by conservative Evangelicals to produce a translation that would be more usable than the KJV while avoiding the perceived errors of the RSV (where have we heard that before?). It was a big project, and the term “International” reflects participation of scholars from the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. This included Lewis Foster (Cincinnati [Ohio] Bible Seminary) from the Christian churches and Jack Lewis (Harding Graduate School, Memphis, Tennessee) from the noninstrumental churches of Christ. Its translation committee list reads like an all-star roster of some of the greatest Evangelical scholars of the 20th century. The entire Bible of the NIV was first published in 1978 with a revision in 1984. It has now been revised again and that version became available online in November 2010, with print editions published this year.
From the beginning, the NIV workers did not see themselves as doing a revision of the KJV or the Revised Standard Version. They wanted a completely new translation based on the original language texts. They chose to use the new editions of the Greek New Testament rather than the text followed by the KJV and the NKJV. This may seem like tame stuff now, but these were courageous moves in the 1960s when the project was hatched.
The NIV committee has stated that it follows a “word-for-word” translation philosophy, but it would be wrong to see this as formal correspondence as used by the New American Standard Bible. The NIV has been labeled as a dynamic equivalence translation, but I think that is also the wrong label. It seems to fall somewhere between the two, accounting for all the words, but exercising freedom to move to a thought-for-thought translation when deemed appropriate by the translators.
The NIV“s 2011 revision follows the TNIV in using gender-neutral language in many places. For example, Matthew 25:40 has “the least of these my brethren” in the KJV, “the least of these brothers of mine” in the NIV (1984), but “the least of these brothers and sisters of mine” in the NIV (2011). For Genesis 4:26, the KJV reads, “Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord,” the NIV (1984) has “men began to call on the name of the Lord,” but the most recent NIV has “people began to call on the name of the Lord.”
This gender-neutral philosophy is evident with our first test verse, where the updated NIV reads, “What is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?” The male-referring terms are made genderless (although some would still object to “mankind” as gender specific), and the singular pronoun (“him”) is made plural (“them”). This is a marked departure from the NIV (1984) reading, “What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?”
The NIV people have always relied on footnotes to help the reader navigate. This is seen in our other test verse, Matthew 16:18. The earlier NIV editions had “gates of Hades,” but footnoted this as “or hell.” The updated NIV does not accommodate the understanding that has Jesus referring to the forces of Satan. It also reads “gates of Hades,” but footnotes this as, “That is, the realm of the dead.” Bravo! I could not ask for more. The NIV (2011) also avoids language that makes Peter the “rock” (or not).
Of course, it remains to be seen if the newest NIV will enjoy the popularity of its predecessors. The earlier, gender-neutral TNIV was lambasted by many conservatives and never replaced its 1978/84 ancestor. It has been announced that publication of the TNIV will cease with the release of print editions of the NIV (2011). The NIV (1984) will still be available for now, because there are many sitting on various booksellers” shelves. I don”t know how long those who spurn the NIV (2011) will continue to have the option of buying a NIV (1984). Because publishing powerhouse Zondervan controls most of the NIV“s distribution, we will continue to see strong marketing strategies employed to keep its sales numbers up.
If, five years from now, the NIV (2011) is being purchased, preached, and read, it will be a success and will probably be the dominant translation of the first half of the 21st century. If, however, the backlash from the TNIV is extended to the NIV (2011), it may allow one of the other translations on our list (English Standard Version? Holman Christian Standard Bible?) to overtake the NIV in sales and usage.
Conclusion
In the end, English speakers have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to translations. No one knows how many English Bibles are even available because earlier translations that are out of print may be found online. I am regularly asked to give an opinion on a translation that I have never heard of before, this despite my attempts to keep abreast of this situation. I would conservatively estimate there are more than 100 English translations of at least the New Testament available in some form.
Which is the best for you? You probably won”t go wrong with any of the eight we have reviewed here, but please remember that translators are men and women just as you and I, and are susceptible to mistakes. We had inspired authors for our Bible, but we do not have inspired translators. No one can stop English from changing, so English translations of God”s timeless Word will always need updating.
Mark S. Krause is academic dean and professor of biblical studies at Nebraska Christian College in Papillion, Nebraska. He is also a regular contributor to Standard Publishing”s Standard Lesson Commentary.
________
About Our Two Test Verses
Psalm 8:4 is well-known for its ringing question, “What is man?” (King James Version). This is followed by a second question, “And the son of man?” Although we may be tempted to see these as separate questions, the nature of Hebrew poetry parallelism is such that they are the same question being asked twice. The verse thus presents this issue: how will the translators handle the gender issue? “Man” as given in the KJV is not intended to be males only.
Matthew 16:16-18 includes some of the Lord”s comments after Peter”s grand confession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” There are two interpretive issues in this verse. When Jesus says, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,” there is a play on words in Greek between the name “Peter” (petros) and the word “rock” (petra). How will this be translated to retain the author”s intent? Some believe the rock upon which the church is built is Peter himself, but others have seen it to be the earlier confession of Peter, that Jesus is the Christ. Second, Jesus says the “gates of hell” would not prevail against it (his church). This has been commonly understood as a reference to the power of Satan, the prince of Hell, but there are two problems with this interpretation. First, the idea that Satan is the king of Hell is not found in the Bible, which instead presents him as one of the denizens of this realm of punishment. Second, the Greek text does not say, “gates of hell,” but “gates of Hades.” Hades is the realm of the dead in biblical thought, not necessarily the place of punishment in the afterlife. The intended meaning of “gates of Hades” is something like the “power of death.” Jesus” words serve as a type of prophecy that even his death (and the deaths of his disciples) would not vanquish the church.
0 Comments