However, I have slowly changed my opinion on biblical translation—against my will, to be downright honest—and I have opted to use the New International Version. I needed to use something else. Consider this chart that compares the reading grade levels of different translations from Christianbook.com:
My beloved ESV is at a 10th grade reading level. What's wrong with that? Many Americans have 7th-8th grade reading level skills. Ouch. The Bible—without dumbing it down—is meant to be understood.
|Boyce W. Blackwelder|
Dr. Blackwelder believed that accurate translation didn't require a strict word-for-word method of translating but, rather, to express the thoughts/idioms of the Greek (donor language) in an accurate English expression (receptor language).
As he explains in Gospels:
This is an exegetical translation—not a paraphrase. The aim of biblical exegetics is to make as clear as possible the means of the scriptural text...[t]hus an interpreter tries to discover what each statement meant to the original writer and render it accurately into the language at hand.
It is impossible in every instance, to translate the same Greek word by the same English word. Translation is more than a mere word-for-word rendering of one language into another language. Transferring the idiom characteristic of the Greek into the corresponding idiom characteristic of contemporary English becomes a challenging task. (pg. 8)
For example, consider a traditional rendering in a portion of The Lord's Prayer:
Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name. (Mat 6.9b)
Hallowed be thy name. (Mat 6.9b)
Contrast it with Blackwelder's rendering:
Our Father who art in heaven,
May Thy name be held in reverence. (Mat 6.9b)
May Thy name be held in reverence. (Mat 6.9b)
You see, to seek that God's name be hallowed is to seek that his name be held in reverence. Which rendering is more word-for-word? The King James' rendering. Which rendering is clearer for a 21st century audience? I believe it's Blackwelder's. (All one has to do is read Blackwelder's translations of the gospels and letters of Paul to see the latitude the Church of God scholar allowed himself in expressing the New Testament language in crisp contemporary English of his day.)
The New Testament Greek employed by the biblical writers was Hellenistic koinē (i.e. "common") Greek. That is to say, it wasn't the literary Attic Greek of earlier writers. And, in fact, vernacular [spoken] biblical Greek is simpler than a literary [written] Koine of the era. As Blackwelder explains in Light:
Another category of material of the Graeco-Roman world which is an important source of light for New Testament studies is the literary Koine. There are two types of Koine, the literary Koine which is represented by extrabiblical literature, by most of the inscriptions, and by a few papyri; and the vernacular Koine which is represented by most of the papyri and ostraca, by a few inscriptions, and by nearly all biblical Greek.
It is not difficult to understand why there were two basic varieties within the Koine. Though no literary speech develops independently from the vernacular, yet spoken language is never identical with the literary style. The old Attic of Athens had a vernacular and a literary style that differed from each other, and such a distinction characterized the Koine from its beginning.
"There was formal literary effort of considerable extent during the Koine period." The forms of the literary Koine more nearly approached the classical nature of the Attic than do those of the New Testament. The Koine literati sought elegance of expression while trying to avoid pedantry. The literary Koine occupies an intermediate position between the vernacular Koine and the older classical form of the language. (pgs. 24-25)Put another way, the Bible's Greek was written in the easy-to-understand everyday Greek that people spoke in day to day life. Why did the Koine emerge from the formal Attic Greek vernacular dialect? It had to do with war. Blackwelder helps us understand in Light:
In the latter part of the fourth century B.C., the forces of Alexander the Great conquered the Medo-Persian Empire, bringing the language of the victors into the ascendancy throughout the then-known world. "Remaining as armies of occupation, and settling amongst the conquered peoples, they popularized the language, simplifying its grammatical and syntactical structure." (pgs. 18-19)The New Testament is beautiful but doesn't try to sound beautiful, if you will. But neither was it sloppy speech. In Light:
Although the new Testament writers were not Atticists, neither were they "mere purveyors of slang and vulgarisms." [A. T.] Robertson reminds us that Paul was a man of culture as well as a man of the people, and says, "The New Testament uses the language of the people, but with a dignity, restraint and pathos far beyond the trivial nonentities in much of the papyri remains." "The New Testament is mainly in the vernacular Koine, but it is the vernacular of men of great ability" and reflects definite literary elements especially in the writings of Luke, the letters of Paul, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. But above all, the New Testament is the language of spirit and life. (pg. 25)This, I think, makes a strong case for the NIV. It is accessible yet dignified.
***Many people have an NIV that was copyrighted in 1984. My pulpit Bible is a revision of this text that was copyrighted in 2011. ALL of the NIV Bibles sold today are the 2011 edition.***
Why change? Blackwelder put it well in Light:
There is a need, from time to time, for new translations of the Scriptures because all languages change and every generation needs a clear, accurate rendition of the Book of books. Certain English words do not mean what they did a few hundred years ago; hence the proper ones must be substituted in order to express in contemporary thought the meaning of the original text." (pgs. 16-17)Some words don't need hundreds of years but merely years, perhaps a decade or two. For example, people today use "them" instead of the third person singular "him." While I find it ugly English I have to work with the English that is rather than the English I wish were in usage. As the videos below demonstrate, the general public—already barely literate—don't see "him" as a generic that means "him or her." They see it as a masculine pronoun for, well, a male. [For more information, start Dr. Moo's video at the 21:45 minute mark and the second video at the 31:15 minute mark.]
Notice carefully Blackwelder's words, "every generation needs a clear, accurate rendition of the Book of books." Every generation. The daunting task of translating the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek of the Bible into clear English is neverending. We must not ask ourselves merely, "What version do I prefer?" but, also, "What speaks accurately and clearly to this generation?"
The NIV 2011 is written on the 7th-8th grade level; it is fresh yet restrained compared to the NLT or other translations and/or paraphrases on the market. It uses contemporary English that people currently are speaking. No translation is perfect but, overall, if one is going to go this route and listen to Blackwelder then the NIV seems to me to be a sane choice. If I want to win the lost I don't want my pulpit Bible to be an unnecessary hurdle they need to jump to understand. The gospel and cross of our Lord Jesus Christ is "foolishness to the Greek" and a "stumbling-block to the Jew" enough.
Consider these videos which drive home the arguments that helped persuade me to turn to the NIV. The first video is by Dr. Douglass Moo, a highly influential evangelical scholar who sits on the NIV's Committee on Biblical Translation: