UPDATED ( This is a result of a comment from Elshaddai Edwards):
When I read stuff like the following, I have to wonder:
Biblica Announces First Update in
Quarter Century of the World’s Most Popular Bible
CBT to Update New International Version (NIV) for 2011
But get this:
The TNIV, Today’s New International Version, is a thoroughly accurate, fully trustworthy Bible text built on the rich heritage of the New International Version. In fact, this contemporary language edition incorporates the continuing work of the translators of the NIV have done since its last update in 1984…
The result is a Bible text that reflects the NIV, but also clarifies and updates passages and words to provide a more timely, contemporary English rendition for a new generation of Bible readers. full article…
Elshaddai said:
It’s marketing, TC – note that they *never* explicitly called the TNIV an *update* of the NIV. It “incorporates” and “reflects” and is “built on”, but is NOT an update. It was a new version for a non-traditional audience. And it failed from a business perspective.
From my TNIV Thinline, Large Print ( Copyright 2005 by Zondervan Corporation)
A Word To The Reader
Today’s New International Version (TNIV) is a revision of the New International Version.
Zondervan and Biblica do not even want to admit that the TNIV was a revision of the NIV. But I’m glad they couldn’t doctor my hard-copy.
This duplicity is killing me!
It’s marketing, TC – note that they *never* explicitly called the TNIV an *update* of the NIV. It “incorporates” and “reflects” and is “built on”, but is NOT an update. It was a new version for a non-traditional audience. And it failed from a business perspective.
I would expect TNIV fans to be disappointed in the rollbacks (from their perspective) of the 2011 update. On the other hand, NIV users will be very comfortable with the new refreshed text (that TNIV users have already enjoyed). That’s just my opinion.
It is funny, I never used the NIV – My first Bible was an RSV and then I used a NKJV – Whenever I read the NIV it just didn’t sound right. Then the TNIV came along and all of a sudden I began to really like it.
I am with you TC – Why were we fooled?
El – I wish I had included the updated portion before your comment.
They should have been straight up about the TNIV – a failed attempt at updating the NIV. Perception, though.
Mark – the updated portion removes all doubts.
I agree with ESE, it’s marketing. Now everyone who has either an NIV or TNIV – which I now have both – will have to buy the next generation NIV…I don’t guess they have to, but they will.
Well – it’s fair enough to point out the differences in the language that the PR/Marketing dept is using now vs. then. Just keep in mind that word smoothing is what these folks do as a profession and that press releases are *not* the Word of God.
But it doesn’t seem like they’re doing a good job at their profession: “Biblica announces First Update…” against – “Today’s New International Version (TNIV) is a revision of the New International Version.”
Plus, a lot more is said to convince the reader that the TNIV was an actual update of the NIV.
Peter, but why call the 2011 NIV the “first update” when that is really not the case?
Ok, still marketing.
Haven’t been a fan of NIV for many years and I have never actually read TNIV, and I disliked when my pastor used the NLT on Sundays (so you can imagine I read the ESV!)
Read an interesting article this morning where Al Mohler responded to the news.
Doesn’t seem he has much hope for the updated NIV:
“Behind the most recent controversies there remains the larger question of translation philosophy, often conceptualized in the distinction between more formal translations and translations that are more dynamic. Even as I recognize a spectrum between formal and dynamic approaches, my strong preference, based in theological and biblical considerations, is for a translation that is committed to formal equivalence as the primary goal.”
TC, you’re just mad because they paid you to be a shill (obviously!) and then they turned on you and you’re out of a job.
Jeff
(kidding)
I agree with the other Peter that the issue we are discussing here is all just marketing, and not all of it very competent. But from the perspective of the translators, the CBT, and on the basis of the actual text, there is just a continuing and steadily evolving series of translations or editions: NIV (1st edition) – NIV (1984) – NIV-I – TNIV – 2011 NIV update.
Jeff,
I’ll get over this madness of mine in a few days. They should have just been straight up.
Peter K,
Yeah, it’s also my impression that this 2011 Text is going to resemble the TNIV a whole lot.
But saying that 2011 is the “first update of the NIV” is just plain wrong. That’s not the case.
But marketing…
But, see, the whole blogosphere is abuzz…except my blog, lest Jeff call ME a shill.
Peter M, I think he really wants to call you a coward.
But you’re right about the buzz thing.
Bitsy, I’m with you. I feel betrayed and don’t know why others don’t.
Kevin, I don’t mind the move, but they should have been straight up.
Pingback: Why Did I Ever Buy Into the TNIV?
Zondervan and Biblica do not even want to admit that the TNIV was a revision of the NIV. But I’m glad they couldn’t doctor my hard-copy.
Yeah, I noticed that last night in mine, so I think it’s obvious who the “coward(s)” is/are.
Pingback: Zondervan will discontinue putting out new products with the TNIV | Scripture Zealot
Did you know that the TNIV is missing an important word, and that missing word makes Jesus into a liar? Check out this short video to see for
yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7oWuQbgmjY
Um, the ESV treats John 7:8 in exactly the same way. It footnotes the word yet. I don’t see any difference between the ESV and the TNIV on this one.
David Daniels,
Why have picked out the TNIV for this criticism, when it applies equally well to the ESV. Why didn’t you come to this blog and ask us to view your video clip explaining how the ESV makes Jesus into a liar?
The NASB does not even offer a footnote. I hope you have petitioned to have the NASB withdrawn from circulation.
Oh, the Darby translation as well. We must also do away with that. Where will it stop?
DW, thanks for giving your credentials. I have also studied linguistics with SIL, and have a masters in theology. Your opinion on John 7:8 is now well known because you have plastered it in an almost spam-like manner on very many posts on this subject – not a way to win friends!
I don’t see why the omnipresent God should be expected to choose just one place to preserve his word, let alone why that one placed should not be St Catherine’s monastery in Sinai (and now the British Library), where the reading without “yet” has been preserved in Codex Sinaiticus.
But let’s look at this one textual issue, using the UBS 4th edition Greek New Testament. This is a case where the large majority of manuscripts has the reading with “yet”, including the very earliest (P66) and Vaticanus (Alexandrinus seems to be missing this verse). Of the older Greek manuscripts only Sinaiticus and the Western text of D omit “yet”.
This kind of evidence would usually lead to a decision to include “yet”. However, the textual critics omitted “yet”, with a C reading indicating that “the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text”. I guess that the reason for their choice was that it is hard to explain a change from “not yet” (oupo) to “not” (ouk), but easier to explain that the reverse change was made deliberately for precisely the reasons you put forward, to avoid any suggestion that Jesus was lying. I admit that I am not convinced by this argument, as the reading without “yet” could very well be a copyist’s accidental error.
I would suggest that the CBT might well consider reintroducing “yet” if the right argument for this change is presented to them, for example through Wayne Leman’s revision suggestions website. But this change would have to be presented in the kind of language which the CBT would consider, not “that missing word makes Jesus into a liar” and not with a link to a KJV-only video or a discussion of where God’s word might have been preserved, but with a reasoned argument from the text critical evidence for this particular passage. Think what kinds of arguments would have given you good grades at Fuller and use that approach.
Actually I will put this suggestion on Wayne’s site myself.
Try to keep up on the newest textual developments.
And I believe that God, who made a firm promise to preserve His words, recorded in no less than three gospels through the Lord Jesus Himself (Mt 24:35; Mr 13:31; Lu 21:33), kept His promise. The question that remains is “*Where* did God preserve His words?” I believe that in order to keep His promise, the general flow of history records that preservation. And that leaves only two general choices for a starting point: the texts originating in Antioch of Syria or in Alexandria, Egypt. Once that choice is made, I believe everything else proceeds logically from that starting point.
I hope that helps answer your question.
What is your linguistic background, TC?
DWD,
Thank you. Very well then. Fair enough. But you still haven’t answered my question: Are you King James Version Only (KJVO)?
Regarding my credentials, I sat under two profs, one earned his PhD in Classics from Vanderbilt, while the other from Harvard Divinity in New Testament, for my studies in NT Greek.
But I’ve learned a whole lot in blogosphere, esp. from the guys at Better Bibles.
What rollbacks? I will be very disappointed if there are any significant rollbacks. I will also be very surprised. See my new post for my reasons.
Peter – I only meant that any change or reversion from the TNIV text to the NIV’84 would be perceived as a “rollback”. I am not expecting the NIV’11 to be 100% TNIV…
ElShaddai, I’m not expecting 100% TNIV either, but I am expecting only a rather few actual reversions to NIV 1984.
I appreciated your post, Peter — it is good to have an optimistic reaction to the situation. There’s a lot of good in the TNIV and hopefully the market will realize that it’s not just about gender-related wording.
I will be *very* curious to see what the final revision looks like and how my conservative evangelical church reacts to it.
[...] my conservative evangelical NIV church [...]
Brad,
As well-intentioned as he is, Dr. Mohler is no authority on Bible translation
I don’t know that I will buy the 2011 update just out of principle. *sigh*
Bitsy, they just had to be straight and say TNIV as a revision of the NIV was a sales failure.
But trying to say that the TNIV wasn’t a revision of the NIV and that 2011 is the “first update…,” is not acceptable. My take.
Bitsy, I’m with you. I feel betrayed and don’t know why others don’t.
Yes, and confused marketing. I don’t endorse Zondervan’s or Biblica’s marketing strategy. But I do have confidence in their translation strategy.
Yes, to say that the new NIV 2011 will be the first update is still dishonest. I don’t think there is any way around this but to admit that the TNIV was an update and suck it up.
Peter M, there you go!
DWD,
I viewed the video. Are you KJVO? What’s your linguistic background? What are your credentials to say these things on Bible translations?
Do you realize that it was a ms decision?
If you’re KJVO, you’ll not experience much charity around here – well, at least from me.
Your video clip has the stench of KJVO all over it. Correct me if I’m wrong.
TC:
I’m not new to the field, if that is what you are asking. My wife and I were originally trained to be missionary translators in Papua New Guinea.
B.A. Bible & Linguistics, Pacific Christian College (now Hope Int’l Univ.), Fullerton CA 1984
Courses on descriptive linguistics, historical linguistics, anthropological linguistics, etc. at:
:Cal State U Fullerton (OJ Sadovsky, Angela Della Volpe)
:U of Washington, Seattle*
:Seattle Pacific University*
:U of Oregon, Eugene*
*Under the auspices of Wycliffe Bible Translators, Northwest Summer Institute of Linguistics
M.Div. Gen Theo with emphasis in Linguistics,
Fuller Theo Seminary, Pasadena, CA 1987
Hebrew at:
Cal State U Fullerton
Fuller Theo Seminary (under Wm Sandford La Sor)
Greek at:
Pacific Christian College (top Greek student under Paul McReynolds, assisted with his NRSV interlinear at an early stage)
Fuller Theo Seminary (adv Greek)
Studied on my own past seminary and purchased and use replicas, scans & text reproductions of various papyri and codex Leningradensis, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Beza Cantabrigiensis, papyri, ancient and modern versions, etc.
Try to keep up on the newest textual developments.
And I believe that God, who made a firm promise to preserve His words, recorded in no less than three gospels through the Lord Jesus Himself (Mt 24:35; Mr 13:31; Lu 21:33), kept His promise. The question that remains is “*Where* did God preserve His words?” I believe that in order to keep His promise, the general flow of history records that preservation. And that leaves only two general choices for a starting point: the texts originating in Antioch of Syria or in Alexandria, Egypt. Once that choice is made, I believe everything else proceeds logically from that starting point.
I hope that helps answer your question.
What is your linguistic background, TC?
Sue,
I’m wondering the same here.