In "it'd kind of be funny if it weren't so sad" news, the translation committee for the NIV2011, led by prominent hierarchist NT scholar, Doug Moo, has been criticized by hierarchist groups--such as the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and the Southern Baptist Convention--for being too feminist in its translation. The translation team is responding with some good "spankings" of these groups: to CBMW and to SBC. CBMW reviewer Denny Burk has given a response to the response. (I'll let you decided how convincing it is.) And just to show that you can't please anyone, the egalitarian group Christians for Biblical Equality also has a slightly critical review, though unlike the other two it seems more fair and nuanced, and as far as I know the NIV translation team hasn't felt the need to respond to it.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
What's a hierarchist? Is NIV the go-to translation for Baptists?
Thanks for the links -- I love reading the responses! Have you had a look at the 2011 NIV yet?
Curtis: A hierarchist is one who believes that men should have positions of authority over women, especially in the church or home. I'm not a Southern Baptist, so I don't know what their go-to translation is. I think a lot of them prefer the ESV these days. Regardless, it appears it won't be the NIV 2011.
Amanda: I haven't looked at the NIV 2011 yet. Personally, I was happy with the TNIV, which I'll continue to use along with the NIV 1984 and some other translations, until I receive a free copy of the NIV 2011 at a conference or special event.
So who uses is NIV? I'm used to NRSV being standard.
I believe the NIV is the best selling translation of the last 25 years. From my experience, it is the preferred translation among most evangelical churches and denominations, though I doubt anyone has made it their "official" translation.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face, check out Rod Decker’s post: Wayne Grudem’s use of inclusive language. Especially see Decker’s comment:
"The detractors [of the NIV 2011] have lists of *thousands* of passages, but they really don’t accomplish anything. All they illustrate is that NIV11 has been reasonably consistent in their work. CBMW like to speak of “2,700″ errors in the NIV11 (I think that number is close; I didn’t go back to verify it; you can probably find the list at cbmw.org). But that’s foolishness. It smacks of the KJV-only crowd listing every example that differs from KJV as an error.
I just completed a 50-page (sg. sp.) review of NIV11 that I’ll be posting in a week or so. I’m presenting it (actually, an overview of it) at a conference and the post will go up near that time."
On a similar note, see Craig Blomberg’s “Wives, Women, or Deaconesses?” where he takes the ESV translators to task asking:
"How can God’s people submit themselves to an inerrant Bible that should wield authority over them when translators introduce speculative interpretations for them in an imbalanced way without ever acknowledging that that is what they are doing?"
Post a Comment