Interview with Douglas Moo on the Updated NIV
Monday, November 1, 2010 at 5:00AM Today marks the online release of an update to the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, the first time it has been revised since 1984. Although the print form will not be ready for release until next year, the text is available at BibleGateway.com and Biblica.com beginning today.
I had the privilege of interviewing Douglas Moo, Chair of The Committee on Bible Translation, when the update was first announced. The Committee is an independent body of global biblical scholars solely responsible for the translation of the NIV.
Dr. Moo has been kind enough to agree to an interview once again.
Thanks, by the way, to Chris Brauns, Stanley K. Fowler (Academic Dean and Professor of Theological Studies of Heritage Seminary), and Trevin Wax for suggesting questions.
How and why did the Committee change their philosophy from the release of the original NIV to the new version?
I don't think that the philosophy has changed in any significant way since the first translators began their work in the 1960s. The NIV has always been about trying to reproduce the experience of the first audience of the Bible for contemporary English-speakers, blending transparency to the original form and structure of the text with English that communicates naturally and effectively.
Did the controversy over the release of the TNIV modify the translation philosophy in any significant way?
No. The TNIV has many supporters and many critics. We listened to them all, assessing whatever they had to say in light of our mandate to maintain an NIV translation that is both accurate and accessible. While we assessed all the response that we have received, we made final decisions based on that mandate and on our translation philosophy. Where changes were made, they were made on the basis of progress in scholarship and/or on the basis of our understanding of current English. We have provided a document that spells out the details of our approach (PDF).
Do you anticipate that the revised NIV will bring some measure of peace among evangelicals concerned about translation trends?
I cannot predict what will happen in light of the release of the updated NIV. But I think that there is a general sense among translators and publishers of different versions that we can best celebrate the heritage of the King James Version this next year by affirming the many great English translations that are available and by getting more people to engage with those translations to that they can find the living God of the Bible.
Zondervan president Moe Girkins promised that the translation process would be as "transparent as possible" as part of an effort to overhaul the NIV "in a way that unifies evangelicalism." How did you go about this?
In September of 2009, we clearly announced the plan to update the NIV and to replace all existing "NIV" translations (1984 NIV and TNIV) with this update. We then solicited input into the process, announcing quite widely that we would be happy to receive any suggestions for this new revision. I personally met with over 40 scholars at the annual meetings of the ETS and the SBL last November to talk about possible revisions. We have also tried to keep lines of communication open with as many people as possible.
Where will the NIV fit in relation to the ESV and the HCSB?
The updated NIV will take its place alongside the many other fine English translations currently available, including the ESV, the HCSB, the NRSV, the NKJV, the NLT, and many others. We continue to believe that the NIV has an important place in this mix of translations, with its concern to maintain as equal priorities "hearing the Word the way it was written" (trying to reflect in English something of the form of the original text) and "understanding the Word the way it was meant" (putting the Bible into natural contemporary English).
Given that English is becoming a global language, what are the challenges of doing an English translation that works for English speakers everywhere?
Recognizing the incredible spread of English around the world (with almost one billion English-speakers, most second-language), we have tried to capture as best we can a picture of the English that is actually being spoken. Toward this end, we commissioned Collins Dictionaries, the holder of the larger database of English in the world, to study certain key gender constructions. Their database includes English from the UK, the US, Australia, and elsewhere in the world, both spoken and written. Applying cutting-edge computational linguistic analysis to this database, the Collins study provided the NIV translators with an unprecedented picture of English around the world. (A copy of the Collins Report is available at www.NIV-CBT.org.) In addition, the translation committee includes members from the UK and from India.
Do you anticipate that any English version will become the common version in your lifetime?
No. Too many people are now wedded to certain translations. We can anticipate an era of translation diversity. What will be important will be to affirm each other's work so that the name of Christ and the Christian church are not sullied by "translation wars."
What are some challenges to being on a Bible Translation committee of which those who have never done it would not be aware?
First, I should say that I consider it to be a tremendous privilege to be on the CBT: my work on the committee is the ministry that I have most enjoyed in the course of my life. Imagine sitting around a table with 14 other scholars talking about the Bible and what it means and how to say it! There are, of course challenges. We don't always agree and, because we are all passionate about our work and the text, our disagreements can be strong. But in the midst of these debates, there is at base a sense of unity around our common passion and common task.
Were their any particular passages that particularly ministered to the souls of the translation committee?
I can't single out one particular passage. Throughout our work, we seek to let the Scriptures speak to us so that we give them the place they need to have in our lives.
Reader Comments (13)
I wonder what the most significant differences are for those who have an original NIV to the new release? For example, many, MANY churches invested in filling their pews with new NIV's in the 80's. What would they gain for switching, especially given the cost? Any ideas, Darryl?
Darryl,I really wish you had asked him Chris' question about the Canadian version. The ESV is published by HarperCollins in the UK with an Anglicized text. I'm not sure if the NIV does anything similar, or if they'd make it available in Canada. Especially given their employing of UK and Indian scholars, who would of course, use English more similar to Canadian than American.Call me a nerd, but reading 'Saviour' instead of 'Savior' really does make a difference to me. :)
Jamie:The Notes from the Committee give a pretty good summary of what's changed. Overall it looks like they've made some solid improvements in terms of greater clarity, updated language, etc. I'm wrestling through the very question you raise, although I imagine it's only a matter of time.Julian:Here's Chris's question that didn't make it in, for those who didn't read it: "Are you planning to release a version in Canadian at any point? If so, what Greek words does, 'eh?' properly translate?"I have to admit that I'm partial to the American spelling.
Darryl,Thank you for posting this interview with Dr. Moo. Timely, informative, and covering an immensely important topic, this is a fine example of what a good blog can do.The numerous links are really appreciated.Good work.David
Similar do Jamie's question, I wonder how much difference there is between the TNIV and the new NIV? The difference between the old NIV and TNIV were in general few (5%)--is it fair to assume the differences between the TNIV and new NIV will be even fewer? I ask for similar reasons: is it worth it to make the switch?It's my understanding that the committee has said little in this respect, focusing instead on the differences with the 1984 NIV.
Marc:The Notes from the Committee state, "95% of the text of the updated NIV is exactly the same as the 1984 text it replaces." I'm not sure how much has changed from the TNIV.It does look, though, that the changes are substantive. Given that the old NIV and TNIV are no longer available, I imagine that the changeover is inevitable, although it may take some time.I'm looking forward to reading reviews of the update. So far what I've read has been positive.
95% of the text of the updated NIV is exactly the same as the 1984 text it replacesThat's interesting. That's the exact percentage they gave for the difference between the TNIV and the 1984 NIV.I ask only for personal reasons. I've switched to TNIV (occasionally using NRSV) and I'm wondering if there is any need to switch again.
Thank you for posting the interview with Doug Moo.May I offer an observation (and a concern) regarding the new 2010 NIV text, having had a look at the 2010 NIV as it appears on the Bible Gateway site?I was curious as to how the 2010 NIV might render three passages which speak of what happened on the cross of Christ.Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10.I am especially thinking of how 'hilasterios' (Romans 3:25), and 'hilasmos' (1 John) have been handled.I want to be clear that I am not a scholar, and do not want to appear to be claiming to be. I am not fluent in the source languages, and so cannot claim to have a translation scholar's opinion. But I still have my theological convictions, and where there are qualified scholars who have those same convictions, then I feel supported in taking a view based on my convictions.In 1 John 2:2 the body text is identical in both the 1984 and 2010 NIVs. But the 1984 NIV offered the footnote that the expression, 'He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins' could be alternatively rendered as, 'He is the one who turns aside God’s wrath, taking away our sins'. In the 2010 NIV this footnote appears to have been removed.Similarly, in 1 John 4:10, the body text is identical in both 1984 and 2010 versions. But the 1984 NIV offered the footnote that the expression 'as an atoning sacrifice..' could be alternatively rendered, 'as the one who would turn aside his wrath...'. In the 2010 NIV this footnote also appears to have been removed.I wondered whether this was an error of omission in the formatting of the online version.But then I looked at Romans 3:25, where the 1984 NIV states, 'God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement'. The 2010 NIV offers, 'God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement'. I obviously have no difficulties with this difference, substituting the word 'Christ' for 'him'.However, the 1984 NIV offered the following footnote on the expression 'atoning sacrifice': 'as the one who would turn aside his wrath, taking away sin'. That footnote is gone, and replaced in the 2010 NIV with 'The Greek for sacrifice of atonement refers to the atonement cover on the ark of the covenant (see Lev. 16:15,16)'.The Lord Jesus Christ did indeed offer himself as, and was presented by God as, the atoning sacrifice for our sins. But of course that raises the question of *how* atonement was made. In the KJV and NKJV, followed in this by the recent ESV, the word 'propitiation' is used. The removal of the two footnotes in 1 John, and the replacement of the 1984 footnote to Romans 3:25 with a new footnote that removes reference to the taking away of God's wrath, appears to be a deliberate removal of references to the propitiation of God's wrath. I am curious as to why the 2010 NIV committee have done this. And concerned.I like John Stott's discussion of the arguments around the hilaskomai word group and propitiation/expiation in his 1986 book 'The Cross of Christ' (pp.168-175).That I deserved God's wrath, and that God loved me so much that in his great and holy love and mercy the Father sent his Son, and Jesus willingly went to that cross and endured the wrath of God in my place, so that I could be forgiven and reconciled to him, is an awesome truth at the very heart of the gospel. I am not suggesting that any of the 2010 NIV committee would necessarily take a different view on subsitutionary atonement (I don't know all the names well enough to know where they might stand on this debate), but I am concerned at what has been done to those footnotes.I did have a read through the Translator's Notes PDF. But I couldn't find any reference to the committee's reasoning behind ditching the idea of propitiation in those footnotes. Curious really, as what happened at the cross of Christ is *infinitely* more important than whether we use gender inclusive language for 'mankind'.If I have missed something here, do please point it out to me and I'll willingly own up to my own error.But based on what I've seen so far, I am inclined to place more confidence in the ESV, or even the 1984 NIV, than the 2010 NIV.
[...] at his blog, Darryl Dash had the opportunity to interview Dr. Moo about the updated NIV. Here’s an excerpt: What are [...]
Thanks for this!
This Bible product produced by Doug and his colleagues is better understood ideologically than linguistically or etymologically. Think of the certified victim status of, for instance, Jews and women.Some examples:John 7:1:NIV2010: After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want[a] to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him.TNIV: After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want[a] to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him.NIV1984: After this, Jesus went around in Galilee, purposely staying away from Judea because the Jews there were waiting to take his life.* * *Galatians 3:28:NIV2010: There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.TNIV: There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.NIV1984: There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.* * *James 3:1:NIV2010: Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.TNIV: Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers and sisters, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.NIV1984: Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.* * *Matthew 5:32:NIV2010: But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.TNIV: But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.NIV1984: But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.* * *There are many more cases similar to those above. But you know, pomos like this sort of thing.
If you're interested in seeing all the changes, I've put them up here: http://donteatthefruit.com/niv2011-changes/
For the next interview, I'd like someone to ask about the financial benefit of new versions to the scholars, Biblica, and Zondervan. These new revisions put me in mind of how publishers issue slightly new versions of college textbooks to kill the resale market. The comparison might be off the mark; if so, revealing the small fees paid to the scholars would help relieve our concerns.