I
have long been a critic of the New International Version, an Evangelical
translation of the Bible, and have always warned people of its deficiencies.
Personally, I think it is one of the worse translations there is, with the
exception of the New World Translation (the translation used by the Jehovah’s
Witnesses) and various paraphrases (e.g. the Living Bible).
An excellent discussion of the many deliberate translations contained in the NIV can be found in the online paper, “Deliberate Mistranslations in the New International Version (NIV).”
Biblical scholar, N.T. Wright, in his book, Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision (which is a must-read for those who wish to study the topic of salvation, especially as it is presented in the Pauline corpus), wrote the following with respect to the NIV
In this context, I must register one strong protest against one particular translation. When the New International Version was published in 1980, I was one of those who hailed it with delight. I believed its own claim about itself, that it was determined to translate exactly what was there, and inject no extra paraphrasing or interpretative glosses. This contrasted so strongly with the then popular New English Bible, and promised such an advance over the then rather dated Revised Standard Version, that I recommended it to students and members of the congregation I was then serving. Disillusionment set in over the next two years, as I lectured verse by verse through several of Paul’s letters, not least Galatians and Romans. Again and again, with the Greek text in front of me and the NIV beside it, I discovered that the translators had had another principle, considerably higher than the stated one: to make sure that Paul should say what the broadly Protestant and evangelical tradition said he said. I do not know what version of Scripture they use at Dr. Piper’s church. But I do know that if a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about.
An example of a mistranslation can be seen in the NIV’s attempt to protect the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, viz. that the Bible is the final rule of faith and that all other sources of authority are subordinate to such, never en par with inscripturated revelation. In 2 Thess 2:15, the NIV renders it as follows:
Compare the KJV’s rendering:
The term translated as “teachings” is the Greek term παραδοσις, which does not mean “teachings” but “tradition” or “something handed down.” The Greek term for “teaching” is a totally different word, διδασκαλια. Why would the NIV fudge things here? Simply, this has been a text that Catholics have appealed to in order to (1) neutralise the Protestant claim that the biblical texts are the final rule of faith and (2) to support the Catholic claim that oral, apostolic traditions are also an authority of equal authority to the written word of God (cf. 1 Cor 11:23; 15:3). No doubt, in order to neutralise a possible Catholic appeal to this verse, the NIV translator’s allowed their Evangelical Protestant epistemology to, frankly, pervert this verse.
Of course, I would challenge the Catholic claim that this verse supports their having access to oral traditions that are apostolic in origins; I would argue (and would be happy to debate anyone on this point) that Catholic dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption, as well as beliefs such as the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice and Transubstantiation are without meaningful exegetical or historical support, and clearly would not be part of the παραδοσις Paul handed down to the various churches he preached at. For instance, on the Bodily Assumption, there is no explicit biblical evidence for it, and no early Patristic testimony thereto until several centuries after this fact (for a full analysis of the development of this belief, see Stephen Shoemaker’s book, The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption, published by Oxford).
For those wanting a good, scholarly translation of the Bible, I would recommend the New Revised Standard Version (1989); it was the main translation I used during my five years of study in the Pontifical University of Ireland, Maynooth. Other good translations would include the 1985 Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh and the Lexham Bible (the former only has the OT; the latter, only the NT). The New Jerusalem Bible (not to be confused with the Jerusalem Bible, which is an English translation of a French translation of the Bible) is a good one, too. Some friends have recommended the New American Standard Version and the English Standard Version translations, which are better Evangelical Protestant translations than the NIV, though they, too, have their own problems (e.g., the NASB and ESV).
An excellent discussion of the many deliberate translations contained in the NIV can be found in the online paper, “Deliberate Mistranslations in the New International Version (NIV).”
Biblical scholar, N.T. Wright, in his book, Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision (which is a must-read for those who wish to study the topic of salvation, especially as it is presented in the Pauline corpus), wrote the following with respect to the NIV
In this context, I must register one strong protest against one particular translation. When the New International Version was published in 1980, I was one of those who hailed it with delight. I believed its own claim about itself, that it was determined to translate exactly what was there, and inject no extra paraphrasing or interpretative glosses. This contrasted so strongly with the then popular New English Bible, and promised such an advance over the then rather dated Revised Standard Version, that I recommended it to students and members of the congregation I was then serving. Disillusionment set in over the next two years, as I lectured verse by verse through several of Paul’s letters, not least Galatians and Romans. Again and again, with the Greek text in front of me and the NIV beside it, I discovered that the translators had had another principle, considerably higher than the stated one: to make sure that Paul should say what the broadly Protestant and evangelical tradition said he said. I do not know what version of Scripture they use at Dr. Piper’s church. But I do know that if a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about.
This is a large claim, and
I have made it good, line by line, in relation to Romans in my big
commentary, which prints the NIV and the NRSV and then comments on the
Greek in relation to both of them. (Wright, Justification,
pp.51-53)
An example of a mistranslation can be seen in the NIV’s attempt to protect the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, viz. that the Bible is the final rule of faith and that all other sources of authority are subordinate to such, never en par with inscripturated revelation. In 2 Thess 2:15, the NIV renders it as follows:
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold
fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth
or by letter.
Compare the KJV’s rendering:
Therefore, brethren, stand
fast and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or
our epistle.
The term translated as “teachings” is the Greek term παραδοσις, which does not mean “teachings” but “tradition” or “something handed down.” The Greek term for “teaching” is a totally different word, διδασκαλια. Why would the NIV fudge things here? Simply, this has been a text that Catholics have appealed to in order to (1) neutralise the Protestant claim that the biblical texts are the final rule of faith and (2) to support the Catholic claim that oral, apostolic traditions are also an authority of equal authority to the written word of God (cf. 1 Cor 11:23; 15:3). No doubt, in order to neutralise a possible Catholic appeal to this verse, the NIV translator’s allowed their Evangelical Protestant epistemology to, frankly, pervert this verse.
Of course, I would challenge the Catholic claim that this verse supports their having access to oral traditions that are apostolic in origins; I would argue (and would be happy to debate anyone on this point) that Catholic dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption, as well as beliefs such as the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice and Transubstantiation are without meaningful exegetical or historical support, and clearly would not be part of the παραδοσις Paul handed down to the various churches he preached at. For instance, on the Bodily Assumption, there is no explicit biblical evidence for it, and no early Patristic testimony thereto until several centuries after this fact (for a full analysis of the development of this belief, see Stephen Shoemaker’s book, The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption, published by Oxford).
For those wanting a good, scholarly translation of the Bible, I would recommend the New Revised Standard Version (1989); it was the main translation I used during my five years of study in the Pontifical University of Ireland, Maynooth. Other good translations would include the 1985 Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh and the Lexham Bible (the former only has the OT; the latter, only the NT). The New Jerusalem Bible (not to be confused with the Jerusalem Bible, which is an English translation of a French translation of the Bible) is a good one, too. Some friends have recommended the New American Standard Version and the English Standard Version translations, which are better Evangelical Protestant translations than the NIV, though they, too, have their own problems (e.g., the NASB and ESV).
