In translating the NIV, the CBT held to certain goals: that it be an Accurate, Beautiful, Clear, and Dignified translation suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing, and liturgical use. The translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form. They agreed that faithful communication of the meaning of the original writers demands frequent modifications in sentence structure (resulting in a "thought-for-thought" translation) and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words.I like those goals which the CBT has had for the NIV and continues to have for the TNIV: Accurate, Beautiful, Clear, Dignified. The ABCD acronym is clever.
As I have studied the TNIV, I have found it to be accurate. In fact, it has been made more accurate than the NIV. These aren't just promotional words from the CBT or Zondervan. There are plenty of specific examples in the TNIV text which demonstrate a greater accuracy than the NIV, even though the NIV is an accurate translation. Some of these examples have been cited by Craig Blomberg and Mark Strauss in their articles about the TNIV. We will note other examples on this blog as time goes on.
I think it's fair to claim that the language of the TNIV is beautiful. Of course, literary beauty is somewhat subjective, "in the eye of the beholder." But most of us can at least spot language which jars us, which is so unnatural or uncommon or ungrammatical that it is ugly. TNIV wordings never strike me as being ugly. I sometimes prefer an even more natural wording than one found in the TNIV, but it's never because of a lack of beauty in the TNIV text.
Clear, now this is one of my hobby horses for Bible translations. I recognize that there are parts of the Bible which are not clear. I don't think we should make them clearer than they were in the original texts. But so many Bible translations are less clear than the original, and that is a pity. The TNIV is, on the whole, a good, clear translation.
Finally, dignified. This is a translation parameter that I have not given much thought to over the years, perhaps because my focus has been translating the Bible for people groups who do not yet have a translation in their language. But for languages such as English, where we have many Bible versions to choose from, there is a real place for having translations which sound dignified. Many Bible readers and congregations want to use a translation which has a good literary sound, more elevated in diction than a translation which is targeted for lower reading levels. The TNIV does have the same moderately formal sound that the NIV does. That makes both versions good as pulpit Bibles for public reading in church.
Posts
6 comments:
I'm not so sure about the "Dignified" parameter. It makes for a neat acronym, but is this consistent with accuracy? I don't think the original language Bible was especially dignified. It certainly didn't use careful euphemisms for bodily functions etc. The language, at least of the New Testament, was apparently rather colloquial. The Bible was not written to sound good and not upset anyone when read out in formal church services. So to convert it into something dignified, while perhaps justifiable for some versions, is to me not compatible with complete accuracy.
This is not a complaint about TNIV, which in my opinion, and despite the official goals, has mostly managed to avoid being unnecessarily dignified.
Peter commented:
I'm not so sure about the "Dignified" parameter. It makes for a neat acronym, but is this consistent with accuracy?
No, it doesn't track with accuracy. It's a separate parameter, and, as you pointed out, one not necessarily found in all parts of the source texts. But it is a parameter which those who produced and revised the NIV have always wanted for it. As you may know, the impetus for the NIV came out of Reformed churches in the U.S. These churches have a dignified ethos, in fitting with their ecclesiastic and ethnic (Dutch) traditions.
That desire for a "dignified" Bible is also shared by many who are not part of that original Reformed church tradition, but who want a Bible to sound like a Bible, not too down-to-earth which is the feel they get from translations like the TEV, CEV, and perhaps also the NLT.
The NIV/TNIV sound has tried to be "dignified" but not obscure, archaic, or obsolete. I personally believe that they do a much better job in this regard than, say, the ESV, which retains almost all of the awkward English of the RSV. Since the NIV was a totally new translation, it could start over with current English, even though, the CBT, as seminary professors would include a fair amount of Bible English. But it is Bible English which many in conservative churches was to hear. Otherwise, a Bible doesn't sound like a Bible to them and that is one of the most important factors for them for a good Bible, that along with accuracy and as much clarity as possible in a moderately literal translation.
Could you please define "accurate"?
Could you please define "accurate"?
Sure, click here for my "definition" in my Translation Glossary.
There are at least four senses of "accuracy" you give there -- communicative, exegetical, literal, and thorough. More, you mention five levels: word, phrase, clause, sentence, and discourse. That's a nuanced discussion (although not actually a definition), a discussion that is admirable. So I think it is misleading to simply say "I have found it to be accurate" or "it has been made more accurate than the NIV." Perhaps you could argue that a specific passage was better than the NIV, but even then, I think that given your nuanced discussion, it is incumbent on you to explain in which sense and at what lexical level the TNIV is more accurate -- unless, of course, you are claiming that the TNIV is more accurate in all senses and all levels in all places.
I am also struck by your assertion that "TNIV wordings never strike me as being ugly." That's a powerful word to use: "never" -- and you repeat it twice in the paragraph. Do you think it is a bit hyperbolic? Do you think that is an objective perspective: that the TNIV is "never" ugly? Is it a credible claim?
My perspective is that the TNIV is in some ways better and in some ways worse than the NIV, that some of its wordings are clever and some are awkward. I do think that the paragraph you quote from biblegateway.com, which readily admits that the TNIV makes frequent modifications in sentence structure and suggests that the aim was for a "thought-for-thought" (rather than for accuracy at some of the levels you define: word, phrase, clause, and sentence) is a more specific assessment of the TNIV.
I have read some statements by "KJV-only" advocates that suggest that the KJV translation was divinely inspired, and thus cannot be improved. Those statements also employ universals such as "always" and "never". Use of universals and exaggeration weaken the cause of KJV advocates, since they appear to be overstatements.
Perhaps you meant to say:
"There are many places where the TNIV more accurately conveys the meaning of whole passage than the NIV does"
and
"The TNIV generally employs natural and beautiful language."
Anon. responded:
Perhaps you meant to say:
"There are many places where the TNIV more accurately conveys the meaning of whole passage than the NIV does"
and
"The TNIV generally employs natural and beautiful language."
Yes, I did, and you're right about my over-generalizations. I'm usually (but not always!) more careful than that.
:-)
Post a Comment