This Is Amazing and I Love It In Every Possible Way

The Babylon Bee is magical:

KJV-Only Pastor Tests Positive For NIV

HOLLY SPRINGS, MS—In a somber announcement, Pastor Philip Wallace confirmed to his congregation at Hartford Ave Fundamentalist Baptist Church, AV1611 Wednesday evening that he has tested positive for NIV.

The man has pastored the congregation of seventeen people for the past thirty years, staunchly defending the purity of the Scriptures as handed down to mankind in the Authorized Version, but confessed he may have contracted NIV while “experimenting” with other translations during his college years.....(click here to read the rest)

Local Kid Beat Up On Church Playground For Carrying NIV

Thanks to Chris for passing along this article from the satirical site The Babylon Bee:

DALLAS, TX—Local youngster Caleb Beckett brought his trusty NIV Bible For Boys to church Sunday, as he does every week. But this Sunday was different, as a classmate reportedly noticed for the first time that Beckett was using the NIV translation.

According to sources, the classmate began to loudly ridicule him for his choice of translation, resulting in a group of young hooligans assaulting the youth and mocking him.

Witnesses confirmed that Beckett effectively shielded himself with his Bible—aided by the fact that it was housed in a very large and elaborate Bible cover—until one of the bullies got a hold of him while the others pummeled him, shouting insults like, “Dynamically equivalent little dork!” and “You wouldn’t know a good translation if it bit you in the butt!”

Finally, Beckett was thrown to the ground while the gang of ESV-wielding youths threw his NIV translation up onto a tree branch, far out of his reach.

“You’ll have better luck jumping up to grab your so-called ‘Bible’ than the NIV translators did imposing their gender neutrality on the text, you chump!” one of the bullies called out as they high-fived each other and left Beckett moaning in the playground sand, sources confirmed.

This made me think, if there was an equivalent in the Catholic bible translation world.  Hmmm.....I would think in some circles the NAB takes a lot of grief/crap from people who generally aren't aware of how that text has changed over the years.  Your thoughts?  (Let's not take this too serious, just have some fun.)

NIV Zondervan Study Bible

A pleasant reminder that our Protestant brothers and sisters consistently make better and more innovative study Bibles in a more timely manner:
NIV Zondervan Study Bible

Update on ICSB from Fr. Fessio

Responding to a listener question on a recent Catholic Answers Live radio program, Fr. Fessio of Ignatius Press stated that he hoped the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible Old Testament would be completed in a year or two.  That, of course, is nothing new.  We heard that from Dr. Scott Hahn a few months backs on EWTN Bookmark.  What was interesting, however, was that it appears that Ignatius may not ultimately publish the complete ICSB in one volume, but rather two.  Citing the amount of commentary and study helps found in the ICSB, he said they are struggling to figure a way to publish it in one volume.  You can listen to the entire program here.  He answers the ICSB question around minute 32.

Now, what do you think about the real possibility of there never being a complete, one volume edition of the ICSB?  Personally, having examined many study Bibles over the past ten years, including ones like the ESV Study Bible and the NLT Study Bible, both of which contain more notes and study helps than the ICSB, I would be highly disappointed if it is only available in two distinct volumes.  Those two study Bibles I just mentioned are full of annotations, contain a ton of extra material in the appendix, and come in many different editions and covers.  The NLT Study Bible, which I am flipping through as I write this post, has well over 300 pages of extra material in the appendix and contains more cross-references and in-text theme notes/person profiles/maps than the ICSB.  The ESV Study Bible, like the recently revised NIV Study Bible, is produced with full-color charts, images, and in-text maps.  When you compare these three study Bibles to the overall look of the ICSBNT, there is a huge difference in appearance and the amount of material contained within.  While the material in the ICSB is outstanding, something that has never been in doubt, the overall look and production quality is sorely lacking.  And the possibility of there not being a one volume edition is simply mind-blowing.  Again and again I continue to wonder what is going on at Ignatius Press concerning the ICSB.  Do they have limitations on what they can do?  Have they looked at other study Bibles on the market?  Where is the promotional support for the ICSB and the RSV-2CE?

The NIV11 and Catholic Bibles

Over the past 30+ years, the most widely read English language Bible has been the NIV. Many people, including Catholics, are at least familiar with this translation and the impact it has had in the Evangelical Protestant community. (I even know a number of Catholics who use it as their primary Bible.) Over the years, whenever I would purchase a Protestant book on Bible study more times than not the Bible that was keyed to the text was the NIV. In many ways, the NIV was accepted by many conservative Protestants as a compliment, or even an heir, to the more formal KJV.

I sure that some of you are aware that the NIV has fallen into controversy over the past decade, beginning with the publication of the TNIV back 2005. It was meant to be an update to the NIV, with sensitivity to inclusive language. To make a long story short, it was not well received. So much so that today the TNIV is out-of-print and no new editions will be published. It was decided by Biblica in 2009 that a completely new edition of the NIV (NIV11) would be published in 2011, followed by the ceasing of publication of both the TNIV and the older NIV.

This leads to the publication in 2011 of the most recent NIV11, which sought to make the Bible "easy to understand yet rich with the detail of the original scriptures. You are brought closer to the first experience of the Bible through the NIV. When the Bible was heard and read in its own time, its message was both clear and accurate. The NIV reunites these two features for those wanting a similar experience today. Time has passed, and language and culture have changed, but the NIV brings you close to the Bible once again."

In some conservative circles, the NIV11 has failed to gain acceptance, much in the same way as the TNIV. Again, one of the main issues is in regards to its use of inclusive language. (One should also keep in mind how the ESV has begun to replace the old NIV in many circles.) The use of inclusive language is no stranger to Catholics concerned about translation, either in the Scriptures or for Holy Mass.

So, what I thought might be interesting is to list a couple of articles below, some supporting the NIV and some who do not support it. I encourage you to read them before commenting on the following question:. In regards to the NIV11, how does or does this not mirror Bible translation issues in the Catholic Church? This discussion could go many ways, particularly with the recent issues concerning the ESV/NRSV/RSV-2CE Lectionary, as well as the decisions made in regards to the NABRE.

An Evaluation of the 2011 Edition of the New International Version (Rodney J. Decker)

The NIV 2011: Preliminary Assessment (David T. Koyzis)

The Collins Bank Bible (Leroy Huizenga)

First Things Article on the NIV2011

There is an interesting (and free) article by Leroy Huizenga, director of the Christian Leadership Center and assistant professor of Scripture at the University of Mary in Bismarck, North Dakota, in the most recent edition of First Things about the new NIV. I find it fascinating to observe this debate in the Evangelical world over the issue of Biblical translation, since it often parallels discussions we have on this blog. Since this year has been an important year for English Bible translations (KJV 400th, NABRE, NIV2011, and CEB), it makes it all the more interesting to compare the decisions made by the NIV translation committee with those of the NABRE team. (Psalm 8 is an example where they differ.) The article is free to read, but below is the opening couple of paragraphs, so be sure to check out the entire article:

With more than 400 million copies in print, the New International Version is the most popular English Bible. First published as a full Protestant Bible by the evangelical Committee on Bible Translation in 1978, the new edition replaces both the slight revision of 1984 and the controversial, gender-inclusive Today’s New International Version of 2005. Roughly 95 percent of the 1984 text remains, but the other 5 percent reveals an evangelicalism married to modernity, and this is a problem for the translation itself.

The most salutary changes are renderings of crucial Pauline phrases where the new NIV sticks closer to the text. In a reflection of the influence that the “new perspective” on Paul and Judaism has exerted in recent decades, no longer does a rigid Protestant orthodoxy centered on a forensic conception of justification push Paul in theologically tendentious directions.

For instance, erga nomou is now “works of the law” instead of “observing the law” (e.g., Romans 3:28 and Galatians 2:16), dikaiosunē theou is now “righteousness of God” instead of “righteousness from God” (e.g., Romans 1:17), and sarx is now usually “flesh,” not “sinful nature.” No longer do readers encounter a Paul who teaches that the problem with the law is that it is impossible to fulfill and that faith alone causes God to count believers as legally righteous when in point of fact they remain sinners. Rather, the new NIV here makes it possible for English readers to discover a more Catholic or Orthodox or truly Lutheran Paul, one who teaches that the problem with the Jewish law is its ethnic and temporary character and that human salvation concerns our real sacramental participation in divine life, real transformation, and ultimate resurrection.

Problems that plagued the old NIV persist in the new, however, particularly in renderings resulting from the use of lively language at the expense of fidelity to the form of the original. ......continue reading here.

NIV 2011 Study Bible Samples

Those of you interested in the upcoming NIV 2011 Study Bible can see some sample pages here. Visually, it looks fantastic and measures up well compared to the ESV and NLT study Bibles. Would love to see this kind of production value in a future Catholic study Bible.

NIV 2011 Controversy

Theophrastus, commenting on another blog, pointed out an interesting AP article concerning the new edition of the NIV. This is nothing new, really, for those who have been following the NIV/TNIV/NIV2011 debate, but some of you might find it an interesting read.

The Revised NIV is Now Available

For those of you who are interested, the revised NIV can now be searched here.

Your Favorite Non-Catholic Bible?

Yes, perhaps a strange question to ask, but with the upcoming release of the revised NIV it seems appropriate. The NIV has been one of, if not the, most widely sold English language Bible on the planet for the past 30 years. Back when I was doing campus ministry at a local community college, the vast majority of students who came to our Christian Bible study used the NIV, even some Catholics.

So, I am eager to hear which non-Catholic Bible you tend to like and why. I would ask that you stick to translations that haven't come out in a Catholic edition, which would obviously rule out the likes of the RSV and NRSV. The ESV would be an interesting case, since there isn't, nor do I suspect ever will be, a Catholic edition, although the Oxford edition with the Apocrypha does exist. There are certainly plenty to choose from!

NIV Update

According to published accounts on various internet sites, it appears that the revised NIV will be released on the web in November on the Bible Gateway site, with full paper publication due sometime in March. This edition will be an update of the NIV (1984) and the TNIV, ultimately replacing both. There will be no Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical edition available.

On a side note, it is interesting how quickly the NIV committee was able to revise their translation. ;) We are talking about a few years, not decades.

Death of a Bible Translation

The TNIV, which was suppose to be the successor to the very popular Protestant NIV translation, has been given its last rites. According to the Christianity Today Blog, another revision of the NIV will be published sometime in 2011. One must remember that the TNIV was only published in 2002! (Wow! Not even the NAB translation committee has done that quick of a revision, and that is saying something!) It also appears that the TNIV and NIV will not be published after 2011. Having the TNIV compete with the original NIV since 2002 was already a mistake, perhaps they have learned their lesson.

Claiming that there are "mistakes" in the TNIV, primarily it seems around its use of inclusive language, many in the bible-blog world are not too pleased.

For more info, these are some fine blogs to look at:

New Epistles
Better Bibles Blog
New Leaven
Scripture Zealot
Biblica

The Catholic Edition of the NIV....

...Psalms. Yes, this book actually exists. Not only does it exist, but it is even approved by the USCCB. This edition, published in 1996 by Catholic Book Publishing, states: "This is the Catholic edition of the Psalms of one of the very highly regarded and indeed most popular Bible translations in the world. This St. Joseph Edition is printed in large, easy-to-read 10 pt. type with references and notes at the bottom of each page." The Catholic Book Publishing site also has a .pdf which gives you a look at the book's introduction as well as Psalm 23.

My initial thoughts on this edition:

** The format of each page mirrors all the other St. Joseph editions that Catholic Book Publishing has released over the past fifty plus years. Basically, if you have an NAB or even an old Confraternity edition, then you know how the NIV Psalms are formatted. While I am not a huge fan of this, it is nice to see the scriptural text in a single-column format.

** The St. Joseph NIV Psalms also include cross-references, textual notes, and footnotes. At first, I figured that they just used the NAB footnotes, but alas I was wrong. Since I do not actually own this edition, I am not sure whether or not these notes were developed specifically for this edition. If any one has info on this, please let me know.

** So, why would Catholic Book Publishing even publish the NIV Psalms in a Catholic edition? Could it be that they recognized the revised '91 NAB Psalms were inferior in almost every way? At this point, I really have no idea. And the fact that I rarely see this edition at any Catholic bookstore I frequent causes me to question why it was produced in the first place.

NT Wright + NIV = Not Friends

Over the weekend, I began to read NT Wright's newest book Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision. So far, like many of Wright's books, I have enjoyed what I have read. Wright, at least to me, reads like he speaks. Maybe that isn't always a good thing, but for books like Justification, which aren't too terribly long or technical, I somewhat enjoy it. While the topic of "justification in Paul" is an extremely important topic for all Christians, it is also nice to view this debate, between the two Protestant's Wright and Piper, merely as an outsider. I hope to blog more on Wright's main points in the near future.

Until then, one section of the book that immediately struck me, particularly since I am always interested in Bible translations, is located in the section on "Rules of Engagement". Here, on pages 51-53, Wright takes issue with how the NIV translates Paul. (For all you fellow Catholics who may not be aware of the NIV, it is the best selling, most widely read English translation of the Bible in the world. It is a mediating translation, that is neither too literal nor dynamic. In many ways it mirrors the NAB, but is far more smooth and consistent.) He begins by stating that he had recommended use of the NIV early in the 1980's, believing that it injected "no extra paraphrasing or interpretative glosses (51)." However, over a two year period, while lecturing with the NIV and the Greek text, he discovered that "the translators had had another principle, considerably higher than the stated one: to make sure that Paul should say what broadly Protestant and evangelical tradition said he said (52)." He follows that up by saying: "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 (52)." Ouch! He sites the NIV translation of Romans 3:21-26 & 29 as a major problem, particularly in its use of dikaiosu.

Now, again, I read Wright's critique as an outsider. I do not use the NIV, although I own a copy of the TNIV, which from time to time I will refer to when doing ecumenical Bible studies. While I have never examined, verse-by-verse, the (T)NIV, seeking to find its merits and problems, I have always appreciated its readability.

One thing that caught my attention is that it took Wright two years to discover the problems with the NIV. I would think that he would have noticed them much quicker. Yet, this may serve as a good example, either way, of why it is better not to promote or condemn a particular translation based simply on other peoples opinion, but only after using the translation over a year or two period. I know that some of the Bible blogs that I frequent feel this way about the TNIV, which some have condemned from the beginning.

I know, personally, that I always stayed away from the NRSV because I read forum comments by people who hated its use of inclusive language. Because of that, I really never gave it a serious read. However, I decided over a year ago to pick up a copy, just to have, and since then I have come to use it more and more. While I still don't like some of its inclusive language choices, I do appreciate many of it's other good qualities, which for me, sets it apart from other translations which have Catholic editions.

I should also point out that Wright does mention that "the NIV has now been replaced with newer adaptations in which some at least of the worst features have, I think, been at least modified (52)?" Any thoughts on that?