Ancient Hebrew Poetry

Another denominational groundswell against the new NIV

    NIV 1984 serves as the pew, pulpit, and study Bible of millions of Bible-reading Christians. It is the Bible of choice of a great number of avid Bible readers. There are two main reasons for this. (1) It is a traditioned translation: the choice of words in key passages ensures that the Bible says more or less what conservative Protestants want it to say.¹ (2) It is highly readable. As Dan Wallace put it, it is “fresh and breezy” (a problem; discussion here).

    NIV 1984 is one of the greatest publishing successes of all time. In 35 years, 400 million copies have been sold. Will NIV 2011, produced by and for English-speaking evangelical Protestants, find as much favor with Bible readers as NIV 1984 did?

Do not render "adam" with “man”

    In this post, I discuss an example in which the rendering of אדם with “man” – against e.g. NIV (2011) and NABRE (2011) – is open to question.

Gender-in-Translation in the Revised New American Bible Old Testament (2011)

    The New American Bible Revised Edition (2011) is without a doubt a magnificent translation. It is the outcome of a consummate labor of love of leading scholars in the Catholic Biblical Association of America (the royalty dispute, now resolved, involved the bishops on the one hand and CBA of America on the other; for the long-suffering chronology of the revision, go here).

    A palpable improvement over the original NAB OT on every page, NABRE OT accomplishes this, according to its own preface, by being a more literal translation than its predecessor.

    The NABRE OT also bears the battle scars of the conflict in progress at the intersection of gender-in-translation and what counts as appropriate English diction in a translation of the Bible. NABRE OT overall makes a large number of concessions to the felt need of some that a Bible translation avoid generic masculine language. The NABRE Psalms, on the other hand, retain as a rule generic masculine language. The reason for the complex situation is explained in the preface to NABRE OT (2011):

A Critique of Wallace’s Critique of NIV 2011

    Daniel Wallace, a first-rate scholar of the New Testament who teaches at Dallas Theological Seminary, has completed three parts (1, 2, and 3; UPDATE: now 4) of a four part series in which he reflects on the strengths and weaknesses of NIV 2011. Below the fold, I take stock of Wallace’s critique of NIV 2011. I seek to identify strengths and weaknesses in W's critique, just as W endeavors to put strengths and weaknesses of NIV 2011 in evidence.

Dissatisfaction with the new NIV among Biblical Bloggers

    The following Old Testament scholars who blog have expressed dissatisfaction with the new NIV:

NIV 2011 Isaiah 19:16 is a Weak Translation

    Doug Magnum of Biblia Hebraica is not happy with claims NIV 2011 makes for itself. NIV promotes itself as being "easy to understand, yet rich with the detail found in the original Scripture." Magnum counters: