When the editor of New Horizons asked me if I would be interested in writing a response to criticisms of the NIV, I hesitated briefly. After all, I was not involved in the translating of the NIV. Moreover, I think the NIV is far from perfect.

During the past few years, I have been involved in the production of an “NIV-like” translation of the Bible into Spanish. This work, which involves very close comparison of the NIV with the original, has alerted me to numerous renderings that appear unsatisfying, problematic, or even plain wrong. In other words, my own list of objections is probably much longer than that of most outspoken critics of the NIV.

So why would I then agree to write this article? Simply because my list of objections to other versions would be even longer. This is not to say that all available English translations are bad. Quite the contrary! We are richly blessed by a wide variety of versions, almost all of which – when compared with good translations of other literature – have to be regarded as clear and accurate, but never perfect.

It is important to keep in mind that new Bible translations have consistently been greeted with severe criticism. And when a new version appears to be taking the place of an old standard, the complaints become even louder.

When the King James Version was first published, its critics were many. The learned scholar Hugh Broughton complained that it,

bred in me a sadness that will grieve me while I breathe, it is so ill done. Tell His Majesty that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses, than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor churches… I require it to be burnt.¹

Over the years, Christians have learned to appreciate the exceedingly fine features of the KJV and to ignore its weaknesses.

Suppose that the KJV had not existed all these centuries and that it appeared for the first time in 1995. How would it be received? Frankly, it would be laughed out of court.

To people unfamiliar with Elizabethan English, it would seem very foreign indeed:

Pass ye away, thou inhabitant of Saphir, having thy shame naked: the inhabitant of Zaanan came not forth in the mourning of Beth-ezel; he shall receive of you his standing.Micah 1:11

Specialists would list hundreds of passages where the translators misunderstood the Hebrew syntax or were terribly outdated in their understanding of the Greek vocabulary.

But because we are familiar with the KJV, we tend to overlook or minimize all these problems. We have come to love its marvelous cadences. We appreciate the numerous passages where the renderings are successful and even brilliant. And, when we run into problems, we are happy to check the commentaries to throw light on passages we do not understand and even to correct renderings that are quite wrong.

Critics of the NIV, if they do not promote the KJV, usually prefer the New American Standard Bible (NASB). (Others opt for the New King James Version, but the comments that follow apply also to it.) I have very high regard for the NASB, and at one time I served as a consultant for the Lockman Foundation in the ongoing work of its revision. I continue to use it and recommend it for various purposes.

The NASB follows an approach known as “formal correspondence,” according to which the form of the English should correspond as closely as possible to the form of the original. An attempt is made,

• to represent every word of the original, neither adding nor omitting anything,

• to preserve the order of words and clauses, and

• to translate particular words the same way every time they occur.

Exceptions are made if such a literal approach results in ungrammatical English or in sentences that are very difficult to understand.

In contrast, the NIV uses a method that was first labeled “dynamic equivalence,” but now is often referred to as “functional equivalence.” It focuses primarily on the function of the original text, rather than on its form. This approach was developed on the basis of advances in the area of general linguistics, but it is actually a commonsense approach that has been used for centuries, though not consistently.

For example, using a formal-correspondence approach, the Spanish question (Cómo to llamas?) would be translated “How are you called?” Such a rendering is grammatical and can be understood, but it might confuse a reader/hearer momentarily, since the natural and normal way to ask that question would be “What is your name?” It would be quite misleading to suggest that this functional-equivalence rendering is really a “paraphrase,” or that it inaccurately renders cómo (which really means “how,” not “what”), or that it adds words to the text (the word name is not in the original).

Perhaps another illustration from Spanish may be helpful. The Larousse Gran Diccionario Español Inglés, English-Spanish (1991) has a foreword in both languages; presumably, the editor wrote it in Spanish and translated it into English himself. The Spanish of the last paragraph, if translated literally, would read like this: “We would sin of ingratitude if we did not mention finally the names of …, valuable collaborators without whose help the execution of our effort would have been much more arduous, and [we would sin] of immodesty if we did not beg our readers to have the courtesy of indicating to us the omissions and imperfections that we might have incurred, errare humanum est, so that we may emend them in future editions.”

Such a literal translation is too long, awkward, and complicated for acceptable English style. It also reflects certain cultural elements that are out of place in an English-speaking society. Accordingly, the English foreword reads very businesslike, as follows:

Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to … whose valuable assistance greatly facilitated the task. Since errare humanum est, we would also be grateful to readers for kindly bringing omissions and imperfections to our notice so that they may be corrected in future editions.

Admittedly, this is an extreme example, but the principle it illustrates needs to be appreciated. All successful translations of literature (for example, contemporary German novels) sound natural, as though they had originally been written in English. Therefore, they are more easily read and understood than if they reflected the foreign syntax and word usage. And, incidentally, since the message communicates more clearly, one can argue that they are more “accurate” than a literal translation.

Of course, functional equivalence raises many questions of a specific nature. Where does one draw the line? Shouldn't a faithful translation of an ancient document reflect the fact that the document is indeed foreign? If we convert metaphors into their modern equivalents, don't we lose something?

There are no easy and clear-cut answers to these questions, but to avoid them by translating literally is no answer at all. That is why the work of translation is such a demanding job. Seminary students who have had one or two years of Greek often think they are capable of translating the New Testament, but that is only because they have been taught to translate mainly word-by-word.

The twofold struggle of

• understanding the meaning of the original and

• finding the most appropriate way of expressing the same idea in English requires exceptional skills and experience.

Martin Luther, who devoted intense efforts to translating the Bible into German, had a genuine appreciation of these problems. On one occasion he commented:

What is the point of needlessly adhering so scrupulously and stubbornly to words which one cannot understand anyway? Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrew style. Rather he must see to it – once he understands the Hebrew author – that he concentrates on the sense of the text, asking himself, 'Pray tell, what do the Germans say in such a situation?' Once he has the German words to serve the purpose, let him drop the Hebrew words and express the meaning freely in the best German he knows.²

Different versions have different strengths. The (N)KJV is most majestic (even when the original is not!). The Good News Bible communicates most simply. The NASB is most useful for detailed study. And so on. But among available English translations of the Bible, the NIV, whatever faults it may have, sports the best combination of reliability, naturalness of style, and respect for the religious tradition to which evangelical and Reformed Christians belong. It may be used with confidence and profit.