The NIV was revised and published as the TNIV in 2002, but did poorly due to anemic publisher support and (allegedly) a bad-mouthing campaign by those with a financial interest in the ESV.Interesting. I prefer the ESV, personally, but I used the NIV for years and the KJV before that. I never knew there was a 'issue' between the TNIV and the ESV folks.
Interesting. I prefer the ESV, personally, but I used the NIV for years and the KJV before that. I never knew there was a 'issue' between the TNIV and the ESV folks. I think the issue was blown out of proportion by both factions, but it did exist. There were several points of contention:
- Complementarianism vs. egalitarianism. The complementarians adopted the ESV, and the egalitarians adopted the TNIV. This was spurred by the "inclusive" language of the TNIV, and the Colorado Springs Guidelines on gender translation. But the translations themselves ended up being surprisingly similar with respect to gender: The TNIV placed inclusive renderings in the text, and the ESV would often place the same renderings in the footnotes.
- Sacred language vs. natural language. The ESV translators sought to maintain the style and cadence of the KJV, the TNIV reads more like real people write and speak. Many people like the "Biblish" of the ESV, considering it an element of continuity with earlier Christians, appropriate for a sacred book, and beautiful in its own right. Many others reject it as artificial and see it as an impediment to witnessing, reading, and preaching.
- Formal vs. functional translation. Or "literal vs. dynamic." The ESV was marketed as an "essentially literal" translation. The NIV is a more dynamic translation. Neither is at the extreme end of the spectrum, but to some people "literal" and "dynamic" are trigger words. There are more literal translations out there, and more dynamic translations, but the ESV and the TNIV were at the right place at the right time to become, briefly, the standards held by certain vocal proponents of each method.
I haven't read extensively from either the TNIV or the ESV, but it seems both have their place. (Or had, in TNIV's case.) I appreciate the need for a Bible in the contemporary vernacular, but I am also glad there are so many preserving the Tyndale line. Tyndale was strangled and burned in the sixteenth century, but his translation formed the base of the KJV, (N)RSV, and ESV--not too shabby. Of course, he was executed because he was rendering the Bible into the common tongue--so in that sense, the (T)NIV may be the true heir to the Tyndale Bible!