ESV translation chair to work on NIV update

Bill Mounce, who “was the New Testament chair of the ESV translation”, has just announced on his blog that he has joined the Committee on Bible Translation which is preparing the 2011 update of the NIV translation. I thank Mike Aubrey for bringing this news to my attention.

This is certainly interesting news, in the light of the campaign led by  some of the other ESV translators against the CBT’s last offering, TNIV. Mounce realises that his move could be misunderstood:

Here is my concern. I don’t want anyone to think that I am unhappy with the ESV or that I am “jumping ship.” I am not.

Indeed Mounce himself has been quite critical of some TNIV translation decisions. Only a week ago, while he must have been considering his invitation to join the CBT, he wrote:

I am being reminded how fundamentally different formal and functional translations are. The ESV is a good example of one, and the TNIV of the other, but never the two shall meet, I suspect.

So this news is indeed something of a surprise. But perhaps not so much a surprise – it may be that behind the scenes negotiations about the 2011 update led to an agreement to invite some more conservative scholars to join the CBT. As such Mounce is an excellent choice who will certainly strengthen the Committee and improve the updated NIV. It should also help to head off criticism of the update from Mounce’s former ESV colleagues.

But what are the consequences likely to be for the controversial aspects of TNIV, such as its gender related language? Will they survive in the NIV update? Mounce makes it clear that he will not try to change NIV to make it like ESV:

I strongly believe in different translation philosophies … I have no trouble looking at the NIV’s translation philosophy and working within those guidelines.

He is clearly not entirely happy with TNIV’s gender language, but

I have been absolutely assured that the gender language is truly on the table for discussion, and since so much of the committee has changed, it is not a forgone conclusion as to how this committee will vote. Without that assurance, I could not have joined.

He seems to believe that “mankind” and “man” can still be used gender generically at least in some contexts. But he has no problem with TNIV’s controversial use of singular “they”. Well, I hope the CBT will make such decisions based primarily on input from experts in the English language, not from biblical scholars like Mounce. I am glad to see that his attitude seems to be one of deferring to actual English usage, and certainly not that of some of his ESV translator colleagues who denounce legitimate translation decisions as deliberate distortion.

I would be a little concerned if several scholars with Mounce’s views were invited to join CBT. That might be seen as an attempt to hijack the committee. But I do welcome Mounce’s appointment and look forward to his positive influence on the updated NIV.

0 thoughts on “ESV translation chair to work on NIV update

  1. Tim, this may not be a good sign for the actual state of the translation. But it probably is for its acceptability. After all, opponents can hardly claim that the CBT is all egalitarians and feminists (it never was anyway) if Mounce is on it. But remember that any changes from the latest TNIV text require a two thirds majority of the CBT. That will limit how much Mounce will be able to get his way, even if he does try to – at least unless the committee looks like being packed with his friends, which will cause some of us to cry “Foul!”

  2. Pingback: Bill Mounce will do work on the 2011 NIV « συνεσταύρωμαι: living the crucified life

  3. Mounce writes,

    “We will continue to have debates on verses like James 3:1 — “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers and sisters [Greek, adelphoi], because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (TNIV), a translation that removes from debate the question of women teaching.”

    He clearly does not want a Bible that suggests that women can be teachers. For Mounce, as for many others, women must be restricted and treated as a special sub class of human beings.

  4. Sue, I am concerned about verses like James 3:1. But I hope Mounce might be persuaded by the counter argument that if “sisters” is deleted here readers might take it that it’s OK for sisters to presume to be teachers. Actually I have concerns about how TNIV added “presume” here, making the verse very like 1 Timothy 2:12.

  5. Pingback: Bill Mounce « Aberration blog

  6. Pingback: Gentle Wisdom» Blog Archive » Mounce Misunderstands “Man”

  7. Pingback: Bill Mounce | Bible Monkey

  8. Pingback: NIV 2011 Update: first impressions - Gentle Wisdom

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image