Wayne Leman over at the Better Bibles Blog (my proposed subtitle- Making Good Translations Even Gooder, and I will continue to make this joke until they make it official) cites someone who cites the latest figures in Bible sales. The original poster (meaning “one who posted” rather than something you hang on your wall) and Wayne note that the TNIV doesn’t appear on the Top 10 list for sales by translation, either by unit sales or dollar sales. Here is the chart, orginally taken from the CBA report:
They both mention the decline in TNIV sales as well as the surprising (to some) continued sales of the HCSB. As I mentioned in a comment on the BBB post, the latter doesn’t surprise me at all, since the HCSB has the backing of the largest Protestant denomination in the US, the Southern Baptist Convention (and it’s a good translation).
But the relatively poor sales numbers (though these figures are only from Christian bookstores, so the numbers may not reflect total sales accurately) of the TNIV are a bit more surprising to me. When I first started reading the TNIV regularly back in the fall of 2006, I assumed it would do reasonably well if for no other reason than it’s an improvement on the NIV (see Blomberg’s article), which is the most popular translation among evangelicals. Who wouldn’t want to make a good thing even better? I didn’t think that it would “take over” the market, mainly because there are so many translations available, unlike in previous generations. In the late 70’s evangelicals basically used 1 of 3 options: the NIV, the KJV or the NASB (of course, I was born in 1979 so I could be corrected on this front).
But I think there are a number of reasons why the TNIV hasn’t done well. I touched on it in my comment at BBB, but I thought I’d expound a little more here. First, I agree with one of the other commentators that Zondervan’s marketing strategy wasn’t very good (I’m not even sure they have one anymore). When I looked for a TNIV back in the summer of 2006, I had a hard time finding one that didn’t look like it was intended for a teenage girl. I’m a man in my 20’s, I don’t want a Bible with polkadots or various shades of purple. I finally found one that was a 2-tone black Bible, and even that was trendier than I wanted.
Second, the anti-TNIV campaign has been very strong, which is rather unfortunate. I still have people say to me, when I mention that I like the TNIV, “that’s the gender-neutral Bible!” with a mixture of horror and disbelief that I would allow myself to degrade God’s word. After all, the TNIV emasculates the Bible! (Side note: I’ve never read a translation and thought to myself, “my, that was rather masculine.” How would a Bible translation be masculine? Perhaps an audio Bible, narrated by Ted Nugent with sounds from a football game and Harley engines revving in the background? Oh wait, this guy has already told us. But I digress…)
The anti-TNIV campaign has been effective. You have at least one website dedicated to showing not just the flaws of the TNIV (all translations have flaws) but rather the danger of accepting the TNIV as a legitimate translation for evangelicals. They’ve drafted a list of over 900 “inaccuracies” from the TNIV. Mind you, “inaccuracy” is a misleading term; this list would be better titled “Over 900 Translations from the TNIV that Are Potentially Not the Best Option.” Of course, such a title doesn’t catch attention.
There is also the list of gravely concerned evangelicals who oppose the TNIV. It helps that there are important names on this list that would make it difficult for Zondervan to market effectively. I can think of 2 men specifically who have a leading position in evangelicalism. One, James Dobson, is one of the most influential evangelical voices for my parents’ generation. The other, John Piper, is, in my opinion, the single most influential evangelical voice for my generation. These men, and others on the list, are trusted men. And since most church goers don’t know enough about what goes into a Bible translation, this is enough to shy away from the TNIV. The truth is, I trust D A Carson’s thoughts about Bible translation more than anyone on that list, and he has endorsed the TNIV (or perhaps “stuck up for the TNIV”, I don’t want to put words into his mouth).
I don’t really want to get into a point-by-point refutation of the TNIV critics. One of the concerns with these critics, and thus those who read them, is that the TNIV is a translation for “feminists and egalitarians.” I generally point out that I can think of a few complementarians who were on the translating committee (Douglas Moo, Karen Jobes, Bruce Waltke), as well as a couple who are a part of the revision committee (Craig Blomberg and Mark Strauss). Has anyone told them that they are being driven by a feminist agenda? I’m sure they’d like to know. There may be other complementarians, I haven’t done enough research on every member to find out where they stand. And the aforementioned D A Carson is a complementarian. My point is that the average church goer doesn’t know this and therefore can’t make a fully informed choice. When they’re told that the TNIV is part of a feminist agenda, they are more likely to believe it because they don’t know much about the scholars behind the translation. These aren’t Harvard liberals with an agenda, they’re top notch scholars from top notch evangelical schools.
Now, I started using the TNIV not because I was looking for something new, but because it is recommended in the book we use in our Bibles classes (which started in September 2006). I thought that if it were recommended in the book I’m teaching from, I ought to be familiar with it. I was always an NASB user, so it was an interesting change of pace. I’ve been using it now for 2.5 years and I think it’s a good translation. Not perfect, but good. I have no problem recommending it to people, but I don’t necessarily tell people to run out and buy it, either. Since most in my church use the NIV, I let them know that if they are thinking about purchasing a new Bible (maybe their Bible is falling apart, they gave it away, the kids threw it in the toilet, etc) then I’d recommend the TNIV. If their Bible is in good condition and they like it and they aren’t in need of a new one, then the NIV is perfectly fine and they don’t need to go out and get a TNIV. I’d rather them use that money to buy a homeless man a sandwich or give it to Wycliffe Bible Translators so that people who actually need a Bible translation (rather than another Bible translation) can get one (don’t worry, that rant is coming).
Believe it or not I actually have a point in this post. I’m interested in all this, in part, because I never really thought about how marketing Bible translations plays a role in people’s choices. Maybe I’m naive, but I guess I thought the better translations would win out. Instead, I think we’re witnessing how marketing and anti-marketing campaigns have factored into the landscape.
I’d like to ask our reader(s) what translation you use and why you chose that one. There’s no real right or wrong answer here. Did you make your choice because it was recommended by someone (a friend, a pastor, an author, scholar, etc)? Did you try out a couple translations and decide on one? If so, what factored into your decision? I’m sincerely interested, so feel free to leave a comment and let us know what you think about all this.
You wrote: “Perhaps an audio Bible, narrated by Ted Nugent with sounds from a football game and Harley engines revving in the background?” –
Sorry Zondervan already beat you to that niche Bible. I saw it in a NRA Harley shop last week! Selling like hot-cakes! All-weather binding! Hunting bow on the cover! It is great! (Just kidding of course…)
– what translation you use and why you chose that one. – I read, preach and teach from the TNIV. Was using the NLT until the TNIV came out. I was able to get a out of the press NT was back in 2005 or 2006.
Did you make your choice because it was recommended by someone – No
(but I liked that Gordon Fee recommended it)
Did you try out a couple translations and decide on one? My transition was NIV to NLT 1996 to TNIV
If so, what factored into your decision? – The factors were that most people in the pew used NIV so a TNIV was not that big of change as far as hearing it from the pulpit, the accuracy of it over the NLT (Mark 1:41 etc) and the use of brothers & sisters.
danny,
This is a well thought through article.
I have a minor point to make. The word is “complementarian” as in “peanut butter complements jelly in a sandwich”, not “complimentarian” as in “I complimented my brother on his new haircut.” Sorry, I’m a compulsive editor.
Jay- thanks for stopping by and commenting. Has there been any reaction (positive or negative) to your use of the TNIV in your congregation?
David- yikes! Not sure how that slipped by me, I’m not one to make such a mistake. Thanks for the heads up, I’ve edited accordingly.
No reaction positive or negative
Most people in the church use NIV, NLT, NKJV, The Message in that order
Kenny,
I have used just about every translation known to man, each one until I find enough errors (IMHO) that I am driven to the point of finding a new one to read. I am currently in seminary and when I started all of my professors recommended the NASB or NRSV, for obvious reasons. The problem was, I stopped actually “reading” the bible because I just did not find those translations enjoyable. I then found out about the ESV, thought “ESSENTIALLY LITERAL!” thats what my professors recommended, bought the new ESV Study Bible and went to town. To my dismay, however, the ESV was a giant let down. I would sit with my wife and try to read and it was so choppy that is was not enjoyable. The punctuation seemed totally unnatural and the language was still archaic “at table”… but I digress. I recently was researching bibles again after I got thoroughly annoyed with the ESV and decided to look into the TNIV. I read all of the articles written on the subject that I could find and decided to try the bible for myself. Since I picked up the TNIV I haven’t put it down (not to be taken literally). As a student who has a basic knowledge of Greek, I would very excited by the faithful translations of passages in the TNIV and thus, I use and highly recommend the TNIV to my classmates. I haven’t gotten the nerve to ask my big name professors what they think of the translation yet, mainly because I simply don’t care! It speaks volumes to me that D.A. Carson, Gordon Fee, Doug Moo, Tremper Longman etc. endorse this translation. These voices are significantly more important to me than the likes of Piper or Grudem whose bias is so overwhelmingly evident! The problem is, the church does not know who the real biblical experts are (Carson, Moo, Fee). They think that Grudem is the greatest thing since sliced bread, when in biblical scholarship circles he is an underweight lightweight.
Hi Jay, thanks for commenting. I’m not sure who “kenny” is, though I have a brother named “Kenny.” We do kinda like alike, sort of. =)
A couple points. First, the charge of “bias” is always interesting, because everyone has a certain degree of bias. Fee, for example, recommends the TNIV. He thinks it’s a good translation, though I’ve heard some of his criticisms, too. He is also a member of the translating team & revision committee. Thus, a charge of bias against Fee is easy enough to make. My point is that saying someone is biased doesn’t really deal with the argument.
Now, someone like D A Carson doesn’t really have a dog in this fight, at least as far as I know. His opinion interests me because he is theologically very similar to many who have denounced the TNIV. But again, the perceived lack of bias on his part doesn’t make him right. It is possible to be objective and wrong (though naturally I don’t think he is regarding the TNIV).
I’d also be careful in speaking about someone like Wayne Grudem in such terms. He is, after all, a brother in Christ and has been a servant of the church for a long time. I think he is dead wrong on this issue and I don’t appreciate the tone with which he speaks about the TNIV. So, while I agree that his expertise is not in Bible translation, I’d be more careful about the terms I use to talk about him.
Finally, I’m glad you enjoy using the TNIV, I do as well. Though you’ll certainly find potential problems with its translation. It’s unavoidable. If you spend enough time over at Better Bibles Blog (Making Good Translations Even Gooder), you’ll discover some of their thoughts. The TNIV is not above criticism, which is why they have a revision committee.
So, thanks for commenting and shedding some light on how the TNIV has helped you.
“Danny”, I apologize for getting your name wrong! I also apologize for my rather resentful remarks in reference to Dr. Grudem. I fear that my thoughts are emotionally charged after reading many of his slanderous comments about the TNIV, their translators and the supposed feminist bias behind the TNIV. I do regard him as a brother in the Lord, but a brother who has done great damage. Furthermore, while I agree with your comments about the obvious bias of Moo and Fee, I wasn’t only referring to their recommendation of the TNIV, but rather their expertise as members of the translation committee to the exclusion of Longman and Carson. I should have made that more clear.
The environment around this debate has become very emotionally charged, and it is impossible for it not to be when one group has attacked this translation of the bible to the point of its near extinction (hyperbole?). A translation I might add that I believe would surely help me to share the gospel more effectively with my peers. The ignorance in this debate has been shocking to me and I have never seen anything like this. No attack of this nature was orchestrated to extinguish the work of the NLT translators, nor has any firestorm erupted over The Message. These two translations (or paraphrases) have led many of my Christian peers to believe that the words of The Message were really the things that Jesus said. The Message’s strange interpretative decisions are surely more odd than the idea that Jesus may have been speaking to brothers and sisters at the same time when using the Aramaic equivalent of the word adelphos or adelphoi. So am I agitated with Grudem, Poythress et al.? Yes! Do I think they are evildoers unfit for the Kingdom of God? No.
Also, I have spent a great deal of time over at the Better Bibles Blog (Making Good Translations Even Gooder :) ) and I have enjoyed their remarks.
Thank you for your comments.
“These two translations (or paraphrases) have led many of my Christian peers to believe that the words of The Message were really the things that Jesus said.” (Please strike this sentence from the record :). That made no sense. I will work on my proof-reading skills.
Blessings!
Hello Danny,
I was the original poster of that blog. I wrote it out of frustration due to the lack of TNIV bibles available at Christian and non-Christian bookstores. Yes as I have stated before I know that I can order them at Amazon.com, but even the selection that is available as you stated is not very good.
For 20 years I had read the NKJV, and studied with the NASB, and referenced the NIV. I switched to the ESV and pretty much abandoned all 3 translations. Then I stumbled upon the HCSB and took a big liking to it. Then that became my primary bible. This year I have decided to read, study, and teach/preach from the TNIV. That is where my frustration began. I own one TNIV and is the Renaissances Reference Bible, a very nice one I may add. But it is a bit too big to carry to church, or anywhere else. Great to study with, teach and preach from but that’s it. Also I read the NLT often and reference it as well.
I went looking for a thin-line version and I only found one that I kind of like, but not enough for me to spend the money on. Plus I only saw it on line so I have no real idea of the quality, build, or how it feels — which is really important to me.
Today I use the TNIV, NLT, HCSB, & ESV
Hi Robert, thanks for coming by. I actually meant to link to your post but forgot to. I’ve remedied that mistake.
I haven’t used the HCSB much, though I’ve liked what I’ve seen. I’m content with the TNIV, and from what I can tell the HCSB isn’t any better, or only marginally so. So, it’s basically an economic decision. Why spend the money when I’m happy with what I have and I can access it on Bible Gateway?
I use a thinline TNIV. In fact, I don’t use any Bible other than a thinline. I got tired of carrying thick Bibles back in school, when I had a million books to carry and needed something thin. Also, if we could use a Bible for a test, it couldn’t have any notes in it. In the end, I just like a thin Bible. But it was a frustrating experience finding one. I just don’t know what Zondervan is thinking.
A plug for Wycliffe! Woohoo! I’m a Bible Geek too. I thought I was the only one…
David- anyone can be a Bible Geek. But being a Boston Bible Geek takes a certain amount of unique skill. Or a Boston address.
And I’m always happy to plug Wycliffe; in fact, I’ve done so before on this blog. For some reason I hadn’t put them in our links, but have added them.
I’ll speak for your basic, regular, non-scholarly, more-clueless-than-the-seminary-educated believer in Jesus in answering this question.
A few years ago I purchased a new bible. I went to the local Christian book store and stumbled upon the TNIV. It had a nice cover (unlike Danny, neither purple nor polka dot is non-negotiable) and I thought, “Hey, they’ve improved the NIV. All the people listed in the translation team sound important and scholarly and probably know a lot more than me.” So I bought it and loved it.
When 1st John fell out of that bible I switched to the ESV because I had one on hand. I felt a little smarter reading it because it used bigger words. I never really had any problem with the obscure wordings, though I laughed at Danny’s post on the subject (“Rue the Day,” 11-26-08). Now I’m using mainly the NLT, which is kind of an adjustment, but I like to mix it up every so often. We are pretty privileged as English speakers to even have that option.
Courtney- don’t sell yourself short, you aren’t clueless at all , especially not since you took that one class a few years back =). And a seminary education is hardly a guarantee against cluelessness.
You’re right, we are in a privileged position as English speakers. And someday I’ll get around posting about that subject (of course, I’ve been saying that for some time).
So, of the three (TNIV, ESV, NLT), which do you prefer? If you had to pick one, and assuming 1 John wouldn’t jump out of your copy, which one would you pick?
Thanks for the Wycliffe plug! I’m a Wycliffe translator working in Tanzania. :)
Don’t have a lot of time to post much because we’re… translating! :) but anyway, just a couple comments on Carson. I think what sets him apart is that he’s studied linguistics, and he’s bilingual.
Language translation predominantly belongs to the field of linguistics, not theology. I’ve studied both – theology first, linguistics later – and my years of Greek, Hebrew and theology would’ve set me up for failure as a translator if I hadn’t studied linguistics. It’s so easy to become confident with a few years of Greek and Hebrew, and still be ignorant on how languages work.
Being bilingual also reminds you that different languages do things very differently. There’s a reason why every field translator I know would agree with Carson on these issues. I’m just not sure that church leaders, theologians, and the general public have spent enough time studying linguistics to understand the issues properly.
Michael- thanks for commenting, and more importantly, thanks for all your work (and the rest of Wycliffe) in Bible translation. You are a blessing to the church worldwide.
It’s interesting how so many people think that studying Greek and Hebrew are the key to Bible translation. I feel like I’m weird or something, since the more I studied Greek and Hebrew the more I realized how much I didn’t know. The fact is that knowing the biblical languages is only half the battle (a G I Joe reference for those keeping score at home).
One of the things that kept me from falling in that trap (besides the grace of God and a little common sense) was studying missions. Tim Tennent at Gordon-Conwell did a great job of explaining the difficulties in cross-cultural linguistics and communication (and like Carson, Tennent speaks more than 1 language, in his case Hindi). Roy Ciampa also taught us a bit about linguistics, using materials from SIL. I guess I was blessed in this.
Danny-
Of the three I’ve used, I prefer the TNIV. I think it’s readable without being too…paraphrased, I guess. But it may just be because I grew up reading the NIV and it’s familiar to me.
I had a quick (off topic?) thought as I read this post. I wonder if there would be less vitriol in the TNIV attacks if it were named differently. Perhaps RNIV (i.e., Revised New International Version)? I have to confess myself (as I believe Danny has already), the name “Today’s NIV” starts to ready my mind’s red flag team. I am very happy with the translation itself, but the name has been a put off to me, and it was an uphill fight for me to get over that alone, prejudging cynic that I am.
Bmarchio,
Your idea is a good one. I for one, however, actually like the title TNIV – it makes the version sound different from all of the R’s and U’s for revised and updated. Personally, I was not a fan of the NIV for long and to have a title that separates the TNIV from the NIV was an important move for me. Nevertheless, not my will…
Brian & Jay,
I’m actually tired of acronyms, especially predictable ones we get with Bible translations. Or, at least do something unique. Maybe BNIV (Best New International Version). Or NerIV (Newer International Version). Or you can change the NIV to OIV (Old International Version or Outdated International Version). Or just call it Greatest. Bible. Ever.
I did say over at Better Bibles Blog (Making Good Translations Even Gooder) that I think it’s too late to change the name. Any name change will be seen by the anti-TNIV crowd as an attempt to sneak in the back door. That’ll just add more fuel to the fire.
[…] this announcement won’t be a surprise to you. I’ve written previously about the TNIV here, as some of you may […]