A Call for a TNIV Apocrypha
02/24/2007 17:27 Filed in: Faith & Reason
In my previous post, I wrote, "In my opinion, the TNIV Committee on Bible Translation should really consider completing a translation of the Deuterocanonicals if they want to continue to see expanded use of the translation in the wider realm of academic biblical studies."
In the comments section of that post, Peter Kirk challenged my suggestion for the necessity of a TNIV translation of the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha:
First, without getting into the whole issue of canonicity, I should say that I am a Protestant who does not view the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books as authoritative Scripture. Having said that, however, I would agree with Martin Luther who stated that these are "books which are not held equal to the Holy Scriptures but yet are profitable and good to read." In fact, I would suggest that it's impossible to fully understand the cultural context of the New Testament without reading these books as they fill in the historical gap of 400 years between the testaments.
Further, I believe that Peter's concern about the limits of what should be translated is a simple issue to resolve. In the previous post, I purposefully used the word Deuterocanoical instead of Apocryphal because the latter word can sometimes be interpreted as the larger body of pseudepigraphal and pseudonymous writings from the time in which the New Testament books were written. The first term lends itself to a specific body of writings. Let me make it clear that when I say it would be beneficial to have the TNIV Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) produce the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal, I am specifically speaking of those books found in the Septuagint, but not in the Hebrew Tanakh.
I agree that academic use is not the main priority for the CBT regarding the TNIV. However, considering that the NIV, the TNIV's predecessor, became the standard translation for academic resources in Evangelical circles (there are currently more commentaries and reference materials based on the NIV than any other translation), I would think that academic acceptance of the TNIV would certainly be a goal of the CBT.
Further, although I cannot back this up statistically, it would not surprise me if the NIV is the most widely used Bible translations as well among non-Evangelicals, although the NRSV is used more widely in non-Evangelical academic resources. One reason that the NRSV is used more is because its inclusion of the Apocrypha makes it more accessible to the wider umbrella of Christendom. Plus an Apocrypha is needed for biblical historical-critical studies. The NRSV is now approaching two decades in age, and while this doesn't really take away from its value, the stage could easily be set for a new translation such as the TNIV to become a truly international version. But it would have to include the Apocrypha for this to happen.
Take for instance Zondervan's Archaeological Study Bible released last year. Although it was somewhat flawed because of a number of factual inaccuracies in the first printing, this was the kind of volume that simply screamed for treatment of the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books. In fact, despite it's large size, the lack of these books seemed somewhat glaring in my opinion. Of course, there is no NIV Apocrypha and there never will be. But it's certainly not too late for a TNIV Apocrypha to be developed.
Now this would certainly be groundbreaking for the International Bible Society, the sponsors and copyright holders of the NIV and TNIV. Unlike the American Bible Society, the IBS does not include Catholic Bibles with the Deuterocanonicals in its catalog. This would be uncharted territory. But think of the possibilities. What if the majority of Christians of many different denominational stripes were united by one major translation? The King James Version and the New International Version have come close to this, but a translation for everyone would have to include the option to have these extra books for those who wanted them.
Finally, it's not without precedent for a primarily Evangelical translation to have editions with the Apocrypha. Although it's not widely publicized, there are Catholic editions of the New Living Translation that are already available with these extra books.
Regardless, considering that I can't even get a wide-margin TNIV, I'm not going to hold my breath for an edition with the Apocrypha.
In the comments section of that post, Peter Kirk challenged my suggestion for the necessity of a TNIV translation of the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha:
I'm not sure I agree, simply because once you go down that road, where do you finish? There is an open ended, nowhere clearly defined set of "apocryphal" books out there of interest to the academic community, including the pseudo-Pauline writings you mention. If academic use were really a priority for the TNIV team, they could start on this. But I doubt if it is. Why should it be? I don't think there is a lot of money in it, and they won't particularly be wanting to promote liberal scholarship. Also I guess that NRSV is adequate as a scholarly translation of the deuterocanonical books.Now meeting the needs of Christian communities with different canons might be a different matter. A TNIV translation of the deuterocanonical books might be helpful for promoting Christian unity with such groups. Again, whether the TNIV team wants to promote this kind of unity is up to them.
First, without getting into the whole issue of canonicity, I should say that I am a Protestant who does not view the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books as authoritative Scripture. Having said that, however, I would agree with Martin Luther who stated that these are "books which are not held equal to the Holy Scriptures but yet are profitable and good to read." In fact, I would suggest that it's impossible to fully understand the cultural context of the New Testament without reading these books as they fill in the historical gap of 400 years between the testaments.
Further, I believe that Peter's concern about the limits of what should be translated is a simple issue to resolve. In the previous post, I purposefully used the word Deuterocanoical instead of Apocryphal because the latter word can sometimes be interpreted as the larger body of pseudepigraphal and pseudonymous writings from the time in which the New Testament books were written. The first term lends itself to a specific body of writings. Let me make it clear that when I say it would be beneficial to have the TNIV Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) produce the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal, I am specifically speaking of those books found in the Septuagint, but not in the Hebrew Tanakh.
I agree that academic use is not the main priority for the CBT regarding the TNIV. However, considering that the NIV, the TNIV's predecessor, became the standard translation for academic resources in Evangelical circles (there are currently more commentaries and reference materials based on the NIV than any other translation), I would think that academic acceptance of the TNIV would certainly be a goal of the CBT.
Further, although I cannot back this up statistically, it would not surprise me if the NIV is the most widely used Bible translations as well among non-Evangelicals, although the NRSV is used more widely in non-Evangelical academic resources. One reason that the NRSV is used more is because its inclusion of the Apocrypha makes it more accessible to the wider umbrella of Christendom. Plus an Apocrypha is needed for biblical historical-critical studies. The NRSV is now approaching two decades in age, and while this doesn't really take away from its value, the stage could easily be set for a new translation such as the TNIV to become a truly international version. But it would have to include the Apocrypha for this to happen.
Take for instance Zondervan's Archaeological Study Bible released last year. Although it was somewhat flawed because of a number of factual inaccuracies in the first printing, this was the kind of volume that simply screamed for treatment of the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books. In fact, despite it's large size, the lack of these books seemed somewhat glaring in my opinion. Of course, there is no NIV Apocrypha and there never will be. But it's certainly not too late for a TNIV Apocrypha to be developed.
Now this would certainly be groundbreaking for the International Bible Society, the sponsors and copyright holders of the NIV and TNIV. Unlike the American Bible Society, the IBS does not include Catholic Bibles with the Deuterocanonicals in its catalog. This would be uncharted territory. But think of the possibilities. What if the majority of Christians of many different denominational stripes were united by one major translation? The King James Version and the New International Version have come close to this, but a translation for everyone would have to include the option to have these extra books for those who wanted them.
Finally, it's not without precedent for a primarily Evangelical translation to have editions with the Apocrypha. Although it's not widely publicized, there are Catholic editions of the New Living Translation that are already available with these extra books.
Regardless, considering that I can't even get a wide-margin TNIV, I'm not going to hold my breath for an edition with the Apocrypha.