Follow-Up Regarding the TNIV
In case you haven't been able to follow the comments, there have been two significant threads of discussion. First Jeremy Pierce has challenged my assertion that no major English grammars allow for the use of plural pronouns for singular antecedents. He submitted the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey Pullum. Be sure to read Jeremy's blog entry, "The Singular 'They'" and my comments.
Then, Peter Kirk challenged my suggestion that an inclusive rendering of Psalm 34:20 was a regrettable choice. I've stated on a number of occasions that although I am accepting of a translation that uses inclusive language toward human beings when the context of the passage warrants it, I would prefer that messianic prophecies in the Old Testament retain a traditional (masculine) rendering.
In the interest of presenting both sides of the discussion, I would encourage you to not only read Peter's comments, but I thought I would also repeat here the "official" rationale from the TNIV website for the rending of Psalm 34:20:
The change from "his bones" to "their bones" reflects the concern of the translators that a passage that has in view both men and women (which this passage has; its reference to "the righteous" is generic, not, as claimed, to "an individual righteous man") be "heard" by contemporary English readers to have just that meaning. The Hebrew pronoun here is masculine singular, but that is simply in accordance with how ancient Hebrew writers treated generics. The Hebrew of the OT has grammatical gender whereas English has only natural gender. That is, in Hebrew (and Greek) many words are rather arbitrarily assigned grammatical gender. For instance, Hebrew nephesh (traditionally often rendered "soul") is feminine, while Greek pneuma (often rendered "spirit") is neuter. No conclusions about a "soul" being feminine or a "spirit" being a "thing" are to be drawn. And Hebrew also uses masculine singular pronouns to refer to masculine singular generic nouns (which are usually masculine) that refer to both men and women alike—which is certainly the case here. This is seen in the fact that Psalm 34 itself moves back and forth between plural generic forms (vv. 15-16) and singular generic forms (vv. 19-21). Clearly the singular forms are as generic as the plural forms and are intended simply as an alternative way to speak of righteous persons in general (including both men and women). So, consistently with their desire to present the Bible in gender accurate language, the TNIV translators have turned the masculine singular generic pronoun of the original Hebrew here into a generic plural.
But it is alleged that this has created an inner-canonical problem, since this verse is quoted in John 19:36 as applying to Jesus—that it is "fulfilled" in Jesus' experience. However, it should be noted, first, that it is not certain that John quotes Ps. 34:20. He may be referring to the provisions for the Passover Lamb, as found in Exod. 12:46 and Num. 9:12. But even if Ps. 34:20 is being quoted, the connection between the two passages is still clear enough. That Jesus is preeminently the Righteous One, and so fulfills the description of "the (generic) righteous" of Psalm 34, experiencing with them God's care for "the righteous," should be obvious to all careful readers of the Bible. Moreover, quotations of the OT in the NT are generally not exact, so that the shift from the plural of the TNIV of Ps. 34:20 to the singular of John 19:36 should not obscure the connection. Note, for example, how NT writers occasionally change OT singular references to plurals (compare Isa. 52:7 with Rom. 10:15; Ps. 36:1 with Rom. 3:10,18; Ps. 32:1 with Rom. 4:6-7). Do such changes "obscure" the connections between the OT and NT passages? Of course not. Moreover, entirely apart from the gender issue, the shift from singular to plural in this verse is actually a gain in that it makes clearer to the reader that the reference in Ps. 34:20 is generic rather than particular, and that in John 19:36 the author of the Gospel was applying this generic statement about "the righteous" to Jesus as the supreme Righteous One.
Fair enough. I understand and appreciate the reasons why the TNIV Committee on Bible Translation made this choice. I would have merely made a more traditional choice for this verse. I well remember back in 1991, in my first semester in seminary, taking John D. W. Watts for Advanced Old Testament Intro in which he made us write exegesis papers treating OT passages in their original context with absolutely no references to the New Testament. That's a great exercise, and I usually try to do this even today as an initial step in understanding an OT passage before I look at it in the whole context of the entire canon. However, in the end, as I stated in the comments, "...as a believer, I read [OT] passages ... through Christological lenses. I have no problem with translators making legitimate decisions to render a passage with this understanding. To me this is in keeping with Luke 24:27, 'And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself' (TNIV)." My disagreement over this or that rendering in no way takes away from my regard, use and recommendation of the TNIV.
Finally, I came across an unusual and questionably archaic word choice in the TNIV last night:
“He brings princes to naught
and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.”
(Is 40:23 TNIV)
I would guess the translators use "naught" as a stylistic choice so that "nothing" is not repeated in the English, although these are two different words in the Hebrew (אַיִן and תֹּהוּ respectively). But I wonder how many TNIV readers use the word "naught" on a regular basis, and I wonder if young readers even understand the meaning of the word? This is the only occurrence of the English word "naught" in the entire TNIV. Incidentally, the original NIV and the NRSV also use "naught" in this verse.