I attempted once again to use my REB as my Sunday “church Bible” again this past week, with mixed results. For those coming new to this blog, my church uses the NIV as its pew and pastoral translation; however, for reasons I can’t fully explain, I’ve never warmed to the NIV and so have been searching for a modern translation to use that offers minimal distractions in reading along from the pew. My focus has been on minimizing the amount of time needed to correlate what I’m hearing from the pulpit (and seeing on the overheads) with what I’m reading in my own Bible so that I’m more actively engaged in listening and learning to the sermon.
I’m hoping that this will be a semi-regular translation comparison series, looking at alternatives to the NIV for use in the pews. For this post, I’ve presented the NIV, ESV, HCSB and REB translations, with the TNIV changes to the NIV noted with [brackets] following the NIV text (italicized). Red text highlights those areas where the different translations’ text differs from the NIV - note, however, that I have not highlighted strictly gender language changes. This is primarily because my pastor tends to inclusive-ize the NIV text from the pulpit, but also because I think we’re able to parse differences in pronouns a little more easily than nouns and verbs. Feel free to comment if you don’t agree.
I want to also say at the start that I am not making a value judgment on the accuracy or correctness of the NIV. I am only using it as my base text for comparison because that is what my church uses. In comparing other translations to the NIV, I am only trying to understand which ones offer the best opportunity for complementary reading in a live worship scenario.
The scripture preached this past week was from 2 Peter 1:3-8; I’ve included verse 9 below as well.
Verses 3-4:
| [T]NIV: 3 His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness [a godly life] through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape [having escaped] the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. | ESV: 3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. |
| HCSB: 3 For His divine power has given us everything required for life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and goodness. 4 By these He has given us very great and precious promises, so that through them you may share in the divine nature, escaping the corruption that is in the world because of evil desires. | REB: 3 God’s divine power has bestowed on us everything that makes for life and true religion, through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4 In this way he has given us his promises, great beyond all price, so that through them you may escape the corruption with which lust has infected the world, and may come to share in the very being of God. |
The TNIV has a minimal number of changes to the NIV text, though in these initial verses, we see one of the more significant differences among translations. The TNIV has taken two Greek nouns, zoe and eusebeia, and combined them into an adjective/noun pair in English. The Greek zoe means an animated and vigorous life, while eusebeia means reverence or piety toward God. I’m going to try and not quibble about why these have been translated into “life” and “godliness”, respectively, but would argue that TNIV’s “a godly life” is more bland, albeit perhaps more readable, than the NIV/HCSB. Our pastor described eusebeia as “worship rightly directed”, which certainly suggests what the REB (and NEB) is getting at, though I’m not sure “true religion” has the same connotation that it might have had a few decades ago.
The REB proved distracting in the middle of verse 4 as well with its depiction of lust (Gk. epithymia) as something like a virus that has infected and corrupted the world. The Greek means to crave or desire what is forbidden; adding “evil”, as the NIV/TNIV/HCSB do, seems to be somewhat of a value-add interpretation. The REB does nicely rearrange the text in a bad news/good news format, rather than ending with “evil desires”. This reordering then mirrors the opening phrase of verse 3.
However, for all the positives that might be gleaned from the REB, it is significantly different from the NIV and does not facilitate the read-along quality that I’m looking at here.
Verses 5-7:
| [T]NIV: 5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness [mutual affection]; and to brotherly kindness [mutual affection], love. | ESV: 5 For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. |
| HCSB: 5 For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with goodness, goodness with knowledge, 6 knowledge with self-control, self-control with endurance, endurance with godliness, 7 godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. | REB: 5 With all this in view, you should make every effort to add virtue to your faith, knowledge to virtue, 6 self-control to knowledge, fortitude to self-control, piety to fortitude, 7 brotherly affection to piety, and love to brotherly affection. |
For the difference between “add” (NIV/TNIV/REB) and “supplement” (ESV/HCSB), the Greek is epichoregeo, which typically means to aid or supply someone with something they need; the root choregeo has the sense of being a worship leader. In that sense, we are to minister to our faith, earnestly supplying it with the things that it needs, which Peter goes on to list. An alliterative translator might choose a sense like “feed your faith with virtue/goodness”… However, the NRSV gets this one correct, I think, with “you must make every effort to support your faith with goodness [...]“.
After this, we start playing the “list of adjectives” game. The biggest variance comes for the Greek hupomone, which is translated as “perserverance” (T/NIV), “steadfastness” (ESV), “endurance” (HCSB) and “fortitude” (REB). And of course, philadelphia is no longer “brotherly love” in any of these translations, gender accurate or not.
Regrettably, the NIV (and strangely the TNIV) uses the most awkward grammer in building the list of things that faith needs. All of the other translations are a grammatical improvement (except, perhaps, the ESV’s connecting “and’s”), and all but the REB have the same adjective order as the NIV. When pastor reads “and to knowledge, self-control” in verse 6, I can read “knowledge with self-control” in the HCSB or ESV and not have to mentally flip the order of what I’m reading with what I’m hearing. So, again, the REB is disqualified in a NIV environment.
Verses 8-9:
| [T]NIV: 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. | ESV: 8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. |
| HCSB: 8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they will keep you from being useless or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 The person who lacks these things is blind and shortsighted, and has forgotten the cleansing from his past sins. | REB: 8 If you possess and develop these gifts, you will grow actively and effectively in knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 Whoever lacks them is wilfully blind; he has forgotten that his past sins were washed away. |
This has to be the final nail in the REB coffin as an alternative to the NIV. The passage presents the reverse thought of the other translations, perhaps to the same meaning, but completely adrift when the pastor goes into a word study on “ineffective” (Gk. argos) and “unproductive” (Gk. akarpos).
I have to confess that I like the fruit imagery in the Bible when it comes to being productive, so the ESV and HCSB appeal (peel? hah!) to me. The HCSB is remarkably close, almost identical, to the ESV in verse 8.
Finally, in verse 9, the ESV strikes with one of the most sensible renderings I’ve seen from that translation with regards to esti tuphlos muopazo , especially as one who suffers both physical nearsightedness and farsightedness as to be legally blind. I love Strong’s definition of tuphlos: “mentally blind”; Vine’s goes on to qualify muopazo as “he of whom it is true is blind in that he cannot discern spiritual things, he is near-sighted in that he is occupied in regarding worldly affairs.”
The HCSB misses, I think, with “shortsighted”, which has more of a future planning or thinking connotation than one of clarity of perception.
Conclusions
Obviously the TNIV is an easy choice as a pew alternative to the NIV. Equally, we can say that, of these translations, the REB has the greatest variance in rendering and was the more difficult edition to read along with.
That leaves the ESV and HCSB to ponder. While the major points of variance seem about equal, I’m giving the nod to the HCSB because it generally uses better modern English grammer than the ESV, which retains the traditional renderings of the Tyndale line. As an idiomatic English translation, the HCSB is closer in approach to the NIV than is the ESV.
It is worth noting that the HCSB was conceived, in part, as a replacement for the NIV in Southern Baptist Convention materials (to avoid licensing fees), so it makes sense that the translation would not stray too far from their previous standard. That said, there are many nods to the ESV/RSV line as well, as we saw in verse 8 above. It’s likely that the HCSB would work equally well in an ESV church.
Next week I’ll take my HCSB to church and see how it goes. If that doesn’t work, then the TNIV probably makes the most sense.
19 Comments
I presented a series of lessons at my church on these verses. I also read Mark Buchanan’s Hidden in Plain Sight, which is a treatment of these verses (get the book).
At first I wondered about the TNIV change at v. 3, “a godly life” vs. “life and godliness.” The TNIV’s rendering is a strong possibility, because of what is known in Greek grammar as a hendiadys, expressing one unit of thought through two words, in this case. In the Greek text, both “life” and “godliness” are governed by one article and prepossition. This makes the TNIV’s rendering the correct one, in my opinion. A true hendiadys it is.
The TNIV’s “having escaped corruption” is a definite improvement of the NIV, for it renders the aorist active participle as antecedent action relative to its sense in the verse. With that in mind, I cannot agree with the HCSB and REB’s rendering.
The ESV’s rending of arete as “excellence” is a better choice than the (T)NIV, REB and HCSB’s “goodness.” Arete has a rich background in secular Greek.
At v. 5 I favor the HCSB’s “supplement” because the same verb is used in v. 11 as part of the context, and I see it as a play-on words. There the HCSB has “supplied.” But “add to” is not bad. I just favor the HCSB’s rendering on this one.
I like “brotherly affection” in verse 7, since “brotherly love” is still in vogue. But of course “mutual affection” is the meaning, when all is said and done.
I understand your contention with the (T)NIV treatment of the things to add, but using “and” after each is not only acceptable English but it honors the Greek text. In the Greek we have the postpositive conjunction de, which is followed by each quality “to supplement” in the dative case, because they are objects of the Greek verb whose objectives are in the dative case. I guess how it sounds in reading is the issue. A matter of taste, I say.
I too like the appeal (”peel”) of the fruit imagery maintained in the ESV and HCSB.
I’ve studied several commentators on v.9 and my nod goes to the ESV on this one.
Amazingly, the ESV has done well in these verses. REB seems to the must challenging to accept.
Thanks, TC. My head is spinning from some of your comments, but I really do appreciate the insight.
Do you have any feedback on epithymia in v.4?
And is “blind” and “nearsighted” in v.9 a hendiadys? or is the causal relationship in the ESV grammatically correct as you mention.
Regarding your question on epithymia in v. 4, I believe the REB has captured the meaning of it with its “with which lust has infected the world.”
In the Greek text we have ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ φθορᾶς, “through evil desire.” The REB has brought out the true sense of the construction in the context, but it’s rearranging is one I cannot agree with. I can understand the rearranging if it’s for emphasis. But this is not the case. It makes everything possibilities, instead of what the Christians have already experienced.
Regarding v.9, we do not have a hendiadys, but I definitely favor the ESV here in its treatment of the present participle, “so nearsighted.”
Thanks again!
How about NLT along with NIV?
Reading these passages and commentary just goes to show there are things to like and not like about each one in certain places, even though your premise is compatibility with the NIV.
Jeff
I’ve been thinking about the NLT too, Jeff. It’s been undeservedly neglected on the shelf for too long, I think. I was planning to replace the REB with the NLTse in the next one of these “pew Bible” comparisons.
I just looked at the NLT. It too treats the Greek construction as a hendiadys, “godly life.” Good call, I say.
But on v. 4 it follows the REB, which I’m not in favor of.
At v. 9 it has “shortsighted or blind,” which baffles me. I still like the ESV’s.
Drat, TC beat me to the hendiadys. Definitely one of my favourite literary devices, if only for its name.
For whatever reason, I’ve never really trusted the NIV either. Perhaps it’s just a lack of familiarity, but when I compare specific passages to other translations I rarely find anything that really seems like an interpretation. I also run into spots from time to time where the wording seems unnecessarily convoluted.
My church at home has used the NRSV for quite some time (I believe they still used the KJV when I was a kid), and the one at school uses the NKJV (and still the KJV at the evening service). Thus, of the ones you highlight the ESV would obviously be the easiest to follow along with.
For whatever reason, pew Bibles have never been a part of the culture of the churches I’ve gone to. You listen to the readings, then listen to the homily. In some ways, I like this, since I sometimes notice things when listening that I might not, were I reading along. Particularly in sermons, though, it can be helpful to have the text at hand. Often I’ll pull out the REB New Testament that lives in my backpack, more so that I can see the context of the verse being referred to than anything. I don’t really have trouble following along with the translation being used by the preacher; having a different translation, indeed, can often be a help in giving a slightly different perspective.
TC –
I don’t thing I’m following exactly what the issue was with REB and 1:4. But just to throw in my $.02 here is what B&C did with 2Pet 1:4:
Through which things he has given, to us promises the precious and the great he has given, that through these you may become sharers of divine nature, having escaped the corruption(φθορᾶ) in the world by(ἐν) lust (ἐπιθυμίᾳ).
So you can see they broke differently than you did and then re-arranged for English grammar. I don’t think you can avoid a re-arrangement otherwise you end up with something like:
Through which things the precious and great to us promises he has given that through these you may become of the divine sharers nature having escaped the in the world by lust corruption.
As I indicated I wasn’t quite sure I understood the objection to the REB’s treatment so I apologize in advance for whereever I was responding to an irrelevant point.
Drat, TC beat me to the hendiadys. Definitely one of my favourite literary devices, if only for its name.
Andrew, I believe both the TNIV and the NLT made the right decision on bring out the sense of the hendiadys.
CD-Host, the REB has extended the hina clause effect, if you will, to the aorist participle, “having escaped,” so it no longer reads as a past experience but as only a possibility to be had. I’m not sure this is what Peter had in mind.
It seems like his readers had already escape the corruption (see v. 9; the could only forget what they already knew).
I hope this is clearer.
Oh I see tense objection. Well you are right the REB changed tenses their and that tense change seems to have changed meaning.
The NET (which I notice you all don’t tend to discuss much, an excellent translation btw) has a long text note on this:
The aorist participle ἀποφυγόντες (apofugonte”) is often taken as attendant circumstance to the preceding verb γένησθε (genhsqe). As such, the sense is “that you might become partakers…and might escape…” However, it does not follow the contours of the vast majority of attendant circumstance participles (in which the participle precedes the main verb, among other things). Further, attendant circumstance participles are frequently confused with result participles (which do follow the verb). Many who take this as attendant circumstance are probably viewing it semantically as result (“that you might become partakers…and [thereby] escape…”). But this is next to impossible since the participle is aorist: Result participles are categorically present tense.
Thanks for sharing that textual note from the NET. Yes, we cannot successfully deem the aorist participle as attendant, too much syntactical challenges to overcome.
@Andrew: For whatever reason, pew Bibles have never been a part of the culture of the churches I’ve gone to. You listen to the readings, then listen to the homily.
I’ve been down that road, but never feel at home until I hear the pastor say in his sermon, “take out your Bibles and turn to…” That was a big “selling” point when we started at our current church. Most places, taking a Bible was just a big paperweight, a place to stash the bulletin. Now I *know* I’m going to open it and interact with the sermon!
Often I’ll pull out the REB New Testament that lives in my backpack…
Yes, mine lives in my backpack, but my work one - it’s great for the bus or a quick look-up at my desk.
[...] having a different translation, indeed, can often be a help in giving a slightly different perspective.
I agree, I’m just trying to stay focused on the pastor’s perspective *during* the sermon. I’ll often revisit the sermon outline/notes later on Sunday with another translation, but during the sermon I don’t want my mind distracted about translation differences and, heaven forbid, plotting my next blog post based on that…
@TC and CD: when you guys are ready to speak English again, let me know… my eyes are glazed over now. *smile*
I thought we were using English all along. Sorry about that!
thank you for this interesting post. i’m interested to hear how things go with other translations (TNIV & NLTse) in future posts. -nate
Thanks for dropping by, Nathan. Our pastor is doing a lengthy series built off these verses, so the core comparison remains valid. I took my TNIV last week, so very little difference from the pastoral text - probably HCSB or NLTse next week.
Maybe I’ll try to look at the supporting verses each week and compare those between translations - it was “goodness” this last week.
I used to take my TNIV and ESV to church and do similar comparisons. Now that I’ve acquired a small sized NLTse I’m now taking it and the TNIV to church and doing similar comparisons. Last Sunday I only took the NLT since they normally use the NIV. Lately the senior pastor has started mixing up his references, but we don’t know exactly what they are because he doesn’t include which translation he’s using. It’s been pretty nice, and definitely has made looking up the scripture references during the sermon much more interesting. Blessings.
I used to take my TNIV and ESV to church and do similar comparisons. Now that I’ve acquired a small sized NLTse I’m now taking it and the TNIV to church and doing similar comparisons.
That’s actually what I’m trying to avoid doing… I find that during the time I take to look at multiple translations, the pastor has moved on to the next point of his sermon and I’ve lost the thread of his argument. Plus our worship space is pretty full and managing a pile of books would probably earn me a few looks of “concern”, not the least from my wife.
I will agree that followup study is appropriate, but I’ve just not been able to effectively do that “in the moment” during the sermon. I’ll probably just keep taking my TNIV and save the comparisons for later.
P.S. Did you ever get that package?