Proclaimer Blog
NIV update. Defining issue?
I first heard great preaching from the RSV. It was the first time I had sat through a rigorous, applied message (40 minutes too) and I was mesmerised. The preacher – a little unknown called Richard Cooper, from a little unknown church close to University, Woodhouse Eaves Evangelical Baptist Church – had a formative influence on my preaching.
But the RSV was not the evangelical's favourite. Strange this, because it was a good translation and, of course, became the basis for the ESV. Nevertheless, it made one well-trailed change from previous versions. It translated Isaiah 7.14 as "young woman" instead of "virgin." Technically, of course, that is correct. It could be either; and arguably (as the translators argued anyhow), it is only by reading back from the New Testament that you would assume the word should be translated "virgin." Nevertheless, it became the defining issue of the translation (along with the reduction of propitiation to pitiation, perhaps). Interestingly, the ESV revision reversed the change.
Strange how a translation should largely stand or fall on that one issue.
The updated NIV has been causing a bit of a stir in eLand because it has changed the way that Romans 1.17 is translated:
For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”(original NIV)
For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.” (updated NIV)
Notice the difference? This is part of the 5% only that has been changed and will have Lutheran historians shaking, for, of course, it was this realisation that the righteousness came from God, rather than just his righteousness being revealed that kick started the Reformation. And there is no doubt that this is a politically sensitive issue because those who want to read Romans a slightly different way (be it Federal Vision or New Perspective on Paul) need the "from" to be taken out. Is this the new NIV's defining issue?
I don't think so.
First, the ESV translates the phrase dikaiosyne theou this way anyway. Plus ça change.
Second, the phrase "righteousness of God" is probably a more accurate translation. It is, after all, genitive. "righteousness from God" (original NIV) is an interpretation rather than a translation. And the wording is still left open for a traditional interpretation. In fact, arguably (and this is probably the reason it was changed) it lays open a more thorough understanding.
Moo, in his huge Romans commentary explains that the phrase can be understood three ways:
- An attribute of God. This is, of course, the way it is often understood by NPP guys.
- A status given by God. This is Luther's favourite.
- An activity of God.
Moo argues that the context, OT usage and Romans thrust take you down both line 2 and line 3. "Righteousness from God" excludes a simple understanding of line 3.
"This more comprehensive interpretation of "righteousness of God" in 1.17 has several advantages. First, it is built on the most frequent meaning of the phrase in the OT, so that Paul's readers in Rome would have an immediate starting point for their understanding of Paul's language. Second, it does justice to the nuances of both divine activity and human receptivity that occur in the text. Third, it enables us to relate the phrase to Paul's broader use of "righteousness" where he frequently highlights the end result of the process of justification in the believers status of righteousness." (Moo, p75).
Defining issue? No. Quite interesting though. And important to get right because the NIV update will replace the NIV.