Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 35:2 (Jun 1992)
Article: Book Reviews
Author: Anonymous

JETS 35:2 (June 1992) p. 231

Book Reviews

Accuracy of Translation and the New International Version: The Primary Criterion in Evaluating Bible Versions. By Robert P. Martin. Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1989, vi + 89 pp., $6.95 paper. The NIV Reconsidered: A Fresh Look at a Popular Translation. By Earl D. Radmacher and Zane C. Hodges. Dallas: Redención Viva, 1990, 155 pp., n.p. paper.

According to published figures, the NIV continues to be the best-selling Bible translation in the United States. Not only does it top the list of Bibles sold (followed by the KJV, NKJV, LB, NASB, New Century Version and NRSV), but also the four top-selling study Bibles are based on it. Although it may not have done for our day what the KJV did for its (and in view of the numerous translations available today it is quite unlikely that any translation could or will), the NIV is at present the closest there is to a “standard” translation among large segments of the evangelical Church.

While many rejoice in this state of affairs, others are troubled by this development, the authors of these two books among them. In their opinion the NIV is much too inaccurate a translation to deserve the popularity it has been accorded, and the widespread acceptance of such an inaccurate translation is therefore a symptom and/or cause of deeper problems within much of contemporary evangelicalism.

Is the NIV an accurate translation? That is the basic question asked by both of these books. In asking it they start where the NIV translators themselves placed their greatest emphasis: accuracy of translation and fidelity to the thought of the Biblical writers. Furthermore both books realize that defining “accuracy” is crucial to answering the question. But despite these and other similarities (such as giving numerous examples of instances where, in their opinions, the NIV rendering is inadequate) the differences are such that it will be fairer to give each of them separate treatment.

Martin begins (in chap. 2) his case against the NIV by trying to identify the translation theory behind the NIV. While acknowledging the translators’ desire to occupy the “middle ground” by making “flexible use of concordance and equivalence,” he asserts at the end of the chapter that “the NIV has more in common with the dynamic equivalent translations than with the formal equivalence translations” (p. 12). He then attempts to justify this assertion in chaps. 4–5 by offering examples (most of which are convincing or relevant) of dynamic elements in the NIV NT.

But his evidence—examples of dynamic elements in the NIV—does not at all prove his assertion that the NIV has more in common with dynamic equivalence translations like the GNB or REB than with formal equivale...