The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation

The debate about the linguistic differences between the “Queen’s English” and that used across the Atlantic still continues; a recent leading article in the London Times stressing the increasing divergence adopted the view that within a hundred years each would be unintelligible to the other. This does not take into account the unifying force of the Scriptures, which have long been part of the common bond, initially based on the seventeenth-century King James Version (KJV), commonly called in Britain the Authorized Version (AV). Close alliance in World War II and the media, primarily films and radio, with such mediating broadcasters as Alistair Cooke and popular journals like the Reader’s Digest bridging any linguistic barrier, has broadened the vocabulary of both parties.

The Revised Standard Version New Testament in 1946 circulated at first with American spellings, but with its increasing acceptance in the United Kingdom, the whole Bible, published in 1952, was given modified spellings and some vocabulary changes. When the so-called common language Today’s English Version New Testament (TEV) was issued by Collins in 1966, it followed the same practice. However, when the British and Foreign Bible Society in London published the complete Bible (Good News Bible [GNB]) ten years later, it judged it essential that a more thorough Anglicization be made. This was effected by some half a dozen individuals working under the overall coordination of Brynmar Price, who but rarely had to refer to that Society’s “Translations Advisory Group” for support and advice.

In England, even before the advent of the RSV, the need for a new translation into English from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts of the Bible had been voiced by William J. Martin of the University of Liverpool, among others, as one of the aims of The Tyndale House for Biblical Research founded at Cambridge in 1945 (and not to be confused with the later Tyndale House publishing firm in America). But the dearth of competent scholars and other demands precluded this. Those evangelical scholars working on ancient Semitic and classical languages happily threw their lot in with the NIV project when this was first adumbrated. Among those was Martin himself, who was to make the work of the NIV the major task of his remaining years of life. His presence on the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) of the NIV and the thorough work of literary consultants and the translators’ realization of “the international use of English” that “sought to avoid Americanisms on the one hand and obvious Anglicisms on the other” initially made the need for a special “Anglicized Version” appear unnecessary and eventually prove to be limited in scope. Indeed, it was not till after the trial work on Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (1977) that the matter really came to a head, though some changes in spelling in the NT NIV had been made for the U.K. edition.

In late 1977 it was decided that a British edition should appear simultaneously with the American publication planned a year later. Professor Donald J. Wiseman of the University of London, who had participated in the translation program from 1965, was asked to chair a group to effect the necessary changes of text. He enlisted help, but little could be done at first except set his assistants to work on the unrevised latest stage of manuscript (CBT) in his hands. It was not till May of 1978 that the completed copy of the text was available, since the CBT requested Youngve Kindberg of New York International Bible Society (now International Bible Society) not to send texts till they had completed their final polishing and revision in February-March. This meant that the Anglicizing group had to work fast under Wiseman’s chairmanship.

The group included two specialists in English: Gordon Humphreys, headmaster of the renowned King Edward School, Whitely, and John Mighell-Smith. Paul Price, a director of a large publishing firm and a leading Baptist layman, Grace B. Ruoff, a school teacher and ex-missionary from Zambia, David Dowley and Winifred Marden of the editorial staff of the Scripture Gift Mission, with additional consultant help for designated books of the Old Testament, completed the team.

A draft was finished by early June. Ed Palmer wisely agreed with many of the changes himself to save time, the bulk of proposals being sent to a special subcommittee of the CBT whose approval was, however, not received in London till early August, by which time the first printer’s proofs were being checked for consistency with CBT revisions by Ernest Lang and Beryl Barnes, employed by Edward England of the British publisher Hodder & Stoughton, and by Wiseman. Additional points for inclusion in the British edition were approved by CBT even during this proofreading. In all these discussions a number of translations suggested by the British team were accepted for both editions. Despite printing and binding delays, the publication date of February 28, 1979, was met and celebrated by a service of thanksgiving and dedication in the Church of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, Trafalgar Square, London, with a large congregation drawn from many denominations. The decision to have this special edition has since been justified by the increasing acceptance and use of the NIV within the British Isles. Such “Anglicizations” of Bibles originating in America have now become an established procedure in Britain.

The most numerous changes required for the British reader were the common variants in spelling as, for example, “worshipped” for the American “worshiped,” “labour” and “neighbour” for “labor” and “neighbor,” “plough” for “plow,” and the like. While such alterations appear to be automatic, care was always needed to cover some variations in grammar and syntax; thus British “spat” for American “spit” (past tense, Matt. 26:27) and the addition of “that” or “so that” (593 times) after an active verb where this is omitted in American English. The American expression “to have someone do something,” for example, “had him stand,” was rendered into British English “made him stand.” Verbal forms vary, as American “to rear” used of children against the common British use of “to rear” of animals and “to bring up” of children.

The British preference for close definition by preposition accounts for “due to his name” instead of “due his name” (Ps. 29:2) and “given to him” instead of “given him” (Ps. 72:15). “On behalf of” was substituted for the American “in behalf of” (Mal. 2:12, footnote). “Ankles turn over” was used (2 Sam. 22:37), since “ankles turn” appears to state the obvious and not an accident or injury. Also the British say “finish the week,” not “finish out the week” (Gen. 29:27–28); so this has now been revised accordingly in both the British and American editions.

Cultural differences required a number of changes, notably in legal expressions; for example, “deeded” (Gen. 23:17) was changed to “legally made over.” “Obligate” with the antiquated English sense of “oblige” is rarely used and was changed to “required to obey” (Gal. 5:3) or “bind” (Num. 30:11). Similarly in legal contexts “repealed” (Dan. 6:8) is used almost only technically of the abolition or abrogation of a law passed by the Houses of Parliament; therefore, “annulled” was changed to “repealed.” “They put Jason and the others on bail and let them go” (Acts 17:9) stands for the American “they made Jason and the others post bond and let them go.” “Ill-treat” was used for the less forcible “mistreat” (Exod. 22:21).

Expressions of duration and time vary, so that “for forty years” was used for the American “forty years” (Exod. 16:35) in specifying the length of time of a given episode. In England the day could be divided into “quarters” but not “fourths”; so Nehemiah 9:3 now reads “quarter” instead of “fourth.” Some words would not be understood in British English, such as “fieldstones” (hence “stones from the field,” Deut. 27:6). The “rooster” (Matt. 26:34) is the British “cock,” the “entryway” the “entrance” (Mark 14:68), the “aide” the “assistant” (Josh 1:1). “Take care of your mat” (Acts 9:34) implies that the mat must not be forgotten or lost, whereas “tidy up your mat” includes packing up for removal. “Limber” was replaced by “supple” (Gen. 49:24), and “firepot” (Gen. 15:17) by “brazier.”

Some biblical expressions have become so built into common quotations that to say, “I have escaped with only the skin of my ‘teeth” (Job 19:20) would raise a smile, the British idiom being “by only the skin of my teeth,” which conjures up the danger of the situation and the “close shave” experience of the escape. The “ten thousand talents” and “a hundred denarii” are explained in the footnotes to Matthew 18:24, 28 as “millions of pounds” (sterling) instead of “millions of dollars” and “a few pounds” instead of “a few dollars,” for the talent was worth several hundred pounds (Matt. 25:15 footnote).

A difficult problem was posed by the differing usage of “corn” and “cornfields.” In America, as in Canada and Australia, it means maize or Indian corn. In Britain, however, “corn” means “grain” and is normally wheat or barley (as in ancient Palestine). For this reason “heads of grain” was sometimes rendered “ears of corn,” the British term being retained for this aspect of the growth.

It was not always possible to Anglicize, so the sea cow or dugong (Num. 4:6), known in the far West but not in the colder Atlantic and European coastal waters, still reads quaintly in British ears, as does the katydid (Lev. 11:22). Nonetheless, all these changes are relatively minor, even if numerous, and in no way affect the literary style or significance and meaning of the text. That they have been allowed enables the widest range of readers of English to appreciate the Word of God for themselves without unnecessary linguistic barriers.