Editing New International Version (section)

== Reception ==
According to the [[Association for Christian Retail]] (CBA), the New International Version has become the most popular selling English translation of the Bible in CBA bookstores, having sold more than 450 million copies worldwide.<ref name=":0" />

There are numerous [[study Bible]]s available with extensive notes on the text and background information to make the Biblical stories more comprehensible. Among these are the ''NIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible'', ''Concordia Study Bible'', the Zondervan published ''[[NIV Study Bible]]'', the Wesleyan revision, ''[[Reflecting God Study Bible]]'', as well as the ''[[Life Application Study Bible]]''.

In 2009, the New Testament scholar [[N. T. Wright]] wrote that the NIV obscured what [[Paul the Apostle]] was saying and ensured that Paul's words conformed to Protestant and Evangelical tradition. He claimed, "if a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about," especially in [[Epistle to the Galatians|Galatians]] and [[Epistle to the Romans|Romans]].<ref name="ntwright">"In this context, I must register one strong protest against one particular translation. When the New International Version was published in 1980, I was one of those who hailed it with delight. I believed its own claim about itself, that it was determined to translate exactly what was there, and inject no extra paraphrasing or interpretative glosses. This contrasted so strongly with the then popular New English Bible, and promised such an advance over the then rather dated Revised Standard Version, that I recommended it to students and members of the congregation I was then serving. Disillusionment set in over the next two years, as I lectured verse by verse through several of [[Paul the Apostle|Paul]]'s letters, not least [[Epistle to the Galatians|Galatians]] and [[Epistle to the Romans|Romans]]. Again and again, with the Greek text in front of me and the ''NIV'' beside it, I discovered that the translators had another principle, considerably higher than the stated one: to make sure that Paul should say what the broadly Protestant and evangelical tradition said he said. I do not know what version of scripture they use at Dr Piper's church. But I do know that if a church only, or mainly, relies on the ''NIV'' it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about." {{Cite book |last=Wright |first=N. T. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6i2xvonpvMwC |title=Justification : God's Plan and Paul's Vision |publisher=IVP Academic |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-8308-3863-9 |location=Downers Grove, Illinois |pages=51–52 |language=en-us |author-link=N. T. Wright}}</ref>

In support of that claim, Wright specifically mentioned several verses of [[Romans 3]], which he suggested not to convey how "righteousness" refers to the covenant faithfulness of God or reflect his own thinking about [[New Perspective on Paul#Pistis Christou – 'faith in', or 'faithfulness of'|the ''pistis Christou'' debate]]. All editions of the NIV have given "God's Faithfulness" as the heading for Romans 3:1–8. Wright's specific objections concerning verses later in the chapter no longer apply to the 2011 revision of the NIV, which moreover offers "the faithfulness of Jesus Christ" as an alternative translation to "faith in Jesus Christ" in Romans 3:22.

Mark Given, a professor of religious studies at [[Missouri State University]], criticized the NIV for "several inaccurate and misleading translations" since many sentences and clauses are paraphrased, rather than translated from Hebrew and Greek.<ref name="Given2016">{{cite web |last1=Given |first1=Mark D. |title=A Discussion of Bible Translations and Biblical Scholarship |url=http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgiven/rel102/bt.htm |publisher=[[Missouri State University]] |access-date=April 8, 2022 |language=English |date=February 13, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161012024005/http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgiven/rel102/bt.htm |archive-date=October 12, 2016 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

Michael Marlowe, a scholar in [[biblical languages]], criticized as "indefensible" the footnote provided in the NIV for {{Bibleverse|1 Corinthians|11:4–7|NRSV}}, which replaced multiple instances of "head covering" with "long hair" to "harmonize this passage with modern habits of dress."<ref name="Marlowe2011">{{cite web |last1=Marlowe |first1=Michael |date=2011 |title=The New International Version (NIV) – A History and Evaluation |url=http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.html |access-date=April 15, 2022 |publisher=Bible Research |language=en-us}}</ref> Church historian [[David Bercot]], whose focus is early Christianity, likewise deemed the footnote a "fanciful interpretation" that "is in no way an alternate translation of the Greek text."<ref>{{cite book|title=Common Sense: A New Approach to Understanding Scripture|first=David|last=Bercot|date=1992|publisher=Scroll Publishing Co.|location=[[Amberson, Pennsylvania|Amberson]]|isbn=9780924722066|page=129}}</ref>

Others have also criticized the NIV. In Genesis 2:19, a translation such as the [[New Revised Standard Version]] uses "formed" in the simple [[past tense]]: "So out of the ground the LORD God {{em|formed}} every animal." Some have questioned the NIV's choice to use the [[pluperfect]]: "Now the LORD God {{em|had formed}} out of the ground all the wild animals" to try to make it appear that the animals had already been created.<ref name="Mariottini2013">{{Cite book |last=Mariottini |first=Claude F. |title=Rereading the Biblical Text: Searching for Meaning and Understanding |publisher=Wipf and Stock |year=2013 |isbn=978-1-62032-827-9}}</ref> Theologian [[John Sailhamer]] stated, "Not only is such a translation{{nbsp}}[...] hardly possible{{nbsp}}[...] but it misses the very point of the narrative, namely, that the animals were created in response to God's declaration that it was not good that the man should be alone."<ref name="Sailhamer">{{Cite book |last=Sailhamer |first=John H. |volume=2 |title=The Expositor's Bible Commentary |date=October 19, 1976 |publisher=Zondervan |isbn=978-0-310-36440-5}}</ref>

Biblical scholar [[Bruce M. Metzger]] criticized the NIV 1984 edition<ref name="metzger">{{Cite book |last=Metzger |first=Bruce M. |url=https://archive.org/details/bibleintranslati0000metz |title=The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions |publisher=Baker Academic |year=2001 |isbn=978-0-8010-2282-1 |location=Grand Rapids, Michigan |page=[https://archive.org/details/bibleintranslati0000metz/page/140 140] |language=en-us |author-link=Bruce M. Metzger |access-date=July 30, 2011 |url-access=registration}}</ref> for the addition of "just" into Jeremiah 7:22 in which the verse becomes "For when I brought your forefathers/ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not ''just'' give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices." Metzger also criticized<ref name="metzger" /> the addition of "your" into Matthew 13:32, which becomes "Though it [<nowiki/>[[Parable of the Mustard Seed|the mustard seed]]] is the smallest of all ''your'' seeds." The word ''your'' was removed from that verse in the 2011 revision.<ref>{{bibleverse||Matthew|13:32|NIV}}</ref>

=== 2011 revision ===
Professor of New Testament Studies [[Daniel B. Wallace]]<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dwallace/ |title=Daniel B. Wallace Faculty Page |website=Dallas Theological Seminary |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111019041436/http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dwallace/ |archive-date=October 19, 2011 |access-date=October 1, 2019}}</ref> praised the 2011 update and called it "a well-thought out translation, with checks and balances through rigorous testing, overlapping committees to ensure consistency and accuracy, and a publisher willing to commit significant resources to make this Bible appealing to the Christian reader."<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/07/a-review-of-the-new-international-version-2011-part-4-of-4/ |title=A Review of the New International Version 2011 |last=Wallace |first=Dan |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120327112421/http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/07/a-review-of-the-new-international-version-2011-part-4-of-4/ |archive-date=March 27, 2012 |access-date=October 1, 2019}}</ref> The [[Southern Baptist Convention]] rejected the 2011 update because of [[gender in Bible translation|gender-neutral language]]<ref name="Samuel">{{Cite news |last=Stephanie Samuel |url=http://www.christianpost.com/news/lifeway-tells-critics-of-2011-niv-bible-trust-the-trustees-76954/ |title=LifeWay Tells Critics of 2011 NIV Bible: 'Trust the Trustees' |access-date=July 30, 2015}}</ref> although the update had dropped some gender-neutral language of the 2005 revision.<ref name=gender />

Southern Baptist publisher [[LifeWay Christian Resources|LifeWay]] declined the Southern Baptist Convention's censor request to remove the NIV from its stores.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Marty King |url=http://www.lifeway.com/Article/News-LifeWay-to-continue-selling-NIV-Trustees-select-new-leadership |title=LifeWay to continue selling NIV; trustees select new leadership |access-date=April 21, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150715071124/http://www.lifeway.com/Article/News-LifeWay-to-continue-selling-NIV-Trustees-select-new-leadership |archive-date=July 15, 2015}}</ref> While the [[Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod]] rejected its use,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Audrey Barrick |url=http://www.christianpost.com/news/lutherans-latest-to-reject-new-niv-bible-over-gender-language-81060/ |title=Lutherans Latest to Reject New NIV Bible Over Gender Language |access-date=September 5, 2012}}</ref> some in the [[Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod]] (WELS) believe many of the translations changes are right and defensible.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Kenneth A. Cherney, Jr |url=http://www.wels.net/sites/wels/files/gender-neutral%20NIV%202011%20article%20edited.pdf |title=Gender-Neutral Language, with Special Reference to NIV 2011 |access-date=June 17, 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150618072352/http://www.wels.net/sites/wels/files/gender-neutral%20NIV%202011%20article%20edited.pdf |archive-date=June 18, 2015}}</ref>

Professor of New Testament Studies Rodney J. Decker wrote in the ''[[Themelios]] Journal'' review of the NIV 2011:<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://tgc-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/themelios/36-3/Themelios36.3.pdf#page=41 |title=An Evaluation of the 2011 Edition of the New International Version |first=Rodney J. |last=Decker |journal=[[Themelios]] |volume=36 |issue=3 |date=November 2011 |pages=[http://tgc-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/themelios/36-3/Themelios36.3.pdf#page=73 447]–448}}</ref>
<blockquote>By taking a mediating position between formal and functional equivalence (though tending, I think, closer to the formal end of the spectrum), the NIV has been able to produce a text that is clearer than many translations, especially those weighted more heavily with formal equivalence{{nbsp}}... If we are serious about making the word of God a vital tool in the lives of English-speaking Christians, then we must aim for a translation that communicates clearly in the language of the average English-speaking person. It is here that the NIV excels. It not only communicates the meaning of God's revelation accurately, but does so in English that is easily understood by a wide range of English speakers. It is as well-suited for expository preaching as it is for public reading and use in Bible classes and children's ministries.</blockquote>