I have shared previously (see here) that while many evangelicals are unaware of the discussion taking place regarding the New Perspective on Paul, it does have major implications for the Church.
It may help to understand the intensity and foundational nature of the debate if you read N.T. Wright’s strong criticism of the NIV:
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 . . . This is a large claim, and I have made it good, line by line, in relation to Romans in my big commentary, which prints the NIV and the NRSV and then comments on the Greek in relation to both of them. (Justification, page 52).
Is that not an amazingly strong statement by Wright? Churches that mainly use the NIV will never understand what Paul was talking about.
My point here is not to dismiss Wright’s argument because he is a harsh critic of a major translation. Indeed, the reason I am studying Wright so carefully is because I think this is a discussion that deserves attention. My intent with this post is to allow people to see the seriousness of the discussion regarding our understanding of Paul.
Piper has also gone on record regarding concerns about the NIV and he is a vocal advocate of the ESV, see here.
For the record, I also have concerns about the NIV – – see for instance this post. The nature of the NIV’s approach to translation does leave it more vulnerable to a criticism like Wright’s. But, I am long ways from stating that churches that use the NIV don’t understand Paul.
I read this comment from Wright the other day and it really annoyed me. When Piper wrote his critique of Wright he allowed Wright to review a draft of the book and allowed Wright’s very long response to affect the final version. Wright didn’t afford Piper the same courtesy. Wright said it wasn’t possible due to deadlines but I think that’s nonsense. Even it is was the case it would have taken Wright perhaps 10 minutes on Google to uncover the same information that you noted above regarding Piper’s views on translations. That article was written in 2004. There is no excuse for him not doing his homework.
OK, well, Chris already said what I was going to say and said it better.
More Wright arrogance. Great scholar of the dead (we’re told), not so in-touch with the living. And deadlines, oh my gosh. As if publishing houses stand over Wright saying, “OK Mac, snap something off to Piper. You’ve got fourteen days… starting now!” The laziness of arrogance.
And btw I very much dislike the NIV, but I doubt for the same reasons as Wright.
For the record, I have trouble with ALL of the English translations at one point or another, as would most everyone who has studied the biblical languages. Wright is free to go on record with his reservations on a translation that he believes radically mis-represents an understanding he has come to embrace. Clearly other exegetes have as well (remember the issues surrounding “sinful nature” vis-a-vis “flesh?”). Granted Wright’s claim is sweeping, but so is my claim for divorcees that every English translation of Mal. 2:16 is wrong save the ESV. Why, in God’s holy name, can we not grant space and grace to every exegete who has labored hard and responsibly to understand the meaning of God’s Word and seek to understand their construct rather than harshly dissing it? The comments here and on many other blogs are staggering.