A large proportion of part 2 is in fact an excursus, which might have been better published as a separate essay, “What Makes for an Accurate Translation?” He writes that, in the light of possible misunderstandings of part 1, he needs to “correct the frequent perception that literal = accurate, and not-so-literal = inaccurate.” And he does so in remarkably strong terms, stating that (with his own emphasis)
a formally equivalent, or ‘literal,’ translation of the Bible will inevitably be uneven and inaccurate.
He justifies this statement by discussing various renderings of Matthew 1:18, Luke 20:16 and Romans 7:7, and concludes that
At bottom, the best translation is one that is faithful to the meaning of the original text. That does not always, nor even usually, mean a literal translation.
Then Wallace turns to NIV 2011, and gives what appears to be a remarkably positive but brief review. He praises several text critical decisions and some changes of wording from NIV 1984. Then he draws the apparent conclusion that
All in all, this is a fine translation and is the culmination of the efforts of many decades, scholars, countries, denominations, and ideologies. Yet everyone associated with the NIV is unswervingly committed to the Bible as the word of God written. Their joyous wonder at the beauty and majesty of the scriptures comes through loud and clear in this superb version.
But is this really all he has to say? The only specific clue that there is more to come is in the post title, “Part 2 of 4”. But I suspect that Wallace will have some more negative things to say about NIV 2011 in part 3, before coming to his final conclusions in part 4.