I am often asked, "Which translation of the scriptures do you believe is
the most accurate?" There is not one particular translation of the sacred
writings that is the "most accurate." Most translations are accurate in key
areas and a person who diligently studies them can learn what to do to be
saved from sin.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that there are different kinds of
accuracy. I will illustrate this using the Greek N.T. and three different
English translations; ASV, ESV, and NIV 2011. Phil. 2:6, which is
very likely a portion of a Christological hymn will be the passage for
comparison.
The Greek Text: " hos en morphe theou huparchon ouch
harpagmon hegesato to einai isa theo,"
Literal Translation: "who in form of God existing not a thing
to be grasped did regard the being equal with God."
American Standard: "who, existing in the form of God, counted
not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped."
English Standard: "who, though he was in the form of God, did
not count equality with God a thing to be grasped."
NIV 2011: "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider
equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
As expected, the ASV known for its modified literal translation
philosophy is very "form accurate." It is almost "word for word."
The ESV is not as form literal as the ASV, and it translates the
present active participle huparchon as a past tense "though he
was" instead of "existing" as in the ASV. The NIV 2011, a
version that sits between modified literal and paraphrase in its
translation philosophy, accurately translates huparchon with
the word "being." It also interprets the word morphe to mean
"nature," indicating that Paul was not using the word in its literal
sense (form or outward appearance). The NIV 2011 goes a
step further. It accurately translates harpagmon with the phrase
"something to be used to his own advantage."
The ASV with almost word for word precision, accurately
translates Phil. 2:6 from the standpoint of modified-literal form.
A couple of adjustments could be made to the word order and
vocabulary in the ASV, but it is true to form. The ESV is further
removed from the Greek text than the ASV and it is not as
concerned with the details of the text as the ASV, but it is more
readable. The NIV 2011 is virtually word for word, is
very readable, and is lexically up to date in Phil. 2:6. All three
translations have a high degree of accuracy, but overall the
NIV 2011 edges out both the ASV and the ESV in Phil. 2:6.
The accuracy of Bible translations must be determined on a
passage by passage basis, and we must remember that there are
different kinds of accuracy. The ASV often reflects form
accuracy; the ESV often combines form accuracy where possible
with meaning; and the NIV 2011 often reflects form accuracy
where possible, but it is primarily designed to convey meaning
by the use of idiomatic English.
RD
Copyright 2011
the most accurate?" There is not one particular translation of the sacred
writings that is the "most accurate." Most translations are accurate in key
areas and a person who diligently studies them can learn what to do to be
saved from sin.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that there are different kinds of
accuracy. I will illustrate this using the Greek N.T. and three different
English translations; ASV, ESV, and NIV 2011. Phil. 2:6, which is
very likely a portion of a Christological hymn will be the passage for
comparison.
The Greek Text: " hos en morphe theou huparchon ouch
harpagmon hegesato to einai isa theo,"
Literal Translation: "who in form of God existing not a thing
to be grasped did regard the being equal with God."
American Standard: "who, existing in the form of God, counted
not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped."
English Standard: "who, though he was in the form of God, did
not count equality with God a thing to be grasped."
NIV 2011: "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider
equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
As expected, the ASV known for its modified literal translation
philosophy is very "form accurate." It is almost "word for word."
The ESV is not as form literal as the ASV, and it translates the
present active participle huparchon as a past tense "though he
was" instead of "existing" as in the ASV. The NIV 2011, a
version that sits between modified literal and paraphrase in its
translation philosophy, accurately translates huparchon with
the word "being." It also interprets the word morphe to mean
"nature," indicating that Paul was not using the word in its literal
sense (form or outward appearance). The NIV 2011 goes a
step further. It accurately translates harpagmon with the phrase
"something to be used to his own advantage."
The ASV with almost word for word precision, accurately
translates Phil. 2:6 from the standpoint of modified-literal form.
A couple of adjustments could be made to the word order and
vocabulary in the ASV, but it is true to form. The ESV is further
removed from the Greek text than the ASV and it is not as
concerned with the details of the text as the ASV, but it is more
readable. The NIV 2011 is virtually word for word, is
very readable, and is lexically up to date in Phil. 2:6. All three
translations have a high degree of accuracy, but overall the
NIV 2011 edges out both the ASV and the ESV in Phil. 2:6.
The accuracy of Bible translations must be determined on a
passage by passage basis, and we must remember that there are
different kinds of accuracy. The ASV often reflects form
accuracy; the ESV often combines form accuracy where possible
with meaning; and the NIV 2011 often reflects form accuracy
where possible, but it is primarily designed to convey meaning
by the use of idiomatic English.
RD
Copyright 2011
I really appreciate this post! So often we think of translation accuracy as word-for-word accuracy, forgetting the importance of accurately translating the meaning of a passage of scripture. When I first began really looking at translation accuracy, I was amazed to find how accurate the old NIV was, while being easy to read at the same time, and it has continued to amaze me with the TNIV and now the latest NIV 2011. I think we need to reconsider what we call accurate.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your kind word Gary. I agree. The attempt at "word for word" accuracy has its place. Translations such as the ASV are great study Bibles because they often have the precision that aids the non-Hebrew and Greek student. Meaning based translations are also useful and can be just as accurate as those that are "word for word." Both should be used in the study of God's word.
ReplyDelete