In this post I will list my choices for the top five Bible versions. I will also
say a little about each and give the reasons for my choices. Remember, these
are my choices and my list does not imply a blanket endorsement of any
of them. All English translations have areas that need improvement, otherwise
there would be no need for continuing revision.
(1) American Standard Version. The British edition (Revised Version)
was published in 1881. The ASV was published in 1901. It is a revision of
the Revised Version. The ASV incorporates the textual choices made by the
American scholars who were on the revision committee. The ASV is
generally recognized as superior to the English Revised Version. To this very
day the ASV remains unsurpassed as a study text for the person who can
navigate through the archaic English. It is often hard to read
because the word order and sentence structure are awkward. The ASV
is so literal that it sometimes retains the word order of the Hebrew and
Greek texts instead of striving for idiomatic English. This is one of its
greatest strengths because it enables the person who does not know
Hebrew and Greek to have a text that is largely transparent to the original
scriptures. It is truly "the rock of biblical honesty." I began using the ASV
in 1976 and I love it to this very day. It is not as wordy as the NASB
because it adds fewer words to the text for clarity. Generally it pays closer
attention to the details of the text than the NASB. The footnotes in
the ASV offer a veritable mine for exegesis. The ASV stands in the
number one position among the modified-literal bible versions.
(2) The English Standard Version. It was published in 2001 and is a
revision of the Revised Standard Version which was published in 1952. The
RSV N.T. was revised in 1971. A light revision of the ESV was published
in 2007. Much of the ESV's strength is derived from its parent, the RSV.
The RSV is not nearly as bad as was alleged by its critics. The ESV
removes the archaic English forms that were retained by the RSV. It is
a very good translation and it is a modified-literal translation in philosophy.
It also strives for gender accuracy albeit inadequate. For instance, it
has footnotes that inform the reader that "the plural Greek word adelphoi
(translated 'brothers') refers to siblings in a family." Adelphoi should be
translated "brothers and sisters" when a congregation is addressed. The
ESV is slightly more accurate and readable than the NASB.
(3) The New International Version (2011 edition). The revised
NIV is imminently useful as a reading and study text. It is a noted
improvement of the 1984 edition of the NIV. The most recent edition of
the NIV is aware of the need to be gender accurate. One often reads of
"brothers and sisters," "human," "person," "mankind," and the like in the
updated NIV. It is a pleasure to read and I have noticed that in many
places the revision has restored some of the inferential particles
("therefore," "so then," etc.) to the text. This aids in following the logical
flow of the writers argument. Except for the fact that the ESV is a more
modified-literal text, and slightly better for "technical study," the NIV
2011 gives it a "run for its money."
(4) The Holman Christian Standard Bible. It, like the NIV was
not a revision of any previous English translation. It was translated from
the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The HCSB is readable, generally
accurate, and incorporates some outstanding interpretations in a large
portion of its text! It breaks from longstanding traditions in the bible
translation process. Examples: "Yahweh" is used several hundred times
in the Old Testament for the tetragrammaton (YHWH). Most previous
versions use the word "LORD" to represent the personal name of God
in Hebrew. The HCSB also accurately translates John 3:16. Most English
versions say, "God so loved the world..." Many people interpret the word
"so" as an intensive. "God soooo loved the world." This is not the point.
The Greek text uses the word houtos, which is an adverb expressing the
manner or way that something is done. John 3:16 says, "This is the way
God loved the world; he gave his one and only/unique Son..." The HCSB
recognizes this fact in translation. The HCSB is not perfect. As an example,
it uses the word Christian several more times than it is used in the Greek
N.T. Nevertheless, it is a useful translation.
(5) The New Revised Standard Version. It was published in 1989.
The NRSV like the ESV is a revision of the RSV. The NRSV went too
far and the ESV does not go far enough in some of their translation
choices. In many ways, it and the ESV work well as companion
texts. The NRSV is wonderful as a comparative translation. There are
many places where it stands among the very best English translations.
(cf. John 1:18; Acts 2:38; Gal. 3:24-25) Before the appearance of the
NIV 2011 the NRSV was among my top three favorite English versions.
The NIV 2011 is a better overall translation and it usually avoids the
awkward phrasing used by the NRSV in an effort to be gender accurate.
Nevertheless, the NRSV is a very useful translation and it is rated highly
in most religious academic circles.
I am sometimes asked, "If a person could only purchase two English
translations; which two would you recommend?" This is a good question
and not easily answered. I would likely recommend one translation from
the modified-literal philosophy of translation, and one from the more
readable-idiomatic approach. This would have a balancing effect so
that neither translation would be allowed to run wild. The student
could note the differences between the two translations and use this
as a means of increasing their knowledge of God's word. I believe the
ASV and the NIV 2011 make an awesome pair of translations. The
problem is, the ASV is only published by the Star Bible Publishers in
Fort Worth, Texas and may be very hard to find. In view of this, perhaps
the ESV is a suitable replacement for the ASV.
RD
Copyright 2011
say a little about each and give the reasons for my choices. Remember, these
are my choices and my list does not imply a blanket endorsement of any
of them. All English translations have areas that need improvement, otherwise
there would be no need for continuing revision.
(1) American Standard Version. The British edition (Revised Version)
was published in 1881. The ASV was published in 1901. It is a revision of
the Revised Version. The ASV incorporates the textual choices made by the
American scholars who were on the revision committee. The ASV is
generally recognized as superior to the English Revised Version. To this very
day the ASV remains unsurpassed as a study text for the person who can
navigate through the archaic English. It is often hard to read
because the word order and sentence structure are awkward. The ASV
is so literal that it sometimes retains the word order of the Hebrew and
Greek texts instead of striving for idiomatic English. This is one of its
greatest strengths because it enables the person who does not know
Hebrew and Greek to have a text that is largely transparent to the original
scriptures. It is truly "the rock of biblical honesty." I began using the ASV
in 1976 and I love it to this very day. It is not as wordy as the NASB
because it adds fewer words to the text for clarity. Generally it pays closer
attention to the details of the text than the NASB. The footnotes in
the ASV offer a veritable mine for exegesis. The ASV stands in the
number one position among the modified-literal bible versions.
(2) The English Standard Version. It was published in 2001 and is a
revision of the Revised Standard Version which was published in 1952. The
RSV N.T. was revised in 1971. A light revision of the ESV was published
in 2007. Much of the ESV's strength is derived from its parent, the RSV.
The RSV is not nearly as bad as was alleged by its critics. The ESV
removes the archaic English forms that were retained by the RSV. It is
a very good translation and it is a modified-literal translation in philosophy.
It also strives for gender accuracy albeit inadequate. For instance, it
has footnotes that inform the reader that "the plural Greek word adelphoi
(translated 'brothers') refers to siblings in a family." Adelphoi should be
translated "brothers and sisters" when a congregation is addressed. The
ESV is slightly more accurate and readable than the NASB.
(3) The New International Version (2011 edition). The revised
NIV is imminently useful as a reading and study text. It is a noted
improvement of the 1984 edition of the NIV. The most recent edition of
the NIV is aware of the need to be gender accurate. One often reads of
"brothers and sisters," "human," "person," "mankind," and the like in the
updated NIV. It is a pleasure to read and I have noticed that in many
places the revision has restored some of the inferential particles
("therefore," "so then," etc.) to the text. This aids in following the logical
flow of the writers argument. Except for the fact that the ESV is a more
modified-literal text, and slightly better for "technical study," the NIV
2011 gives it a "run for its money."
(4) The Holman Christian Standard Bible. It, like the NIV was
not a revision of any previous English translation. It was translated from
the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The HCSB is readable, generally
accurate, and incorporates some outstanding interpretations in a large
portion of its text! It breaks from longstanding traditions in the bible
translation process. Examples: "Yahweh" is used several hundred times
in the Old Testament for the tetragrammaton (YHWH). Most previous
versions use the word "LORD" to represent the personal name of God
in Hebrew. The HCSB also accurately translates John 3:16. Most English
versions say, "God so loved the world..." Many people interpret the word
"so" as an intensive. "God soooo loved the world." This is not the point.
The Greek text uses the word houtos, which is an adverb expressing the
manner or way that something is done. John 3:16 says, "This is the way
God loved the world; he gave his one and only/unique Son..." The HCSB
recognizes this fact in translation. The HCSB is not perfect. As an example,
it uses the word Christian several more times than it is used in the Greek
N.T. Nevertheless, it is a useful translation.
(5) The New Revised Standard Version. It was published in 1989.
The NRSV like the ESV is a revision of the RSV. The NRSV went too
far and the ESV does not go far enough in some of their translation
choices. In many ways, it and the ESV work well as companion
texts. The NRSV is wonderful as a comparative translation. There are
many places where it stands among the very best English translations.
(cf. John 1:18; Acts 2:38; Gal. 3:24-25) Before the appearance of the
NIV 2011 the NRSV was among my top three favorite English versions.
The NIV 2011 is a better overall translation and it usually avoids the
awkward phrasing used by the NRSV in an effort to be gender accurate.
Nevertheless, the NRSV is a very useful translation and it is rated highly
in most religious academic circles.
I am sometimes asked, "If a person could only purchase two English
translations; which two would you recommend?" This is a good question
and not easily answered. I would likely recommend one translation from
the modified-literal philosophy of translation, and one from the more
readable-idiomatic approach. This would have a balancing effect so
that neither translation would be allowed to run wild. The student
could note the differences between the two translations and use this
as a means of increasing their knowledge of God's word. I believe the
ASV and the NIV 2011 make an awesome pair of translations. The
problem is, the ASV is only published by the Star Bible Publishers in
Fort Worth, Texas and may be very hard to find. In view of this, perhaps
the ESV is a suitable replacement for the ASV.
RD
Copyright 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment