It is a well known fact that most of the translations that have been produced
during the late twentieth and early twenty first centuries are either paraphrases
(Williams' N.T., Goodspeed's N.T. , Good News For Modern Man, The
Message, etc.) or idiomatic (NIV, New Living Translation, TNIV,
NIV-2011). One reason for this shift is due to the discovery of the papyri
fragments in the late 1800's into the early and mid 1900's. We have learned from
the papyri that the language of the New Testament was the common
language of the first century world. It was not classical Greek, but koine,
that is, the dialect spoken by the "ordinary" citizen of the ancient world. God
wants people to have his word in their language.
I believe that most modified literal translations are readable and understandable.
It is sometimes said that the paraphrases and idiomatic versions are
more accurate because they are more understandable. This viewpoint
assumes that understandability and accuracy are synonymous, or at least
that understandability leads to or implies accuracy. This is not necessarily true.It
is possible for a translation to be "understandable" and not be a faithful representation
of what the original says. An example is the New World Translation (of the
Jehovah's Witness organization). Though it is one of the more literal English
translations it incorrectly renders John 1:1 in this way, "In the beginning the Word
was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." This is not what the
Greek text says, nor is it what the text means. On the other end of the translation
spectrum is the Contemporary English Version, a paraphrase that renders
Romans 1:17 in the following manner, "The good news tells how God accepts
everyone who has faith, but only those who have faith." This rendering is
understandable, but it is not what the Greek text says, nor is it what the
passage means. It is a misleading commentary on the text, even though it is
expressed in modern English. My point is this, just because a translation is written
in understandable English does not ensure its faithfulness to the Greek text. It
is also true that modified literal versions are not necessarily inaccurate just because
they may be more "stiff" or "stilted."
One of the problems with some modified literal versions is their archaic language.
An example of this is the ASV-1901. It uses the archaic forms that are found in
the King James Version. It also has a large number of inverted negatives. For
example, Matthew 19:17 says, "And he said unto him, Why askest thou me
concerning what is good? One there is who is good..." The verse can be translated
in the following way and still maintain its modified literal faithfulness to the Greek
text, "And he said to him, 'Why do you ask me concerning what is good? There is
one who is good...' " Even with its problems with archaic language, the ASV remains
an excellent study bible. The NASB-1977, though not as literal as the ASV is
nevertheless a good study bible because of its closeness to the Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek texts. The NASB-1977 is generally a better exegetical tool
than the NASB-95 Update because it is closer to the original texts. The NASB-95
has dropped many of the conjunctions and inferential particles that are found in the
Hebrew and Greek texts, and that are found in the ASV and NASB-1977. This
was done in part to enhance the readability of the NASB, but doing so has made
the NASB-95 Update a less useful study bible.
The precision of the ASV is its most remarkable feature. It was designed to be
an honest representation of what is in the original texts of scripture. It isn't perfect,
but in spite of its shortcomings, it remains the best of the modified literal versions of
sacred scripture. The NASB-1977 is relatively close to the ASV. When the
translators of the NASB thought a strictly literal translation might be misleading, they
usually have a marginal note or footnote that contains the literal translation, and the
literal translation found in the marginal notes is often what is found in the text of the
ASV. The footnotes of the ASV and the marginal notes of the NASB are a wealth
of information! The English Standard Version (ESV) is not as modified literal as
the NASB, but it is slightly better in that its textual choices are sometimes
more accurate. The ASV, RSV, NASB-1977, NRSV, ESV, and to a lesser
extent the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) are probably the best
modified literal versions currently published. They compliment each other
extremely well, and they can be understood. A person can learn God's plan of
salvation by using one or all of them. (John 3:16; 8:24; Hebrews 11:6; Acts 3:19;
17:30; Romans 10:10; 1 Timothy 6:12; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; 1 Corinthians 15:58;
2 Peter 1: 3-10)
R. Daly
Copyright 2011
during the late twentieth and early twenty first centuries are either paraphrases
(Williams' N.T., Goodspeed's N.T. , Good News For Modern Man, The
Message, etc.) or idiomatic (NIV, New Living Translation, TNIV,
NIV-2011). One reason for this shift is due to the discovery of the papyri
fragments in the late 1800's into the early and mid 1900's. We have learned from
the papyri that the language of the New Testament was the common
language of the first century world. It was not classical Greek, but koine,
that is, the dialect spoken by the "ordinary" citizen of the ancient world. God
wants people to have his word in their language.
I believe that most modified literal translations are readable and understandable.
It is sometimes said that the paraphrases and idiomatic versions are
more accurate because they are more understandable. This viewpoint
assumes that understandability and accuracy are synonymous, or at least
that understandability leads to or implies accuracy. This is not necessarily true.It
is possible for a translation to be "understandable" and not be a faithful representation
of what the original says. An example is the New World Translation (of the
Jehovah's Witness organization). Though it is one of the more literal English
translations it incorrectly renders John 1:1 in this way, "In the beginning the Word
was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." This is not what the
Greek text says, nor is it what the text means. On the other end of the translation
spectrum is the Contemporary English Version, a paraphrase that renders
Romans 1:17 in the following manner, "The good news tells how God accepts
everyone who has faith, but only those who have faith." This rendering is
understandable, but it is not what the Greek text says, nor is it what the
passage means. It is a misleading commentary on the text, even though it is
expressed in modern English. My point is this, just because a translation is written
in understandable English does not ensure its faithfulness to the Greek text. It
is also true that modified literal versions are not necessarily inaccurate just because
they may be more "stiff" or "stilted."
One of the problems with some modified literal versions is their archaic language.
An example of this is the ASV-1901. It uses the archaic forms that are found in
the King James Version. It also has a large number of inverted negatives. For
example, Matthew 19:17 says, "And he said unto him, Why askest thou me
concerning what is good? One there is who is good..." The verse can be translated
in the following way and still maintain its modified literal faithfulness to the Greek
text, "And he said to him, 'Why do you ask me concerning what is good? There is
one who is good...' " Even with its problems with archaic language, the ASV remains
an excellent study bible. The NASB-1977, though not as literal as the ASV is
nevertheless a good study bible because of its closeness to the Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek texts. The NASB-1977 is generally a better exegetical tool
than the NASB-95 Update because it is closer to the original texts. The NASB-95
has dropped many of the conjunctions and inferential particles that are found in the
Hebrew and Greek texts, and that are found in the ASV and NASB-1977. This
was done in part to enhance the readability of the NASB, but doing so has made
the NASB-95 Update a less useful study bible.
The precision of the ASV is its most remarkable feature. It was designed to be
an honest representation of what is in the original texts of scripture. It isn't perfect,
but in spite of its shortcomings, it remains the best of the modified literal versions of
sacred scripture. The NASB-1977 is relatively close to the ASV. When the
translators of the NASB thought a strictly literal translation might be misleading, they
usually have a marginal note or footnote that contains the literal translation, and the
literal translation found in the marginal notes is often what is found in the text of the
ASV. The footnotes of the ASV and the marginal notes of the NASB are a wealth
of information! The English Standard Version (ESV) is not as modified literal as
the NASB, but it is slightly better in that its textual choices are sometimes
more accurate. The ASV, RSV, NASB-1977, NRSV, ESV, and to a lesser
extent the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) are probably the best
modified literal versions currently published. They compliment each other
extremely well, and they can be understood. A person can learn God's plan of
salvation by using one or all of them. (John 3:16; 8:24; Hebrews 11:6; Acts 3:19;
17:30; Romans 10:10; 1 Timothy 6:12; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; 1 Corinthians 15:58;
2 Peter 1: 3-10)
R. Daly
Copyright 2011
yes agree it is still useful translation and many people are still taking there services because they are providing the best services in various languages .
ReplyDeleteWebsite Translation services>