Through the years I have been asked the following questions quite frequently,
"Which translation is best? and "What should a person look for in a Bible
translation?" I will respond to both questions, though I will devote more
attention to the second question.
There is no translation that is "best" in all circumstances. If a person says the
modified-literal versions are best (e.g. ASV, NASB), they do not take account
of their stodginess. They are designed to reflect Hebrew and Greek style, therefore
they are generally more difficult to read, and because they sometimes follow the
word order of the original texts, they are awkward to the English reader. On the
other hand, if one says the idiomatic (sometimes inaccurately styled dynamic
equivalence) versions (e.g. NIV, NLT) are best, they do not take account
of the fact that they often leave words or phrases untranslated that can
and should be brought over into English. Neither the modified-literal versions nor
the idiomatic ones are without imperfections. The translators are human beings,
who are not directly superintended by the Holy Spirit in their work, and as a
result, their personal limitations are reflected in their work. A person should select
translations that represent both spectrums of translation theory.
What should a person look for in a Bible translation?
(1) Accuracy. Good translations accurately represent the meaning of the words
in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. When people object to meaning based translation,
they object to both modified-literal and idiomatic translations because both kinds are
meaning based, and both kinds contain some degree of paraphrase, though the
modified-literal versions do not have as much paraphrase due to their design.
Proof that the modified-literal versions contain some paraphrastic renderings is
indicated by a glance at the frequent footnotes that say, "The Hebrew says..." or "The
Greek says..." The ASV has a high degree of accuracy in that it correctly reflects the
Hebrew and Greek texts most of the time. But, even the legendary ASV occasionally
misses the mark of strict fidelity. The same is true of the RSV, NASB, NIV, and the
ESV.
(2) Readability. Good translations are readable. If they are to be
understood, should they not be readable? If not, then what use are they?
Translations should be as fluent as possible. Their mode of expression should be
characteristic of the language into which they are translated. A translation that is
not readable is as useful as reading glasses to a person who is completely blind.
When we read we should be able to understand God's will for us.
(Ephesians 3:3-4)
(3) Modernity. The words and phrases should be natural and in the
language currently spoken. Elizabethan expressions such as "thee," "thou," and
the like are not hallowed, and I fail to see why some people think using such in
prayer, song, and scripture is indicative of sanctity and accuracy. Those words
are not modern and there is nothing inherently reverential about their use. God's
word should be in the currently spoken language of the people for whom the
translation is made.
(4) Balance. A strictly literal translation would be impractical, and virtually
impossible for the non linguist to correctly use. It would be strong in Hebrew
and Greek, but weak in English. A strict paraphrase would be strong in English,
but very weak in Hebrew and Greek. So, it is necessary to take a more balanced
approach to translation. "As literal as possible; as free as necessary." The ESV
is advertised as an "essentially literal" version. The NIV-2011 is also balanced
most of the time. Translations that are balanced are good for reading scripture
publicly and privately. They are also good for study, though the modified-literal
ones are better because of their closeness to the Hebrew and Greek texts.
R. Daly
Copyright 2013
"Which translation is best? and "What should a person look for in a Bible
translation?" I will respond to both questions, though I will devote more
attention to the second question.
There is no translation that is "best" in all circumstances. If a person says the
modified-literal versions are best (e.g. ASV, NASB), they do not take account
of their stodginess. They are designed to reflect Hebrew and Greek style, therefore
they are generally more difficult to read, and because they sometimes follow the
word order of the original texts, they are awkward to the English reader. On the
other hand, if one says the idiomatic (sometimes inaccurately styled dynamic
equivalence) versions (e.g. NIV, NLT) are best, they do not take account
of the fact that they often leave words or phrases untranslated that can
and should be brought over into English. Neither the modified-literal versions nor
the idiomatic ones are without imperfections. The translators are human beings,
who are not directly superintended by the Holy Spirit in their work, and as a
result, their personal limitations are reflected in their work. A person should select
translations that represent both spectrums of translation theory.
What should a person look for in a Bible translation?
(1) Accuracy. Good translations accurately represent the meaning of the words
in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. When people object to meaning based translation,
they object to both modified-literal and idiomatic translations because both kinds are
meaning based, and both kinds contain some degree of paraphrase, though the
modified-literal versions do not have as much paraphrase due to their design.
Proof that the modified-literal versions contain some paraphrastic renderings is
indicated by a glance at the frequent footnotes that say, "The Hebrew says..." or "The
Greek says..." The ASV has a high degree of accuracy in that it correctly reflects the
Hebrew and Greek texts most of the time. But, even the legendary ASV occasionally
misses the mark of strict fidelity. The same is true of the RSV, NASB, NIV, and the
ESV.
(2) Readability. Good translations are readable. If they are to be
understood, should they not be readable? If not, then what use are they?
Translations should be as fluent as possible. Their mode of expression should be
characteristic of the language into which they are translated. A translation that is
not readable is as useful as reading glasses to a person who is completely blind.
When we read we should be able to understand God's will for us.
(Ephesians 3:3-4)
(3) Modernity. The words and phrases should be natural and in the
language currently spoken. Elizabethan expressions such as "thee," "thou," and
the like are not hallowed, and I fail to see why some people think using such in
prayer, song, and scripture is indicative of sanctity and accuracy. Those words
are not modern and there is nothing inherently reverential about their use. God's
word should be in the currently spoken language of the people for whom the
translation is made.
(4) Balance. A strictly literal translation would be impractical, and virtually
impossible for the non linguist to correctly use. It would be strong in Hebrew
and Greek, but weak in English. A strict paraphrase would be strong in English,
but very weak in Hebrew and Greek. So, it is necessary to take a more balanced
approach to translation. "As literal as possible; as free as necessary." The ESV
is advertised as an "essentially literal" version. The NIV-2011 is also balanced
most of the time. Translations that are balanced are good for reading scripture
publicly and privately. They are also good for study, though the modified-literal
ones are better because of their closeness to the Hebrew and Greek texts.
R. Daly
Copyright 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment