How Does the ISV Compare to
Other Modern English Bible Translations?
This page was last updated on
Thursday, 05 April 2007 at 08:56:01 AM PST (GMT -0700).
In March 2007 a discreet inquiry was
received regarding vetting of possible international publication rights
to the ISV® by a major publisher. The publisher asked us to provide information comparing
the ISV with the New International Version®, asking
to receive, to use their
own words, "some examples of where, in [the ISV Foundation's] view, the NIV
goes astray." As you are probably aware, the following
paragraph can be found on the ISV's
Principles of Translation page and in
the Front Matter to the ISV:
All
major translations of the Bible fall somewhere on a scale between complete
formal equivalence and complete functional equivalence. Some of these
translations are quite literal (e.g., the King James Version (KJV), the New
King James Version (NKJV®), the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), the
New American Standard Bible (NASB®), the Revised Standard Version (RSV®),
and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV®). Other translations lean toward
the idiomatic end of the spectrum (e.g., the New International Version
(NIV®), the New English Bible (NEB®), the Revised English Bible (REB®), the
Good News Bible (GNB®), the New Living Translation (NLT®), and the
Contemporary English Version (CEV®).
Please note that the
inquiry contains some as to what constitutes "going astray".
The ISV Foundation is at a loss to explain what this phrase means, having
never once employed it in any discussions comparing the ISV to other modern
translations, and specifically we have never described the NIV in these
terms. The ISV Foundation suggests that perhaps the candidate
publisher was aware that certain individuals have doubts about the
suitability of the NIV for serious Bible study, and perhaps this publisher
was uncertain as to how to phrase their request for clarifying information
about how the ISV differs from the NIV.
The mechanical truth
is that the ISV Foundation never made a study of the differences between the
ISV and the NIV, or between the ISV and any other translation, for that
matter. Because we were keenly aware back in 1995 when we began planning the
ISV that we would be crafting the first modern English language translation
made directly from the original MSS of the Bible since the NIV came out in
the mid-1970's, and that we were not merely revising a previous English
translation (such as is the case with the AS, the NASB, the RSV, the NRSV,
the NKJV, etc.), we have attempted not to look
at the other renderings while crafting the text of the ISV. As a general
rule, we only look at these renderings when attempting to evaluate a
tentative final rendering, and then only to confirm that we're not
approaching a possible similarity to previously copyrighted renderings. A
mechanical exception to this policy has been allowed with respect to the
spelling of personal and place names so as to avoid possible confusion on
the part of readers. The ISV consults both the NASB and the NRSV to maintain
conformity to the spelling (or, more accurately, the transliteration)
of Hebrew names into English. So the bottom line is that we have no example
of where "the NIV goes astray".
We believe that it is in
the best interests of the Body of Christ to have an answer to this inquiry
provided by impartial observers who have extensive experience in reading
other English languages translations from an independent, "arm's length"
viewpoint. So we invited individuals who are not affiliated with the
ISV Foundation to provide comparisons of the ISV with other modern
translations.
All
submissions and contributions were voluntary.
We thought it
unwise to offer monetary compensation for opinions because we didn't want to create an environment in which we could be accused of paying people to
evaluate the ISV on an arm's length basis. The ISV Foundation is grateful
for Wayne Leman's assistance in providing a forum for publishing some of the
contributions.
Back to top.
The folk at
WordPress.com
publish a weblog service. A blogger who identifies himself as jzimmy
recently published (9 February 2007) the following unsolicited statement
about the ISV:
A KJV for our time
We’re all familiar with the King James Version
of the Holy Bible, also known as the Authorized Version, aren’t we? It was
first put into the hands of men back in 1611 AD, and with only some minor
revision quickly became the standard English translation for nearly 400
years now. And in spite of the fact that it was written in Elizabethan,
Shakespearian English, there are still quite a few people today who would
have no other Bible but the KJV!
However, there is a problem. Languages change;
they evolve. The English we speak today is simply not very much like the
English that was spoken back in 1611. Many words are now obsolete; other
words have changed meanings. So when we try to read the King James Version,
most of us have difficulty understanding it. We just don’t talk that way any
more.
And that is why we now have so very many
different versions of the Bible, ranging from the more literal translations
like the NASB, ESV, and NRSV, through the “middling” versions like the NIV
and HCSB, on up to the paraphrases like the Living Bible and the Message. If
you can’t find something in that bunch that you can understand, then maybe
you don’t speak English!
But there’s something more to be considered in
this than just making a Bible translation you can understand. We need to
make a Bible translation that can be the standard for hundreds of years,
like the King James Version has been. One Faith, and one Bible for believers
to read and memorize. This is truly a worthy goal!
Is there any Bible that is available today that
fits that bill?
Perhaps the closest we have had is the NIV, the
New International Version. It was a groundbreaker when it was first
introduced almost 30 years ago. It was adopted by many, many evangelical
churches as “their” scriptures, and quite a few of us memorized a lot of
verses from the NIV. It was then, and still is, an excellent translation.
It’s also the best-selling Bible translation today, largely because it has
been marketed so well by the International Bible Society and Zondervan. For
many people, the NIV has been the standard of Bible translations for almost
30 years.
But 30 years is nowhere near 400 years. Is the
NIV capable of being the standard for so long? I doubt it, especially since
for most of us it is no longer the standard right now. It was good in its
time, but it’s looking more and more like its time is past. Zondervan is
hoping to replace the NIV with the TNIV, which is a little more accurate,
and just as easy to read, but it’s been embroiled in controversy because of
its change to “inclusive language” and will probably never be well accepted
in most evangelical churches.
Some think the ESV could be the next KJV, but
that’s really just a revised Revised Standard Version, which is already an
old translation. And the NRSV, which claims to be the real successor to the
RSV, is a muddy translation that is also unacceptable to most evangelicals
because of it’s inclusive language agenda.
My current favorite, the NASB, is extremely
accurate but people complain that it’s wooden. And the NET Bible’s greatest
advantage is its 6000+ study and translators’ notes. It’s English isn’t that
great, and it needs a better marketing plan.
I could go on and on and on about the different
translations, but that’s not what this is about. The question is, is there
any Bible available today that could be the successor to the KJV, that could
be that special standard?
The only one I have read that gives me hope for
this is a new one called the International Standard Version, the ISV.
They’re not even done translating it as this is written, but they’re getting
close. There are only a few portions of the Old Testament left to be
translated. It is virtually as accurate as the NASB, yet as clear and easy
to read as the NIV. It’s not weighed down with the inclusive language
controversy either.
The philosophy of their translation is that
they’re not going to change the Word to fit any political agenda. It will be
accurate, easy-to-read, and written in good English. And it appears that
they are seeking a publisher who will market it aggressively. So we could see
the ISV on the bookstore shelves, possibly within a few months! We hope,
anyway!
Here's a window that contains
the actual page:
Here's a link to our own
standalone archive
copy of it.
Back to top.
Here are
some responses from lay readers to our invitation to write something that
potential candidate publishers might want to read. E-mail addresses are
provided to facilitate direct communication by the publisher with the
readers for further follow up.
I am a British
user of the ISV Bible. I find the ISV is as readable as the NIV, and it
contains a greater number of translators' footnotes to aid the reader.
Although I use principally the ESV for personal study, my alternative
version is the ISV and I have virtually discarded the NIV, even though there
is no Anglicised edition of the ISV at present.
I find it
helpful that the ISV translators add a footnote when they paraphrase the
literal translation to make the text easier to understand. For example, in
Mark 1:21 the ISV reads: "Jesus went into the synagogue", but a footnote
points out that the original reads "he" not "Jesus". The NIV says: "Jesus
went into the synagogue" with no explanation of the interpretation involved.
The ESV gives a word-for-word translation: "he entered the synagogue". The
ISV is the clearest version in my view.
Another example
is in Mark 2:6 where the ISV reads: "arguing among themselves" but adds a
footnote that the literal translation is "in their hearts". The NIV has a
similar translation "thinking to themselves" but has no footnote. The ESV
uses the literal rendering of "questioning in their hearts".
Ted Cross
When I first heard about the ISV translation, I’ll admit I was skeptical
about its legitimacy. However, after downloading and getting into it, I was
delighted by the read of it and the feeling of validity and truth. I
thoroughly enjoy reading it. As a matter of fact, I don’t want to stop.
Plus, I seem to absorb more from it than other translations.
Please continue your diligent efforts, because I truly look forward to the
day when I can purchase a completed ISV Bible. It will be an awesome tool.
Thank you,
Kathleen Weems
Back to top.
Regarding
comparison issues between English language versions that have the word
"Standard" in their names, Mr.
Leman sent us a preliminary answer to our question
about ISV comparisons. Mr. Leman also posted
this URL showing his blog post calling for submissions comparing the
ISV and the NIV. Within a few hours, submissions began to come in.
Click here to read them. Mr. Leman has also posted material
consisting of comparative studies between various English language
translations.
Click here
to visit that page. About the ISV, Mr. Leman notes:
I can tell
from the ISV translation that you all intended the ISV to be more precise
exegetically than the NIV.
Finding examples to illustrate deviances from standard English in various
Bible versions, and computing them within my spreadsheet, I am surprised to
find the ISV far ahead of the other versions which have "standard" in their
title.
On 8 February 2007, Mr.
Leman
reported 85 sample verse reading
comparisons that, according to his analysis, reflect a realistic modern "standard" English
rendering for each of the following modern English version. The comparative results,
expressed as a percentage of verses analyzed, were as
follows, listed in increasing conformity to modern standard English
renderings:
6% ASV
8% KJV
22% RSV
19% NASB95
26% ESV
35% HCSB
38% NRSV |
58% NET
61% NIV
71% TNIV
88% TEV
91% NLTse
93% ISV
96% CEV
|
Note that the ISV ranked highest in conformity to the
Leman Standard than any other modern standard translation, except for the
CEV, which is technically considered to be more of a modern English
paraphrase than a translation.
The ISV has more natural
English than other Bible versions which have a similar degree of idiomaticity, and also ranks higher then them in quantified studies of
exegetical accuracy.
Again,
you probably are not surprised by these findings, but I am, because I did
not know what the actual examples would show us. I knew that the ISV would
rank better than the NASB, ESV, and NRSV, but I didn't know how it would
compare with the NIV or HCSB. The rap
I keep hearing about the NIV is that it is "too dynamic". Well,
if the statistics continue to hold in my studies,
The
ISV shows that a translation can be more accurate as well as a better read
than other versions which followed a similar translation philosophy.
And
that is something which can be told to a publisher. It is one thing to have
a subjective opinion about the merits of a Bible version, but it is yet
another to have some empirical evidence that supports that opinion.
I
really do try to be just as fair, honest, and objective in my studies as
possible. I think I have a pretty good sense of what good English is. I have
worked as an editor for a publisher. I am, frankly, amazed at some of the
really terrible English which occurs in some Bible versions, including some
published rather recently.
I'm not
done yet with this study, so the statistics may shift some, but I don't
expect too much change. My own opinion is that God indeed blessed your team
with scholars who not only could do careful exegesis but also could do
something which is often rare among exegetes, and that is that they could
express the meaning of the biblical text in good quality English.
Click
here to read Wayne Leman's web log about this research. The link opens
in a new window.
Click here
to download the pre-release materials upon which Mr. Leman's research was
based. The link opens in a new window.
Back to top.
It is my pleasure to compare the
International Standard Version to several other accurate versions of
Scripture. While I personally use the NASB for study and the NIV for general
reading (our Pastor primarily uses the NIV in his preaching); the ISV is in
my estimation the best combination, of the NASB's precision and the NIV's
readability, available (I have read the entire ISV New Testament and much of
the Old Testament). I look forward to being able to use the entire ISV as my
primary Bible.
I have attached an, as yet unpublished, article
that I recently shared with the Elders of our church in a Biblical
hermeneutics class. The class is required for elders and elder candidates
(elders-in-training) at our church. The article is attached to this e-mail.
A quick comparison of what I consider the most accurate, reliable and
readable translations on the market follows:
|
New American
Standard Bible: An essentially literal translation that is very
accurate. It has exceptionally helpful translation notes that indicate
literal renderings when an academic paraphrase is used. Because the
translation gives priority to the form of the underlying language, the
English is often unnatural. [Grade: A-] |
|
New King James
Bible: An essentially literal translation, very similar to the
NASB, but based on the same manuscripts as the King James Version. The
phraseology of the NKJV is very similar to the KJV, but the old
English has been updated. The English (like the KJV) can be beautiful,
but is often wooden. [Grade: B+] |
|
New Revised
Standard Version: This essentially literal translation is a
revision of the Revised Standard Version, but the language has been
thoroughly gender modified to the point where accuracy is jeopardized.
In many ways, the NRSV is a fine translation, but it possesses the
same liberal bias as the Revised Standard Version. [Grade: C] |
|
English Standard
Version: A new, essentially literal translation based on the
Revised Standard Version, but re-translated by conservative scholars.
The ESV reads smoother than the NASB or NKJV and has beautiful English
(based on the KJV), but much of the English is still wooden by
comparison to the New International Version. It lacks in-depth
translation notes. [Grade: B+] |
|
Holman Christian
Standard Bible: A new, mediating translation that attempted to be
as accurate as the NASB and as readable as the NIV. The HCSB made a
worthy attempt and is accurate and quite readable (the translation
uses natural English for the most part). The translation's weaknesses
are two fold: it uses alternate translations to a fault and the
English is often choppy (English stylists did not do their job as well
as they did on the NIV). [Grade: B+] |
|
New English
Translation: A new mediating translation which made the same
attempts at accuracy and readability as the HCSB, but also included
generous doses of academic paraphrase (dynamic equivalence translation
theory) and gender modified language. The translation has the most
extensive translation notes of any version, but the translation's
English is inconsistent and the extensive use of gender modified
language diminishes its reliability. [Grade: B] |
|
New International
Version: A mediating translation that has become the standard in
many evangelical churches. The NIV is both relatively accurate and
very readable. The English is also beautiful in many of the same ways
that the KJV English is beautiful. For a general translation the NIV
is exceptional. [Grade: A-] |
|
Today's New
International Version: Essentially the NIV with greater doses of
academic paraphrase and gender modified language throughout. Not as
accurate as the NIV due to the gender modified language and heavier
dependence on academic paraphrase. [Grade: B-] |
|
International
Standard Version: A new mediating translation (the Old Testament
is not yet complete) that is exceptionally accurate and possesses the
most flowing, natural English of any mediating translation. More than
any other translation, it captures the nuances of the underlying
manuscripts. The translation notes indicate the literal rendering when
an academic paraphrase has been employed. While the ISV does not
always follow the beautiful KJV renderings (that the NKJV, ESV and NIV
rely upon so heavily), the translation nevertheless possesses a beauty
and cadence that will make it easy to remember and memorize. I believe
it is the only translation that has the potential (if the Old
Testament is as uniformly exceptional as the New Testament), with
adequate promotion, to surpass the NIV as a standard translation.
[Grade: A] |
You may download an article, entitled
Lost in the Translation (a Microsoft DOC file), that covers many of
the translation issues, noted above, in greater depth. Should you have
questions, please e-mail me at the address below. I truly believe the ISV is
the NIV, with greater accuracy, for a new generation.
Like the International Standard Version (ISV),
the New International Version (NIV) is difficult to find fault with. It is
one of the finest contemporary translations. However, some areas in which
the NIV is lacking are as follows:
1) Unlike the ISV, the NIV seldom lets the
reader know (with a footnote) the literal translation of a passage or
phrase, when an academic paraphrase has been employed. I believe this is
essential in any translation that places a high priority on accuracy. The
ISV's translation notes are a treasure to any serious student of the Bible.
2) The NIV, at times, replaces important words,
rich in theological meaning, with simplified defining terms. For instance,
the Greek word "sarx" (literally translated as "flesh") is replaced with a
simplified defining phrase, "sinful nature". While this definition appears
to clarify the meaning of "flesh" for the modern reader, it also limits the
reader's understanding of a word that carries much greater meaning. And, of
greater concern, is the fact that "sinful nature" adds a moral connotation
which is not contained in the Greek word "sarx". It would be better to
retain the word "flesh" (as the ISV does) and give a more comprehensive
definition of the word, with a footnote or a definition in the appendix of
the Bible.
In Romans 3:21 - 25 we find no less than seven
words (righteousness, faith, sinned, justified, grace, redemption and
propitiation) that are all rich in theological meaning. Here, both the NIV
and the ISV replace the word "propitiation" with defining phrases. In the
NIV "propitiation" has been replaced by the defining phrase "sacrifice of
atonement". The ISV replaces "propitiation" with "place where atonement by
Christ's blood could occur". While "propitiation" is no longer in common
usage, it is an important term that should be included in the text and given
a comprehensive definition in a footnote or appendix. To keep things in
perspective, however, in a popular academic paraphrase, the New Living
Translation, only the word "sinned" survives.
3) The NIV uses the practice of academic
paraphrase (or idiomatic translation) judiciously, as does the ISV. The
problem with the NIV is that no indication is given to the reader as to the
literal translation when this occurs. Any time the translator departs from
an essentially literal translation, more opportunity for translational bias
(usually unintentional) occurs. Scripture has stern warnings about adding to
or subtracting from God's Word. While a certain amount of academic
paraphrase is necessary, in even the most literal translations, it should be
documented and used only when necessary to clearly render a passage into the
receptor language (English in this case). For example, Bruce Metzger (The
Bible in Translation) points out that in 1 Corinthians 4:9, the NIV
translator(s) expand what is in the underlying Greek manuscripts. I have
underlined words added by the translators. "For its seems to me that God has
put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like men condemned
to die in the arena." While the underlined words may make sense, they are
not in the Greek text. The ISV also expands the text of this passage, but to
a lesser extent.
I do not consider any of the above problems to
be serious faults with the NIV; it is just that the ISV does a better job in
each of the areas mentioned. To produce a translation that consistently
receives higher grades than the NIV is no small task. Several other recent
translations have attempted to "best" the NIV. None of them have done as
well as the ISV, however. In my mind, the most serious problem with the NIV
is the organization that controls the text and the publisher that owns
rights to publish the NIV. The Committee on Bible Translation, which
translated the NIV, has evolved into an organization whose goals are quite
different from those of the original translators. The release of the Today's
New International Version (TNIV) revealed changes to the original NIV that
do violence to the foundational Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. The
inclusion of political correctness and gender modification have now become
benchmarks for the Committee on Bible Translation. The NIV's publisher,
Zondervan Publishing House, once a fine, independent Christian publisher,
has now been purchased by the Rupert Murdoch media empire. Zondervan,
appears to be channeling its product development and advertising dollars
into promotion of the politically correct and gender modified TNIV, while
the original NIV is put out to pasture.
Sincerely,
Brian Moyer
Back to top.
Regarding gender bias
issues, Wayne Leman responded:
The ISV
should get a clean bill of health for anyone concerned about gender issues
in translation. But, you're right, it's going to be an item of concern now
about any new Bible versions that appears. No one wants a version to go
through what the NIVI and TNIV has gone through re: gender-inclusive
language.
Back to top.
In answer to a reader's
request for information regarding how the ISV compares to and/or differs
from the NET Bible, Mr. Leman wrote:
I spend a lot of time
evaluating English Bible versions. Both the ISV and NET Bible are very
accurate. Both were translated by Bible scholars fully committed to the
importance of each form in the original biblical language texts. Both
translations can be trusted not to lead anyone astray spiritually.
From
my perspective, the quality of English in the ISV far surpasses that in
the NET (and many other English Bibles). The NET Bible has uneven
quality English. At times it is fairly good, but many times it has some
awkward English. On the whole, the quality of English in the ISV is
quite good, especially for a translation that is fairly literal.
I think
that the ISV translators have succeeded in their goal of making a
translation that is fairly literal yet reads well. In my opinion, it
reads better than the NIV, TNIV, NRSV, RSV, ESV, HCSB, and the NASB, and
it competes well in terms of reading flow with idiomatic translations
such as the NLT, GW (God's Word), and NCV.
The
translators of the ISV paid more explicit attention to how the different
tenses of Greek verbs in the New Testament might best be expressed in
English.
For
me, the most outstanding quality of the NET Bible is that its team
produced a huge number of footnotes explaining their translation
decisions. Those translation notes plus thousands of other notes giving
background information can be quite helpful.
If you
would like to examine how the ISV and NET Bible have ranked in some
quantified studies I have done of English Bibles, go to
my webpage.
I
eagerly await the completion of the ISV Old Testament. A complete
ISV should provide a nice alternative to English Bible versions
available today which are good, but not quite as good as we might like
when it comes to quality of English and translation precision.
Back to top.
|
