Friday, July 11, 2008
My NLT Odyssey: A Bible translation story
*Warning: Long navel-gazing post below. Proceed with caution.
I love the NLT. It is one of my primary translations at home and at church, but this wasn't always the case.The first Bible I ever used with any regularity was an NIV. The small Christian school that I attended in first through fourth grade allowed us to memorize Scripture from either the NIV or the KJV, and I went with the NIV since it was the pew Bible at my church. When I was in high school and began to get "serious" about Bible study, I made the switch over to the NASB. I also used other translations, including the NIV, NKJV, and KJV. In the church circles I was running in, literal was best. And it didn't get more literal than the NASB.
I got a lot of mileage out of the NASB, and in fact I still have the leatherbound, ultrathin reference edition that my future wife gave me for my birthday in 1998, all marked up from my first couple of years in Bible college.
I don't remember when I first learned about the NLT, but I do remember when my wife discovered it. She was in a study group, reading through the entire Old Testament for a survey class in our first semester at Moody Bible Institute. One of her friends had an NLT, and the group quickly decided to simply pass the NLT around rather than having everyone read from their own translation. She took note and made sure that her next Bible purchase would be an NLT. Despite her enthusiasm, I still wasn't convinced, and I stayed with the NASB. This was in the fall of 1998, and she has been an NLT gal ever since.
The first time I actually used the NLT for more than checking a verse occasionally was in the spring of 2001, when my wife and I led an evangelistic Bible study through the Gospel of John. Everyone in our college ministry was able to invite their friends to come and read through John together, one chapter each week, to discover Jesus for themselves. We chose the NLT as our group text, and the church generously provided a complete copy of the NLT for everyone that attended the study. It was a fun, and fruitful, experience.
While we were leading this group through John, I was also flexing my new--and still somewhat awkward--Greek skills by translating through myself, along with the NLT, NASB, NIV, and D.A. Carson's commentary. I certainly didn't agree with the NLT everywhere, but often I found that I agreed with the NLT over against another translation in a particular reading. By the end of the 21-week session, I was quite pleased with the NLT. I still didn't switch to it as my primary Bible translation, but I had very positive feelings about it. In fact, we used it again for a new group the next year.
Through my study of Greek, I spent a lot of time in class and on my own thinking and reading about translation and language. More and more, I became disillusioned with the way I used to read a "literal" translation, under the impression that I had virtually unfettered access to the Greek and Hebrew original. As a result, I was "converted," and became a very strong advocate of dynamic equivalency. I returned "home" to the NIV, looking forward to the publication of the TNIV.
At this point, I went through a stage in my journey where I was harshly critical of more formal translations. I took every opportunity to criticize the "poor English" of the NASB. I was vocally critical of the "essentially literal" argument surrounding the (then) new ESV. This was a time when my voice was changing, and I probably should have kept my mouth shut.
In retrospect, I realize that the problem was with the way I had understood the NASB, not the translation itself. I was overconfident in the ability of any English translation to give me a transparent view of the original text, right down to words and grammar. I took my erroneous assumptions about how to use such a translation and compounded the error by blaming the translation itself.
I was just getting settled with using the TNIV when I became aware of an open position on the Bible editorial team here at Tyndale House Publishers. My wife had been using the NLT as her primary Bible (and therefore my secondary Bible) for several years, and so I was excited by the opportunity. I came in for my interview and was surprised to learn that the NLT had received a facelift. In 2004, a second edition had been released, of which my wife and I were completely unaware. We had been reading the 1996 edition. I left that interview with a copy of the new edition and burgeoning interest in the NLT.
I went home that afternoon and spent several hours poring over the NLT second edition: comparing specific passages with the 1996 edition (and my TNIV), reading Galatians straight through, checking individual verses against the Greek and Hebrew, noticing that poetry was now set as poetry, etc. I was impressed. It seemed like every verse had been gone over with a fine-toothed comb and improved where necessary. Whether I got the job or not, I became an "NLT guy" on that day.
The picture on this post is of my Bible shelf at work, and you can probably identify several of the Bibles I mentioned thoughout the post. I carry an NLT and my Reader's Greek NT to church with me on most Sundays (so they're not in the picture), but I also make regular use of the NRSV, I listen the the TNIV on my iPod, and I read the KJV in my pocket edition of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. So even if I am an NLT guy, I'm not an NLT-Only guy.
What's your story?
Post your story in the comments. Or, if you have a blog, write up a post about it and give us a link in the comments.
Labels: bible, Keith Williams, NLT, translation
posted by Keith Williams at 12:30 PM
Is that a copy of Jim Trestle's book on your Bible shelf there? ;-)
Seriously, though: Your journey is similar to mine in some ways, especially regarding the switch to NASB for "serious" study. Perhaps I'll post sometime on the NLT Study Bible blog about my own translation odyssey. Thanks, Keith, for bringing up some good memories.
I also started out with NIV and also when I got more "serious" about study and learned of other translations learned that I didn't like the NIV as much as I thought I did and liked the idea of a more literal translation.
As a second step I then became a vocal proponent of the literalness of the essentially literal translations similar to your third step except the other way around and also should have kept my mouth shut at certain times. My primary more literal version was and still is the NRSV but by next year I will switch because I realized how much archaic language there is in that translation and want to switch to something that has language that will still sound similar to how I speak in 20 years. I don't like Bible hopping.
While comparing I was really into all the critical translation comparisons and which is "better" for this and that. I'm growing out of that and just like reading about how and why translations render the underlying language which is educational.
I'm now much more open minded (there are even a few verses in The Message that I like!) and want to make a switch by sometime next year. The problem is I also want to transfer all the notes, highlighting etc.
This is a fantastic blog and I hope you can keep it up. Pace yourself. I look forward to reading some nuts and bolts type posts if they come along.
Jeff
Thanks for sharing, Keith. Like most I started with the KJV, then NKJV, NIV, NASB, and now the TNIV. The NLT is now my third Bible. I tend to work in the Greek myself, and I've found the NLT to be quite accurate in many of its decisions, where other Bibles are not clear.
I created a 21-Days with Jesus program for our young adults here in Germany. We used the New Living German Translation... I also use it in the pulpit. Great translation.
Can you tell me if the German version ("Neues Leben")is based on NLT 1 or NLT 2?
One thing that I do not like: they only have a hardback NLT Bible in German. No leather. And because they market it to young people, it only comes in flashy colors. A bummer.
Cheers
Danny
Danny,
I don't remember offhand whether the German Neues Leben is more closely related to the first or second edition of the English NLT. It's now the weekend, and I won't actually be back in the office until later in the week, but I'll respond at a later date. I may see the German publisher this week at the International Christian Retail Show (ICRS) in Orlando.
Mark Taylor
My Bible journey, over 50 years.
I was brought up on the King James Version, and quite a few verses and many passages are permanently in my head from that version.
In 1965, when I turned 13, my mother gave me a copy of Living Letters, which was the first instalment of The Living Bible. It had a profound effect on me, because I began to understand things I had not grapsed in the 17th Century English of the KJV. I was pretty angry after reading Romans 9, and it took many years before I embraced God's sovereignty, so clearly taught there.
In 1972 my brother Malcolm gave me a copy of the full Living Bible, with which I had a love/hate relationship. It seemed very loose in places, but it also made the Bible clearer and put it into the language we speak.
In 1973, we were given a white, unadorned wedding edition of the Revised Standard Version.
Over the years I have enjoyed many Bibles, and had the opportunity to study biblical languages for four years while training for the Christian ministry [in which I lasted a whole two and a half years].
In 2005, a member of our church encouraged us to read through the New Testament, which I did using my new TNIV. This spurred me on to also read the Old Testament in that version, and then to read through the Bible in a variety of translations.
Over the past four years I have read the whole Bible through using
The TNIV
The NIV Archaeological Study Bible
The ESV Reformation Study Bible
The New Living Translation, second edition [which is a significant improvement over the first edition, which was a great upgrade of The Living Bible]
The Good News Bible, Australian Edition
I'm now reading through The Books of the Bible, a presentation of Today's New International Version, which gets rid of verses, chapters, headings and footnotes [they have been converted into endnotes, which I'm not bothering to consult], but does use spacing to enhance readability. It also rearranges the books into a more logical and chronological order.
Reading each of these Bibles has been a great blessing and I have learnt much more reading the Bible through than I've ever learnt from commentaries and Bible dictionaries, helpful as they are.
I have found Michael Coley's chart for reading through the Bible very helpful, though I always adapt it to my own needs.
See http://www.bible-reading.com/bible-plan.html
I have the TNIV as my base Bible, but also have the KJV, the NLT [both editions] and the ESV on my Palm Zire 22 and find each of them helpful.
My journey is similar to yours though I haven't quite made it to the NLT as a main reference - though I do tend to check it.
I have been learning to keep my mouth shut as my voice changes - though I may have post or two I may regret later.
I too have been through Seminary and spend time learning the biblical languages and in that process began to realize literal wasn't always better and in fact often was not helpful in many cases.
Thanks for the post and sharing about your journey.
I posted about the new forthcoming NLT Study Bible.
Thanks for this blog. I wish it well. I mentioned the NLT as my favourite of its type in my recent review of the CEV here.
http://collegeblog.midbible.ac.uk/2008/07/brief-thoughts-on-the-contemporary-english-version/
There was an earlier separate review of the NLT here:
http://collegeblog.midbible.ac.uk/2008/03/brief-thoughts-on-the-new-living-translation
Thanks to all for your stories, here in the comments and on your blogs. I find them fascinating, and appreciate the fact that even just a generation ago a person's "journey" was much more limited. What a blessing to have so many good options for English (and German, Danny) Bibles.
If you just found this post through the Christian Carnival post, welcome! Please leave your story here or give us a link to a blog post about it.
I use the ESV and HCSB mostly. As you point out, there are a lot of problems with the reasons a lot of people like the ESV, but it does what I want. I know what Greek words certain English expressions are translating in the ESV, and in the TNIV or NLT that doesn't happen. For example, 'sarx' and in the NIV and TNIV can be rendered in many different ways, almost none of them "flesh". But in the ESV I see "flesh" and know what word it likely is in the Greek, even if that word doesn't always mean "flesh" in English. For someone like me, the ESV is very helpful without being as un-English as the NASB. The HCSB is almost as good but not quite, but it's better on a couple of other things.
I recommend the TNIV and NLT for more dynamic and even more dynamic translations, for reading long sections (but less for careful study, which requires original languages or multiple translations of different kinds, ideally with a good commentary or two). I especially like the NLT for kids and people whose English isn't as good but want to read the Bible in English.
I can appreciate Jeremy's perspective about the ESV--that he can anticipate that the English "flesh" will always stand for sarx. I don't have an ESV concordance, so I can't check to see if that is literally always the case. However, it didn't take me long to find that the opposite is not always true. In Matt. 24:22, the Greek text uses sarx, but the ESV renders it "human being." I haven't bothered looking further.
While Jeremy's point applies to someone who has studied Greek, 99% of Bible readers have not studied Greek. So for the 99%, is it not misleading to always translate sarx as "flesh" if it doesn't always mean "flesh" (as that word is normally understood in English)?
Mark Taylor
Mark, the ESV isn't as absolute about this sort of thing as the NASB is, but it's much closer to ordinary English. The HCSB is even closer to ordinary English but less good a guide to the sort of thing I'm looking for. I'm trying to balance those considerations out, and I think those two translations are the happiest medium I've found for what I like.
I don't recommend the ESV to everyone. I usually recommend it to people who use the KJV, NKJV, NASB, or RSV to move them to something more contemporary and up-to-date that's still within the Tyndale tradition and still sounds like the Bible to someone schooled in a certain sound to the Bible. It's a good step for people to be weaned off translations even further from what the average person would be best served by.
I do have worries about people using only the more dynamic translations. I don't think it's illegitimate to translate that way, but I think it's important to teach people who use such translations that there's something it captures and something it doesn't. I very much resist the tendency to translate away metaphors, for instance. It's one thing if it was a dead metaphor when it was written, and then the literal translations wrongly translate the metaphor as a metaphor in English, but if it was a genuine metaphor then you lose meaning if you translate it as what the metaphor means symbolically.
Jeremy,
Point well taken about the potential danger of "people using only the more dynamic translations." But for the same reason, I would caution the average reader against using only a literal-style translation.
I'm intrigued by your comment about dead metaphors. Do you have one or two examples of metaphors that were already dead when they were written?
Mark Taylor
I would say the same about people using only the so-called literal translations. To the average person who knows English well, I usually recommend either the NLT or TNIV and either the ESV or HCSB. I do encourage them to have one of each pair.
The reason I mention dead metaphors is because whenever I've made that point, someone usually comes along and points out that it's actually a good idea to translate some metaphors without carrying the symbolism forward, and they give examples of dead metaphors that are merely idioms at the time of writing. Idioms should not be translated word-for-word, or you get loss of meaning. My point was that not all metaphors are like this, but for some the image is very important, even if we need to understand the historical context to get the full understanding of what's going on.
I didn't have any biblical passages in mind, but the sort of thing I mean is something like if we translated the English "rewind" by a verb having to do with winding tape and then applying it to moving a CD backward, when that language doesn't use a verb for winding for that. That would be translating a dead metaphor in appropriately.
The NASB often does this, and the ESV does less often but too much. The HSCB is closer to my ideal range on that sort of thing. But I'm not sure the metaphor of horns for strength in the psalms and prophets is a dead metaphor in the same way, and I'm very sure that I've seen some metaphors that aren't mere idioms being translated away. I haven't checked the new NLT, but th first edition in the Corinthian letters removed a number of Paul's metaphors, and I was very disappointed, after having liked much of the translation up to that point (and I read it from beginning to end).
One example occurs to me after I've written all that. A common idiom in the Old Testament is the expression about those who urinate on the wall. The KJV translated the dead metaphor as "he who pisseth agains the wall". An English speaker might guess that this is referring to males or to males over a certain age, but it was an idiom in ancient Hebrew in the same way that "kicking the bucket" is an idiom in English for dying. A fluent speaker wouldn't think about buckets when hearing that, and a fluent speaker of Hebrew wouldn't think of urination when hearing the Hebrew expression. No one could seriously think we should translate these into other languages that have no such idiom, because it would be inaccurate. They'd think it means just kicking a bucket, and they'd wonder which bucket.
(Another related problem is when there's wordplay that can be captured in a more word-for-word translation that can't be captured if you translate several words with one concept but not by finding corresponding words in English.)
I grew up Pentecostal, so we were strictly KJV. Then I adopted Calvinism last summer and started reading the ESV, which (at the moment is my first Bible. I then began reading the TNIV which is my second Bible, and now (mostly through the publicity regarding the NLT Study Bible) I'm using the NLT in my devotional reading.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home