Monday, July 7, 2008
Words in the New Living Translation
One of the most common misconceptions about the NLT is that it is a paraphrase. It is not. The NLT is, in fact, a translation from Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic; it represents the work of nearly 100 scholars, specialists in the book(s) of Scripture to which they contributed.
The history of the NLT is one reason for the confusion, but another is related to other common misconceptions about Bible translation itself, specifically the philosophy known as dynamic equivalence. In the simplest terms possible, dynamic equivalence is a philosophy of translation that intends to communicate the meaning of the Bible, as it would have been understood in its original setting, as accurately as possible in today's language. This is often discussed in contrast with another philosophy of translation, formal correspondence or essentially literal. Again, simply, formal correspondence intends to communicate the words and word order of the original as closely as possible in the modern language. Of course, every translation of the Bible is more complex than those definitions imply. A strict formal correspondence translation would be unintelligible in any language, and a dynamic equivalent translation could become overly concerned with the limitations of its intended audience.
The juxtaposition of these two complementary translation philosophies, often with an eye to which of the two is "superior," often feeds some misconceptions about one philosophy or the other. This can happen from either side of the debate. In a recent post at Tim Challies' blog, some misconceptions about dynamic equivalence are presented, and I'd like to address them here.
The main idea of Challies' post is that words are of the utmost importance in any communication. At a basic level, that is certainly true. He begins his post with a few examples to illustrate the importance we often place on knowing and studying the exact words and not simply the message of important documents such as ransom notes, court transcripts, and love letters. Very true, but in all of the examples he cites, translation is not in view. If the kidnappers had written the ransom note in French, I'm sure any parent would insist on getting a fluent French speaker to translate the letter for them in language that made sense. And courts use on-the-fly interpreters to translate witness testimony into English for jurors. So, there isn't one-to-one correspondence between the emotional examples Challies begins with and the conclusions he makes about Bible translations.
But what about words in translation? First, it is important to understand that there is almost never a one-to-one correspondence between any word in one language and a word in another language (especially when one of the languages is ancient). To point to one example used in the post, machaira is a Greek word that refers to "a relatively short sword or other sharp instrument, sword, dagger" (BDAG), along with related metaphorical meanings. It is unlikely that any English reader, when given the word "sword," would conjure up the mental image of a 5-inch dagger. So the English word and the Greek word are similar--certainly related--but not equivalent.
So Challies' concern that the English word "sword" isn't present in the NLT and other dynamic equivalent translations isn't quite the problem he makes it out to be. To translate a metaphor in the original with an English phrase that captures its meaning, as the NLT does in Romans 13:4, is not "making a mockery of the words that were breathed out by God," as Challies characterized it. Rather, it is a transparent attempt to clearly communicate the force of the language to English readers today. When Paul wrote Romans, representatives of the government literally phorei machairan ("carried a sword"). This is no longer the case, at least not in most English-speaking areas of the world. It is appropriate to explain the metaphor in this context. In Acts 12:2, the word machaira is not being used metaphorically. James was probably literally killed with a sword. This doesn't display an inconsistency in the NLT translation philosophy; rather, it displays a deep commitment to communicate the meaning of Scripture as clearly as possible.
In Psalm 32:1, Challies compares the NLT to the ESV and wonders, "what has become of the word 'covered'? . . . Is 'covered' not one of the words God breathed out and wrote in His book?" Again, the assumption that an English word is inspired is suspect. The word in Hebrew is kesuh, and "put out of sight" is just as legitimate a translation as "covered."
More could be said about these issues, but I would like to close by pointing out some of the implicit and explicit claims about the value of dynamic equivalent translations of the Scriptures in Challies' post. Here is a sampling of his words:
The history of the NLT is one reason for the confusion, but another is related to other common misconceptions about Bible translation itself, specifically the philosophy known as dynamic equivalence. In the simplest terms possible, dynamic equivalence is a philosophy of translation that intends to communicate the meaning of the Bible, as it would have been understood in its original setting, as accurately as possible in today's language. This is often discussed in contrast with another philosophy of translation, formal correspondence or essentially literal. Again, simply, formal correspondence intends to communicate the words and word order of the original as closely as possible in the modern language. Of course, every translation of the Bible is more complex than those definitions imply. A strict formal correspondence translation would be unintelligible in any language, and a dynamic equivalent translation could become overly concerned with the limitations of its intended audience.
The juxtaposition of these two complementary translation philosophies, often with an eye to which of the two is "superior," often feeds some misconceptions about one philosophy or the other. This can happen from either side of the debate. In a recent post at Tim Challies' blog, some misconceptions about dynamic equivalence are presented, and I'd like to address them here.
The main idea of Challies' post is that words are of the utmost importance in any communication. At a basic level, that is certainly true. He begins his post with a few examples to illustrate the importance we often place on knowing and studying the exact words and not simply the message of important documents such as ransom notes, court transcripts, and love letters. Very true, but in all of the examples he cites, translation is not in view. If the kidnappers had written the ransom note in French, I'm sure any parent would insist on getting a fluent French speaker to translate the letter for them in language that made sense. And courts use on-the-fly interpreters to translate witness testimony into English for jurors. So, there isn't one-to-one correspondence between the emotional examples Challies begins with and the conclusions he makes about Bible translations.
But what about words in translation? First, it is important to understand that there is almost never a one-to-one correspondence between any word in one language and a word in another language (especially when one of the languages is ancient). To point to one example used in the post, machaira is a Greek word that refers to "a relatively short sword or other sharp instrument, sword, dagger" (BDAG), along with related metaphorical meanings. It is unlikely that any English reader, when given the word "sword," would conjure up the mental image of a 5-inch dagger. So the English word and the Greek word are similar--certainly related--but not equivalent.
So Challies' concern that the English word "sword" isn't present in the NLT and other dynamic equivalent translations isn't quite the problem he makes it out to be. To translate a metaphor in the original with an English phrase that captures its meaning, as the NLT does in Romans 13:4, is not "making a mockery of the words that were breathed out by God," as Challies characterized it. Rather, it is a transparent attempt to clearly communicate the force of the language to English readers today. When Paul wrote Romans, representatives of the government literally phorei machairan ("carried a sword"). This is no longer the case, at least not in most English-speaking areas of the world. It is appropriate to explain the metaphor in this context. In Acts 12:2, the word machaira is not being used metaphorically. James was probably literally killed with a sword. This doesn't display an inconsistency in the NLT translation philosophy; rather, it displays a deep commitment to communicate the meaning of Scripture as clearly as possible.
In Psalm 32:1, Challies compares the NLT to the ESV and wonders, "what has become of the word 'covered'? . . . Is 'covered' not one of the words God breathed out and wrote in His book?" Again, the assumption that an English word is inspired is suspect. The word in Hebrew is kesuh, and "put out of sight" is just as legitimate a translation as "covered."
More could be said about these issues, but I would like to close by pointing out some of the implicit and explicit claims about the value of dynamic equivalent translations of the Scriptures in Challies' post. Here is a sampling of his words:
". . . translations of the Bible that, in many ways, are mere
summaries of the actual words [of God]""Why do we read versions of [the Bible] that make a mockery of
the words that were breathed out by God?""[The translators of the NLT, CEV, and the Message] have [translated inconsistently] in order to interpret and not to make a more clear translation."
These quotes are as inflammatory as they are misleading. Dynamic equivalent translations take the words of Scripture very seriously. In the case of the NLT, seriously enough to spend nearly ten years creating the translation, another eight years carefully (and significantly) revising it for a second edition, and ongoing careful review to ensure clarity and accuracy. To imply that the goal of all this work is anything other than clear translation is false and unfair. The danger of importing "pet interpretations" to the translation was mitigated by the committee approach, wherein everything underwent thorough review by several capable scholars.
Challies ends his post by stating his purpose for the post: "What I mean to show in these examples is that anything other than an essentially literal translation of the Bible may work to subtly undermine the Christian's confidence in the Scriptures." I don't think this is true. Rather, I would argue that misleading rhetoric about the inadequacy of certain translations is an even greater danger to the Christian's confidence in the Scriptures.
A different approach to comparing translations was taken by Scripture Zealot. Here is his conclusion:
"I want to get away from the critical translation comparisons. I want to study the Scriptures and use translations for insight and perspective. I want to guard against spending too much time on pitting this translation vs. that translation."
Now there's an approach I can appreciate, and one that won't undermine anyone's confidence in their Bible.
Labels: bible, dynamic equivalence, essentially literal, Keith Williams, NLT, translation, words
posted by Keith Williams at 11:33 AM
Thank you for this intelligent defense of dynamic, or functional, translation. I'm very pleased to see this blog and look forward to gleaning your insights on Bible translation from a DE perspective. I'll be adding you to my blogroll!
Keith, it's great to know that there's a blog devoted to the NLT. A few months back, I posted that the NLTse should be that third Bible. I know of some who have made it their second Bible or even first Bible.
The NLTse is my first Bible. I use it every week and recommend it to our congregation for its clarity and ease of use. I'm thrilled to find this blog and appreciate your work.
David Wilson
Lead Pastor
New Hope Baptist, Valparaiso FL
This is a helpful post in the Bible translation debates, Keith. Thank you for saying what you did. As a Bible translator myself who appreciates the NLT, I affirm what you have said. I am glad to see the increasing use of the NLT.
I forgot to say that I linked to your post on our Better Bibles Blog.
I've made a response to Tim Challies post on my blog. Feel free to check it out: Shots were fired but the Intended Target was Missed.
thanks so much for this post and for this blog...i love the NLT...i'm tired of seeing good translations (and the people behind them) pitted against one another...that is not kingdom business at all...peace
Thanks to all for your kind comments. I look forward to interacting with you here and on your own blogs. Some of you I've been reading for a few months (tc, ElShaddai, David @ HerdingCats) or even longer (Wayne @ BBB). Now that I have a blog, I'll come out of the shadows and comment a bit more freely
I appreciate the post. More than that, I appreciate the NLT. I read it every day along with my REB.
Being that I'm an optimist (tongue firmly planted in cheek), I prefer to look at the bright side of the ESV Only crowd's attacks on the NLT and many other translations. If not for their attacks, I would not have been compelled to look into the NLT, REB, NRSV, NAB, and TNIV, all of which I read regularly. So you see, I have benefited greatly from all the hysteria from many in the ESV camp.
I look forward to reading more from you in the future. I also enjoy reading the NLT Study Bible blog.
I'm flabbergasted that you quoted me. I happened to come across your blog from BBB or I might have missed it. Thank you.
Another blog to read...
Jeff
I wrote a a piece examining the whole "essentially literal" claim of the ESV. The ESV is not literal enough to "almost capture the Greek". And as your example shows another example of, its dynamic enough to accurately capture meaning. The result is that the ESV fails to accomplish either important goal of translation nearly as well.
I'm glad you are taking on the ESVonly crowd directly.
Hey Keith,
First of all, I'm excited to see a NLT specific blog. I will certainly have to add this to both my blogroll and feedreader!
Second, thank you for the insightful post on translation theory. I used to think along the same lines as Tim, but after studying Greek a bit and working on personal translations, I realized what a mistake it was to consider DE Bibles as anything less than valuable translations. In fact, the NLT is one of the translations I consult when I am translating things myself, in order to see if what I have translated is understandable. We also read from the NLT during our congregational scripture readings prior to the service, and it is certainly quite a joy to do so.
Whoops, forgot to add my url to that last post!
I've commented on CD-Host's post (mentioned in comment #11).
Bryan,
Thanks. It's always exciting to hear about churches using the NLT in worship, especially for congregational reading. And I've enjoyed reading through your translation of Colossians as well.
It's always exciting to hear about churches using the NLT in worship, especially for congregational reading.
While my present church is standardized on the NIV, our former Covenant Church home used the NLTse as its pew/reading Bible and I really came to appreciate it as part of my growth in moving beyond the NASB.
And I've enjoyed reading through your translation of Colossians as well.
Well, color me surprised!
[if the preceding sentence is too idiomatic for future readers, feel free to translate it with dynamic equivalence!]
Thanks!
Bryan,
Well, color me surprised!
My humble attempt at dynamic equivalence:
The painted fountain startled me.
I echo all the comments here, Keith.
I think we're all pumped up having a NLT Blog.
The NLTse is a very fine DE Translation. It communicates effectively & clearly. Let's praise the LORD for that. My Home Boy William Tyndale is no doubt proud of how accessible the Word has become! : )
On another note, many are really looking forward to the NLT Study Bible. The Genesis Sampler really impressed me. I can't wait to dive in to the finished Product-I know it will be a great one.
"If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scripture than thou doest." (William Tyndale)
Spoken like a true Protestant-
In Christ Jesus,
Jimbo S.
Thank you for this great post! This is included in the Christian Carnival, up tomorrow at diaryof1.com.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home