Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Sentence Structure in the NLT
By Mark D. Taylor
The issue of sentence structure in English Bibles is interesting. On the surface, one might assume that an English Bible could/should simply follow the structure of the sentences in Hebrew and Greek. But the very concept of a "sentence" differs from language to language.
Let's look at the prologue to Romans (Rom 1:1-7) as an example. We begin by reminding ourselves that koine Greek does not actually use punctuation or paragraph breaks, nor does it differentiate between upper case and lower letters. This might surprise you, because the UBS Greek New Testament uses paragraphs, capital letters, and punctuation (commas, periods, question marks, and semicolons). But this is because the editors of that Greek text have made judgment calls as to how the Greek "sentences" should be presented in a format we're accustomed to seeing in English.
In the UBS Greek text, Rom 1:1-7 is presented as one long sentence (i.e., the first full stop comes at the end of verse 7). But does that mean that English translations should also use only one sentence for that passage? Formal-equivalence translations tend to do so. For example, KJV, RSV, NASB, NRSV, and ESV all use only one sentence for this long prologue. Interestingly, the NKJV uses two sentences. NIV and TNIV use four sentences. NLT2 uses nine sentences.
Which approach is correct? I would argue that they all are. Each translation uses a unique translation philosophy, and the structure of English sentences plays into that philosophy. Unfortunately, the proponents of formal equivalence sometimes imply that the only legitimate style of translation is to follow the sentence structure of the original texts as closely as possible. But life isn't quite that simple.
The issue of sentence structure in English Bibles is interesting. On the surface, one might assume that an English Bible could/should simply follow the structure of the sentences in Hebrew and Greek. But the very concept of a "sentence" differs from language to language.
Let's look at the prologue to Romans (Rom 1:1-7) as an example. We begin by reminding ourselves that koine Greek does not actually use punctuation or paragraph breaks, nor does it differentiate between upper case and lower letters. This might surprise you, because the UBS Greek New Testament uses paragraphs, capital letters, and punctuation (commas, periods, question marks, and semicolons). But this is because the editors of that Greek text have made judgment calls as to how the Greek "sentences" should be presented in a format we're accustomed to seeing in English.
In the UBS Greek text, Rom 1:1-7 is presented as one long sentence (i.e., the first full stop comes at the end of verse 7). But does that mean that English translations should also use only one sentence for that passage? Formal-equivalence translations tend to do so. For example, KJV, RSV, NASB, NRSV, and ESV all use only one sentence for this long prologue. Interestingly, the NKJV uses two sentences. NIV and TNIV use four sentences. NLT2 uses nine sentences.
Which approach is correct? I would argue that they all are. Each translation uses a unique translation philosophy, and the structure of English sentences plays into that philosophy. Unfortunately, the proponents of formal equivalence sometimes imply that the only legitimate style of translation is to follow the sentence structure of the original texts as closely as possible. But life isn't quite that simple.
Labels: Bible translations, dynamic equivalence, formal equivalence, Greek New Testament, NLT
posted by Mark D. Taylor at 12:05 PM
Mark, I appreciate your entry, coincidentally posted very shortly after I posted my own discontent with that very same passage in the NLT.
As I said in my comments on that entry, if it fits your translation philosophy, that's fine; I have no problem with that. But I'm curious where the line is drawn between making a translation easy to understand (but possibly disjointed and choppy), and making it coherent, beautiful, and flowing (but possibly less easy to understand.)
It's my view that Tyndale may need to revise passages like this one, if for no other reason than to make the adult readers feel like they aren't reading a "dumbed-down" Bible.
Gary wondered:
But I'm curious where the line is drawn between making a translation easy to understand (but possibly disjointed and choppy), and making it coherent, beautiful, and flowing (but possibly less easy to understand.)
I suggest that the line is drawn by the principles of high quality which we who are fluent speakers and writers of the language have already internalized. Courses in English composition often help us become aware of what these internalized principles are.
Run-on sentences are not attractive in English. I don't know if they were in Greek. As much as Paul used them, and as well educated as he was, I suspect that run-on sentences were easier to follow in Greek than they are in English.
I think that the NLT does a better job, overall, getting its English to get closer to standard good quality English than do almost all more formally equivalent translations. FE translation often respect the biblical languages more than they do English, In actual fact, the best translation is the kind which respects the linguistic patterns and beauty found within each language. If we try to pattern English after the biblical languages, we will distort English, make it more difficult to read, and, in the process, actually lower the accuracy of meaning being communicated through the translation.
In response to Wayne,
While I do not think it necessary or desirable that English translations reproduce original language sentence structure, I must note that there is a significant difference between a run-on sentence and a long sentence. Long sentences can be perfectly correct grammatical English: the preamble to the US Constitution, which takes the form of a single sentence, is one example. A run-on sentence is something that reads grammatically as more than one independent clause, but is neither separated into two sentences nor properly connected, such as with a semicolon and a conjunctive adverb. Calling a long but grammatically proper sentence a "run on" unhelpfully confuses the problem.
Also, the preference for shorter, simpler sentences is not a function of "standard good quality English," but rather a contemporary prejudice. Standard English prose of a hundred or hundred fifty years ago was far more complex than is commonly found now. Compare Dickens with Hemingway. This may still be a point in favor of translation in a simpler style, but the issue really is a matter of being dumbed down to contemporary literacy levels, rather than trying not to "distort" English.
...the issue really is a matter of being dumbed down to contemporary literacy levels...
I take exception to that. I'm a fairly bright individual. Oh why not, I'm pretty far out there on the curve. Yet, I much prefer shorter sentences. It has nothing to do with being dumb. Longer sentences must be broken down in the brain of most folks, myself included.
Personally, I don't see anything particularly appealing about the stream of consciousness sentences of years gone by. Perhaps those writers were the dumb ones. Why couldn't they organize their thoughts better?
"As much as Paul used them, and as well educated as he was, I suspect that run-on sentences were easier to follow in Greek than they are in English."
As one who doesn't read Greek, I'm curious. If there weren't any punctuation marks in Koine Greek, how do we know if Paul wrote long, run-on sentences?
The long sentences we usually see in our Bibles today come from the way they were translated way back 400+ years ago, wouldn't you say?
In the example Mark gave us in his entry, Romans 1:1-7, the NLT chops it up into 9 sentences. I think that's a bit much. The NIV/TNIV uses four, which seems about right to me.
FWIW.
I'll weigh in with a few more comments about sentence structure.
In contemoporary English, we tend to use a new sentence whenever there is a change of subject. And we all learned in fourth grade that a "good sentence" has a subject and a predicate. (And no fragments allowed!) So how many subjects does Paul cover in the prologue to Romans?
In 1:1, he introduces himself in a form that is typical of epistles of that era: "Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus" This is almost like using a letterhead--though Paul uses very unusual nomenclature by identifying himself as "a slave of Christ Jesus." And then he immediately goes on to add three other elements of identification. He is (1) chosen by God, (2) an apostle, (3) sent out to preach the Good News.
Having identified himself as the sender of the epistle, Paul then goes into a short excursus on the term Good News (Greek euaggelion, often rendered "gospel," an English word derived from the Old English "godspel," which meant "good news"). This is a new subject, so the NLT uses a new sentence in 1:2.
Well, that gives you a flavor for why the NLT uses so many sentences in 1:1-7. Different subjects, different sentences.
I confess immediately I am neither a Greek scholar nor a linguist. But as a practitioner who often speaks with those outside the church and often outside Christ, the NLT has become a very valuable translation for precisely the reasons in this post and some of the positive comments.
The formal equivalence translations have always been my choice. But I have read from the NLT in my speaking and watched the eyes. There is a measure of understanding that is sometimes absent in the more formal equivalent translations. Thank God for all of them. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but it has been my observation, I value you it in my context of ministry.
I appreciate the good work all of you do in helping us communicate the message of Christ better.
Oops - should read "I value it in my context of ministry."
Tede said:
There is a measure of understanding that is sometimes absent in the more formal equivalent translations.
I agree! I have seen it even in my own reading the last few days. The light comes on in my head like never before in some of the passages I've been reading in Romans & 1 Corinthians.
You might be interested to know I've found myself backpedaling from my earlier criticism of the NLT text. Yes, there is some choppiness, but the overall excellence of the translation far overshadows that, IMO.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home