Thursday, August 20, 2009
posted by Mark D. Taylor at 11:45 AM
I'm beginning here an occasional series of posts in which I'll explore some of the differences between the NLT and other translations. Specifically, I'll look at underlying differences between dynamic equivalence (DE) translations and formal equivalence (FE) translations, which are also called "word-for-word" or "essentially literal" translations.
In these posts I'll typically use the KJV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, and ESV as examples of formal-equivalence translations. And the NLT is a dynamic-equivalence translation.
I should point out that there is no right and wrong here. Both of these translation theories are legitimate, and each translation is created with a primary adherence to one or the other of these philosophies.
Sentence Structure
FE translations try to replicate in English the sentence structure of the original Hebrew or Greek. Let's look at Romans 1:1-7 as an example. In the Greek, Paul begins this letter with a long introduction that follows the traditional format for an epistle (i.e., a letter):
From:
To:
Greetings.
The "from" element is long and complicated (1:1-6). The "to" element is short and sweet (1:7a). The "greetings" element is also short (1:7b) and has an interesting twist. Instead of using the traditional word chairein "Greetings," Paul uses the word charis "Grace," which sounds similar in the original Greek text.
The original readers of this letter from Paul would have instantly recognized the "epistle format" of the opening verses. And that format is replicated in the ESV:
1:1 "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, . . ."
1:7a "To all those in Rome . . ."
1:7b "Grace to you and peace from God our Father . . ."
But modern letters in Western culture do not use that same format. So the NLT attempts to capture the sense that "this is a letter" by rendering the traditional epistolary elements as follows:
1:1 "This letter is from Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, . . ."
1:7a "I am writing to all of you in Rome . . ."
1:7b "May God our Father . . . give you grace and peace."
Now back to my point about sentence structure. The Greek text uses one long sentence for this entire introductory section (1:1-7). So FE translations like the NASB, NKJV, and ESV also use one long English sentence. The NLT is less concerned about maintaining the structure of the sentence, so it uses nine sentences to help ensure that the modern reader can follow and readily understand the complex elements of Paul's theological introduction.
Each translational approach has its own strengths. Viva la différence!
In these posts I'll typically use the KJV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, and ESV as examples of formal-equivalence translations. And the NLT is a dynamic-equivalence translation.
I should point out that there is no right and wrong here. Both of these translation theories are legitimate, and each translation is created with a primary adherence to one or the other of these philosophies.
Sentence Structure
FE translations try to replicate in English the sentence structure of the original Hebrew or Greek. Let's look at Romans 1:1-7 as an example. In the Greek, Paul begins this letter with a long introduction that follows the traditional format for an epistle (i.e., a letter):
From:
To:
Greetings.
The "from" element is long and complicated (1:1-6). The "to" element is short and sweet (1:7a). The "greetings" element is also short (1:7b) and has an interesting twist. Instead of using the traditional word chairein "Greetings," Paul uses the word charis "Grace," which sounds similar in the original Greek text.
The original readers of this letter from Paul would have instantly recognized the "epistle format" of the opening verses. And that format is replicated in the ESV:
1:1 "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, . . ."
1:7a "To all those in Rome . . ."
1:7b "Grace to you and peace from God our Father . . ."
But modern letters in Western culture do not use that same format. So the NLT attempts to capture the sense that "this is a letter" by rendering the traditional epistolary elements as follows:
1:1 "This letter is from Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, . . ."
1:7a "I am writing to all of you in Rome . . ."
1:7b "May God our Father . . . give you grace and peace."
Now back to my point about sentence structure. The Greek text uses one long sentence for this entire introductory section (1:1-7). So FE translations like the NASB, NKJV, and ESV also use one long English sentence. The NLT is less concerned about maintaining the structure of the sentence, so it uses nine sentences to help ensure that the modern reader can follow and readily understand the complex elements of Paul's theological introduction.
Each translational approach has its own strengths. Viva la différence!
Labels: Mark Taylor, NLT, translation issues, translation philosophy
Looking forward to this series, I own books on the topic, but I learn and retain much more from blog short-form.
Speaking of translation, shouldn't that last line be 'Viva la diferencia' or 'Vive la différence'? I'm definitely no expert (I'm Australian so have little need to know Spanish or French as less that 1% speak either language in the home here), but it just looked wrong.
Now I'm going to go complain to the person that mixed Greek and Latin to name 'television'! ;)
Ouch! You're correct--it should say "Vive la différence" (French). But if you Google "Viva la différence," you'll found thousands of hits for that phrase spelled incorrectly!
I just did an excercise with my youth group using the NLT. I sent out one chapter of Mark each day for 16 days for them to read. One of the most common comment I got after the excercise was done was how much easier it was to read and understand the translation I was sending (most of the youth have older translations, even the NIV!!). Just simple phrase rearrangment like this actually does a lot more in helping a person understand then most people think.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that I think with the up and coming generations translations like the NLT are definitley the way to go.
I prefer the older word for word, or literal translation aspect myself. Even the NRSV is closer here. But if God can speak thru an ass, and get His purpose done, than thanks be to God!
Mark, great post. Interesting to see the choices behind the NLT renderings. In the light of your post and all things considered, I think in this instance the NLT is certainly superior.
Is the NLT's use of the word "slave" in verse 1:1 "This letter is from Paul, a slave..." representing the full meaning in which the original language went with the Gk. "doulos"? I noticed the other went with "servent".
Slave or servant? In English, a servant is hired and has the freedom to quit his/her post. A slave is owned by the master and has no choice in the matter. The Greek word is doulos. So the key question for the translator is, "What did Paul have in mind when he called himself a doulos of Christ Jesus?
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Kittel, Bromiley) has an extensive article on doulos. It describes the function and social standing of the doulos in the strongest of terms: "doulos is a slave. . . . What is repudiated [in the Greek world] is service after the manner of the doulos, who not only has no possibility of evading the tasks laid upon him but who also has no right of personal choice, who must rather do what another will have done, and refrain from doing what another will not have done."
The NLT translators wrestled with the question of "servant" or "slave." In the end we concluded that Paul was not referring to himself as merely a servant of Christ. He used the strong term doulos as a metaphor to show that he was totally subject to the will of Christ. He no longer had any individual rights. In English, the term for that kind of relationship to the master is "slave."
Thank you Mr. Taylor. I think I unknowingly stepped right into a great reason why the NLT is a legitimate translation to be taken seriously, and I do. Love your guys work!
Mark - Thanks for the good post. Looking forward to further postings on the topic.
Mark: I often hear people disparagingly refer to the NIV and especially the TNIV as dynamic equivalent translations. Do you plan to discuss the "continuum" of FE->DE->paraphrase? If you do, it might serve as a handy article to give people who are confused on this. Thanks.
Walt Bertelsen
Walt, I'll talk about the continuum of formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence in a new post within the next week or so.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home