Category: Uncategorized

Translating the biblical texts into English (or any other language) is not as simple as it may sound. For starters, the translator has to determine which philosophy of translation to follow. The two basic options are formal equivalence (also called word-for-word, literal, or essentially literal) and dynamic equivalence (also called thought-for-thought). And there is also a combination of these two basic philosophies (as often exemplified by the NIV and the HCSB).

The difference between the two translation philosophies can be seen in lots of ways. One is the question of whether it is appropriate (or even permissible) for the translator to add specificity in the translated text. Here’s a simple example in 2 Kings 24:19. I’m quoting first from the NASB, which generally provides a good word-for-word translation of the original text, and then from the NLT (dynamic equivalence):

2 Kings 24:18-19 (NASB95)
¹⁸ Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he became king, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem; and his mother’s name was Hamutal the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah.
¹⁹ He did evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that Jehoiakim had done.

2 Kings 24:18-19 (NLT)
¹⁸ Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eleven years. His mother was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah from Libnah.
¹⁹ But Zedekiah did what was evil in the LORD’s sight, just as Jehoiakim had done.

Look at the first word of v. 19. The NASB translates the Hebrew text literally with the pronoun “He.” Incidentally, all formal-equivalence translations (e.g., KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV; also NIV) join the NASB in rendering it “He.”

The NLT (joined by NCV, TEV; also HCSB) replaces the pronoun with the proper name Zedekiah. These dynamic translations feel free to translate beyond the literal wording to ensure that the meaning is accurately conveyed. (Everyone would agree that the antecedent to “he” is Zedekiah, who is named at the beginning of v. 18, even though the masculine name that immediately precedes the pronoun is Zedekiah’s maternal grandfather, Jeremiah.)

Is each approach appropriate? Is each permissible? Is one preferable to the other?

My answer is that each translation is simply following its own basic philosophy. The literal translations render the passage with a word-for-word correspondence. The dynamic translations render it with an expansion of the wording to ensure that the meaning is accurately conveyed.

If you use both styles of translation, you get the best of both worlds.

We find the story of the widow’s mite in Mark 12:41-44 and Luke 21:1-4. In both passages (which are nearly identical), Jesus makes the point that the widow’s gift to the Temple treasury was very costly to her, because it represented everything she had. But the challenge for the translator is to determine how best to translate the technical terms for the coins she dropped into the box.

The Greek text in Mark 12:42 says that she dropped in “two lepta, which is a kodrantes.” So if we simply translate it that way in English, everything is clear, right? Sure, if the reader has an intuitive sense of the value of two lepta! And Mark even gives us a clue by telling us that two lepta (Jewish coins) are equal to a kodrantes (a Roman coin). But most of us would still have to reach for a Bible dictionary to make sense of those terms. So translators have resorted to numerous solutions.

KJV: two mites, which make a farthing
RSV: two copper coins, which make a penny
NASB: two small copper coins, which amount to a cent (with a footnote)
NIV: two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny (with a footnote)
ESV: two small copper coins, which make a penny (with a footnote)
HCSB: two tiny coins worth very little (with a footnote)
NLT: two small coins (with a footnote)

Which translation is correct? I would argue that the KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, and ESV communicate the wrong message. After all, a penny has very little value in our current economy. But in the first century, a kodrantes was equal to 1/64 of a denarius, and a denarius was considered fair pay for a day’s wage. If today’s wage for a laborer in the USA is $15 per hour, that comes to $120 for an 8-hour day. At this rate, 1/64 of a day’s wage is $1.88. Round it up to $2.00, and we could say that the widow dropped two dollar-coins into the collection box. That feels very different from “two coins worth only a fraction of a penny.”

It’s for that reason that the NLT simply says “two small coins” [footnote: Greek two lepta, which is a kodrantes (i.e., a quadrans)]. After all, the point of Jesus’ teaching was that the widow gave everything she had. And if her two small coins were worth a couple of dollars in our economy, let’s not give the impression that she had only two pennies.

Most serious readers of the New Testament know that there are thousands of minor textual variants among the hundreds of ancient manuscripts available to us. And most recognize that there are no make-or-break theological issues that hang solely on a variant reading.

My colleague Philip Comfort has written a scholarly (yet very readable) compendium of the major variants called New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Tyndale House Publishers, 2008). If you have a question about any textual variant, Phil undoubtedly addresses it in this book.

An interesting textual variant is in 1 Cor 13:3. Which of these English translations reflects what Paul originally wrote?
NIV: If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
TNIV: If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship, that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

The difference between the two translations reflects a single letter within a single word in the Greek. The translators have to choose between kauthesomai (“that I may be burned”) and kauchesomai (“that I may boast”). Pretty big difference, though neither variant is central to Paul’s point, which is the need for love.

The Textus Receptus reads kauthesomai, which is followed by KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, TLB, NEB, NIV, NKJV, ESV, and HCSB.

The UBS Greek text chooses kauchesomai as the more likely original reading. This variant is followed by NRSV, NAB, NLT, TNIV, and NET.

Note the movement within revisions of English translations:
RSV (“to be burned”) to NRSV (“I may boast”). But ESV, which is also a revision of the RSV, retains “to be burned.”
TLB (“burned alive”) to NLT (“I could boast”).
NIV (“to the flames”) to TNIV (“I may boast”).

For the most part, the newest generation of translators have chosen to follow the UBS text. I wouldn’t expect the NKJV to switch, because it is philosophically committed to following the Textus Receptus. But it will be interesting to watch over the next decade to see if NASB, ESV, or HCSB switches to the alternate reading.

On a separate thread, Danielo asks whether the NLT is perhaps too dramatic in the way it translates the last phrase of this verse:

“I will praise the LORD as long as I live;
I will sing praises to my God even with my dying breath.”

He points out that some other translations translate the last phrase “as long as I live.” The challenge for the translator, of course, is to convey in English (or any receptor language) the correct meaning and the full impact of the original text.

In this verse the psalmist presents a couplet that communicates essentially the same message in each of the two lines. The Hebrew text has two expressions to communicate the concept of “all my life,” so the translator must also find two expressions to communicate the concept of “all my life.” The NLT uses “as long as I live” in the first line–as do RSV, NRSV, NET Bible, and ESV. So a different phrase is needed for the second line. Look at the variety in translations:

KJV: while I have my being
ASV: while I have any being
NRSV: all my life long
NIV: as long as I live
NET: as long as I exist
NLT: even with my dying breath

The Hebrew idiom doesn’t literally translate into English as “even with my dying breath,” but neither is it literally “as long as I live” or “while I have my being.” All of the translations are striving to communicate the sense of the idiom, which might be translated literally “with as long as.” The psalmist is expressing the absolute limit of his praise for God. So various translations use various expressions to communicate that same sense of the ultimate.

Back to Danielo’s question: Is the NLT being too dramatic? I don’t think so, since it strives to communicate in English that same sense that “I will praise my God with everything I’ve got for as long as I’ve got anything in me.”

We’ve all heard the Christmas story from Luke 2 many times, and we’ll hear it again this Christmas. And you’ll probably hear that “there was no room in the inn.” But was it an inn (that is, a public place of accommodations) where Joseph and Mary found no room?

The NLT (2^nd ed.) renders this familiar phrase, “because there was no lodging available for them.” In a similar vein, the TNIV reads, “because there was no guest room available for them.” Why have these modern translations moved away from the traditional term “inn”?

I’ll let Prof. Allison A. Trites explain:

“The accommodation facilities of little Bethlehem were stretched to the limit by the demands imposed by the Roman census (2:1-5). Traditionally, the story has told us ‘there was no room in the inn‘ (KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB). However, there is anther possibility, for the rare word used here (kataluma [^TG2646, ^ZG2906]) might not mean an ‘inn’ but rather a ‘guest room’ in a house, as in 22:11 (and Mark 14:14), where it is used to describe the room where the Last Supper was held. It is thus possible that the room had been planned for Joseph and Mary but was occupied by others by the time they showed up.” (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Vol. 12, Luke [Tyndale House Publishers, 2006], 53)

One more comment regarding the Greek terminology: The more typical Greek word for an “inn” is pandocheion, the term used in the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:34). The fact that Luke did not use pandocheion to describe the situation in Bethlehem convinced the NLT translators to switch from “no room for them in the village inn” (1st ed.) to “no lodging available for them” (2^nd ed.).

Either way, the application in our lives is just as real: May there be room for the Christ child in our hearts as we celebrate his birth. Merry Christmas!

Mark D. Taylor

My pastor is working his way through Galatians, and this morning’s sermon was on Gal 3:23-29. I found fertile ground for thinking about differences between translations. Here are some examples:

Sentence structure: The UBS Greek text has 4 sentences in this paragraph. The RSV, ESV, and NIV use 6 sentences; KJV, NKJV, ASV, and NASB use 7; NLT uses 11. Why so many sentences in the NLT? The answer is that Paul uses a complex argument with lots of ideas. In contemporary English, we tend to use a new sentence for each new idea. So the NLT, with its focus on clear communication of the meaning of the text, uses more sentences.

“Faith” or “the faith”? In 3:23, I’m mystified as to why the formal-equivalence translations have all omitted the definite article before “faith.” KJV, ESV, and many others read, “Now before faith came.” In English, this use of “faith” without a definite article implies the concept of faith. What? Did the concept of faith begin with faith in Jesus Christ? I don’t think so. Furthermore, the Greek text has a definite article: tēn pistin “the faith.” So Paul is not talking about faith as a concept. He’s referring to some specific kind of faith.

Granted, in English it would sound odd to say “Now before the faith came.” The NIV and HCSB attempt to capture the nuance by using “this” for the definite article: “Before this faith came.” But the NLT sees “faith” in this context as being more than just faith in Christ. After all, Paul’s argument in this pericope is the contrast between the “system” of law and the “system” of faith. So the NLT translates the meaning of the Greek as follows: “Before the way of faith in Christ was available to us.”

Is it permissible to add words? In the phrase just quoted, the NLT translates pistin as “faith in Christ.” But since the Greek text does not explicitly use the name Christ in v. 23, why does the NLT use it in English? It fits with the NLT’s translation philosophy of dynamic equivalence. Everyone would agree that Paul is talking about faith in Christ (as he just said in v. 22). But he uses shorthand, referring simply to “the faith.” And since the NLT renders tēn pistin as “the way of faith,” it clarifies that this is not just any “way of faith,” but “the way of faith in Christ.”

The use of metaphors: Paul uses three metaphors in quick succession in vv. 23 and 24. First he uses two different metaphors in v. 23 to show that the law had “confined us” and “held us prisoner.” But the meaning of these metaphors as metaphors is not instantly understandable in English (and perhaps it wasn’t readily understandable in Greek, either). So the NLT helps the reader in v. 23 by making explicit that these are metaphors: “we were placed under guard by the law. We were kept in protective custody, so to speak, . . .”

In vv. 24 and 25, Paul uses the metaphor of the paidagōgos (rendered by various translations as “schoolmaster,” “tutor,” “guardian,” “custodian,” “disciplinarian”). Paul uses the Greek word hōste (typically rendered as “so” or “so then”) to show the relationship between what preceded (his first two metaphors) and what follows (this next metaphor). To show that Paul is now using a different metaphor to get his point across, the NLT renders it this way: “Let me put it another way.”

Well, that’s enough for now. But if you compare a pericope like this in multiple translations, you’ll see even more differences between them. And as I said in an earlier post, “Vive la différence.”

Sentence Structure (part 2)

Before moving on to other topics, I thought I’d take another look at the issue of sentence structure–and even paragraph structure.

One would think that all translations would use more or less the same paragraph structure as is found in the original texts. The problem is that the original texts do not have paragraphs as we use them in English, so paragraph breaks become a matter of interpretation by the translators.

For example, look at Eph. 5:18-24. Where should a new sentence or paragraph (or even a whole section) begin? In the Greek text, the grammatical structure suggests that this section is all one long sentence–ranging from “don’t get drunk with wine” to “wives, submit to your husbands.” Nonetheless, the editors of the UBS Greek text (which is the basis for most modern translations) created a new sentence and a new paragraph at 5:21. Take a look at any English translation; I don’t think you’ll find a translaton with only one sentence in this section.

Here are the divisions in various English translations (grouped by families):
.tablefix br { display: none; }
.tablefix td { line-height:1em; }

Is your head spinning at all of the options? And who says Bible translators shouldn’t have to make judgments in translation?!

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!

Mark D. Taylor

As a dynamic-equivalence translation, the NLT translates the Hebrew and Greek text in natural, understandable English. This means that we try to avoid technical terms that the average reader would not understand.

Two such technical terms not used in the NLT are “propitiation” and “expiation.” The Bible Translation Committee chose not to use these terms because the average reader does not understand them. In fact, I’d guess that only 1% of the population could define the terms “propitiation” and “expiation” with any degree of accuracy.

The table below shows how four translations handle the Greek term hilasterion:

These are the only two NT passages that use the Greek word hilasterion. But the word is used frequently in the Greek translation of the OT, where it refers to the cover of the Ark of the Covenant. English translations of the OT render the Hebrew term as “mercy seat” (KJV, RSV, ESV), “atonement cover” (NIV), or “the Ark’s cover–the place of atonment” (NLT).

In Heb 9:5, the term hilasterion is used in the literal sense–describing the Ark’s cover.

In Rom 3:25, Paul uses hilasterion as a metaphor. “God presented Jesus as the hilasterion.” But what does this metaphor mean? Jesus was the “atonement cover.” He was the “place of atonement.” He was himself “the sacrifice for sin,” the means of atonement between God and humanity.

Does the English word “propitiation” communicate this nuance of meaning? Perhaps to 1% of the population. To the other 99%, it communicates very little meaning at all.

That’s why the NLT uses words that communicate clearly to 100% of the readers: “God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin” (Rom 3:26).

By the way, Scripture Zealot has a post on this very subject called Romans 3:25, Propitiation and the NLT (in which he quotes the first-edition text of the NLT).

Mark D. Taylor

I thought it might be helpful if I commented on the NLT’s frequent use of “Hebrew” and “Greek” footnotes. Both of my examples are from the second edition text (2004 or 2007).

Example 1: In Gen 6:2, the NLT text reads, “The sons of God saw the beautiful women* and took any they wanted as their wives.” (The asterisk, which is found in most editions of the NLT, points to a text note. But the NLT Study Bible does not use asterisks, since all of the NLT text notes are incorporated into the study notes.) The NLT text note reads, “6:2 Hebrew daughters of men; also in 6:4.”

The purpose of the text note is to give the reader a glimpse into the Hebrew text behind the English word “women.” Most English translations simply translate it literally: “daughters of men.” But there are varying interpretations as to what this Hebrew expression means. After long and vigorous discussion, the Bible Translation Committee decided to select one of several possible meanings for the text of the translation. But we wanted our readers to know that this is an interpretive rendering–and other translations may well go different directions. The phrase “also in 6:4” simply means that the same Hebrew phrase occurs in 6:4, where the NLT again renders it “women.” (The expanded note in the NLT Study Bible fleshes out various possible meanings of “sons of God” and “daughters of men.”)

Example 2: In Matt 1:1, the NLT reads, “This is the record of the ancestors of Jesus the Messiah, a descendant of David* and of Abraham.” The footnote reads, “1:1 Greek Jesus the Messiah, son of David.“

Again, most translations simply use a literal rendering for huiou Dauid as “son of David.” But in contemporary English, the word “son” almost always means a male descendant in the immediate next generation. If my grandfather had ever referred to me as “my son Mark,” it would have been confusing. My grandfather’s son (in the immediate next generation) was named Kenneth, and Kenneth’s son (in the immediate next generation) is Mark. The NLT translators were concerned that the reader might misunderstand the term “son of David” as referring to a literal father-son relationship between David and Jesus. So we rendered the Greek phrase as “a descendant of David.”

On the other hand, however, “Son of David” has messianic overtones, as is clearly seen in Matt 21:9; 22:42; etc. So our footnote at Matt 1:1 alerts the reader to the fact that the Greek term behind “a descendant of David” is more literally rendered “son of David.” (The study note in the NLT Study Bible explicitly mentions the connection between the phrase “son of David” and the “Messiah.”)

One advantage to these notes, we think, is that pastors or Bible study leaders who are using the NLT can simply point to the footnote to show the more literal rendering. Then they can expand on the various nuances of meaning of a term such as “son of David.” And hopefully they won’t be tempted to say, “The NLT is a little too expansive here, because the Greek really means ‘son of David.'” (But then they would go on to explain that “son of David” doesn’t really mean “son of David” as we would normally use the expression in English!)

So the “Hebrew” and “Greek” footnotes are fairly simple, but they carry a lot of freight!