NLT thoughts

| | Comments (6)
I've spent some time in recent weeks reading parts of the 2nd edition of the New Living Translation of the Bible. See my Review of Bible Translations for more information about the translations and terminology I use in this post, along with background about translation philosophy and a discussion of what I like about the NLT and what its editors intended it to be. Several features of the NLT have begun to annoy me about how it does things that I don't think I've blogged about before. Some of these are more objectively problematic than others, but I thought it would be worth recording my thoughts on them.

In the Corinthian letters, Achaia becomes Greece. At first I was a little puzzled about this. Why would they rename a particular region with a term that describes a much larger area? Is it just because one name is obscure and the other not? Do the translators care so little about precision? But as I thought about it, it occurred to me that maybe it's because the area we now know as Greece was called Achaia at the time. I have no idea if that's even true. Is it? If so, I don't have as much problem with this, even though in that time they would never have called that area Greece. It was one part of Greece. Macedonia was another part.

In the Psalms, Zion becomes Jerusalem, and Jacob becomes Israel. If all you care about is what city or nation/people you refer to, this is ok, since the names refer to the exact same thing, but it's a huge sacrifice in poetic quality, in diversity of names, and in accuracy of language. We don't usually translate names. We transliterate them. Sometimes we do so inconsistently, but there's no reason to artificially remove an entire name from the Bible just because it refers to a city that has a more common name. The only reason I can think of why they did this is that they think the purpose of translating is to make things easier to understand rather than to convey what's there in the original language. It's true that not every biblically-illiterate reader knows that Zion is Jerusalem, and that can be confusing, but it would be confusing to a Hebrew speaker who was ignorant of the same fact. This is about historical ignorance, not about the language. Should a translation change such things? This isn't a huge deal, but I don't like it.

I'm finding their treatment of saints/holy ones language to be a bit more problematic. Its occurrences in the epistles usually become "believers" and such things in the NLT, at least in the books I've been reading (especially the Corinthian letters, which I just finished, but I think the Thessalonian letters and maybe Galatians do this too). Do these translators really think the original readers would have understood what saints or holy ones were but English speakers today don't in virtue of their speaking modern English? The problem understanding this is a problem that early readers could just as easily have had. You lose actual content when you don't have this holiness language appearing as a matter-of-fact description of all believers. You do leave room for confusion by having it there, but the original Greek has that same room for confusion. Is the goal of translating the Bible really just to make it so there are no difficulties in interpretation? Or is it to convey what the original means? The NLT completely fails at the latter on this score while doing the first in terms of referent but failing even to do the first in terms of meaning.

One translation decision that especially annoyed me was Paul's "I know a man" in II Corinthians 12. It's simply "I" in the NLT. There's something Paul is doing in this passage by referring to himself in the third person and not saying that he's talking about himself. Almost all commentators accept that he's referring to himself, but there's a reason he speaks this way, and NLT readers would have no idea that he's even doing this if they don't happen to know either the original Greek or how other translations render it. It's not as if the expression usually translated "I know a man who" has an underlying meaning more like "I" when you understand how the Greek language works. In this passage, then, the NLT has failed at their goal of producing a dynamic translation and has simply paraphrased in a way that doesn't preserve the original content very well.

The goal of the NLT was to have something as readable as the original Living Bible without its being a paraphrase. This was to be a scholarly translation. When I read the original NLT, my immediate impression of its treatment of the Corinthian letters was that they were the worst of the NT books by their own criteria for what makes a translation good. I was hoping they would be improved in the second edition that I'm now reading. Perhaps they are in some ways, but this is indicative of a translation trend that makes me a lot less positive about it than I had hoped I would be when I heard they were moving the NLT a little more in the direction of the NIV and TNIV, which I see as about halfway between the formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence translations.


Jeremy, I believe all your concerns are legitimate. I've been using the NLT publicly a lot lately. But there are certain aspects to it that over-translate in my opinion. I do feel confident about Tyndale's continuing attempts to improve the translation, releasing essentially three different editions since 1996 (including the 2007 revision). While there were many praiseworthy aspects of the first edition, there were serious problems as well--many of which were fixed in the second edition. I encourage you to submit some of your concerns to the team. I've found them to be very responsive.

On the other side of things, are you finding anything that you really like about the second edition text?

Unfortunately, I'm much better at spotting and remembering problems than identifying and remembering good features. I don't have any that come to mind offhand with any specificity. I also didn't compare the two editions on these. These are just things that occurred to me as I read the 2007 edition without going back to see what the first edition has on these.

I wonder if the change from Zion to Jerusalem is to avoid Zionist language. It's a distinctly Jewish term, whereas "Jerusalem" is not, at least as far as I know. I doubt this is the main reason, but it may have factored in.

Jeremy, your specific criticisms of the text neglect to mention the foot notes. Most of the "omissions" are for flow of reading purposes. If you read the foot notes, the original text is considered and pointed out.
i.e. Your 2 Cor 12:2 comment. The NLT reads
"2 I* was caught up to the third heaven fourteen years ago. Whether I was in my body or out of my body, I don’t know—only God knows."
The * footnote reads : *Greek "I know a man in Christ who"
I think that if a teacher does his/her homework, they will point this out to their learners and if someone is studying on their own, they are presented with the information as well. And it reads much more smoothly this way.
just my 2 cents

Yes, but the fact remains that most people don't read footnotes, and this translation is intended for children and ESL speakers, who almost certainly won't be doing that. I'm not critiquing the entire package, just the translation itself. The footnote would have been a better translation than the translation, and that strikes me as backwards.

Leave a comment


    The Parablemen are: , , and .



Books I'm Reading

Fiction I've Finished Recently

Non-Fiction I've Finished Recently

Books I've Been Referring To

I've Been Listening To

Games I've Been Playing

Other Stuff


    thinking blogger
    thinking blogger

    Dr. Seuss Pro

    Search or read the Bible

    Example: John 1 or love one another (ESV)

  • Link Policy
Powered by Movable Type 5.04