Addendum to My Review of the NLT
06/23/2006 19:02 Filed in: Faith & Reason
I left one item out of my review of the New Living Translation that I originally planned to include. When I remembered it this afternoon, I at first started to go back and add it, making a note of redaction at the bottom of the entry. However, the NLT review seems to be long enough as it is, so I've left it alone.
In my earlier review of the TNIV a couple of weeks ago, I commented about the translation of verses like Psalm 34:20 which I feel trades a messianic connection to John 19:36 for the sake of inclusive language. As I've stated many times, I'm not opposed to inclusive language for humans when the context clearly implies a male and female audience, but I'm conservative enough to prefer that messianic references be left alone. For the sake of fairness, in my follow-up to the TNIV, I presented the other side of the argument, even though I don't agree with it.
Since this had been the point of good discussion, I originally intended to show how the NLT handled a passage such as Psalm 34:20.
Note, first of all, that the 1996 edition of the NLT handled the verse in a similar manner to the TNIV--it, too, obscures the messianic reference. However, the 2004 edition has a much more creative solution to the issue. Instead of making the verse inclusive by substituting a plural pronoun for a singular pronoun, pronouns are avoided altogether in the NLT2. The one being protected is simply referred to as "the righteous" which could be construed as singular or plural, male or female.
An elegant solution such as this can satisfy all interests, and it's this kind of clever outside-the-box creativity that keeps me coming back to the New Living Translation.
In my earlier review of the TNIV a couple of weeks ago, I commented about the translation of verses like Psalm 34:20 which I feel trades a messianic connection to John 19:36 for the sake of inclusive language. As I've stated many times, I'm not opposed to inclusive language for humans when the context clearly implies a male and female audience, but I'm conservative enough to prefer that messianic references be left alone. For the sake of fairness, in my follow-up to the TNIV, I presented the other side of the argument, even though I don't agree with it.
Since this had been the point of good discussion, I originally intended to show how the NLT handled a passage such as Psalm 34:20.
| PSALM 34:20 | ||
|---|---|---|
TNIV |
NLT1 |
NLT2 |
| he protects all their bones, not one of them will be broken. |
For the Lord protects them from harm-- not one of their bones will be broken! |
For the Lord protects the bones of the righteous; not one of them is broken! |
Note, first of all, that the 1996 edition of the NLT handled the verse in a similar manner to the TNIV--it, too, obscures the messianic reference. However, the 2004 edition has a much more creative solution to the issue. Instead of making the verse inclusive by substituting a plural pronoun for a singular pronoun, pronouns are avoided altogether in the NLT2. The one being protected is simply referred to as "the righteous" which could be construed as singular or plural, male or female.
An elegant solution such as this can satisfy all interests, and it's this kind of clever outside-the-box creativity that keeps me coming back to the New Living Translation.