Go get yourself a cup of coffee. This is going to be a long one.

Originally, this week, I was planning to post a preview of the upcoming NLT Study Bible based upon the Genesis sampler I received in the mail over a month ago. I was informed yesterday however, that I would be receiving an advance copy of the entire Bible sometime within the next few days, so that review can wait and I will expand it to cover the entire Bible. Nevertheless, there have been a number of NLT-related issues and trends I’ve been noticing and a number of thoughts have been going through my mind lately. I wondered initially whether I should include them in the review of the NLT Study Bible or treat them separately. I’m going to use this post to do the latter.

THE ELUSIVE COMMON BIBLE. I’ve been collecting and comparing translations of the Bible since my early teenage years. Even after studying biblical languages, I still have a love for English translations, carrying both an English Bible and a Greek New Testament to church on Sundays. Related to that, I’ve watched the trends of what Bibles people carry and read, and I’ve studied the history of English translation development. We live in an age in which we are spoiled by so many translations of the Bible--from every translation methodology and for every niche market. The offset of this fact is that it is now nearly impossible for the church as a whole to embrace ONE Bible as a “common” Bible in the way that the venerable King James Version reigned supreme for nearly three centuries.

And yet even without a common Bible, there is always a preferred Bible, a most often selected, best-selling Bible version. The first Bible version to dethrone King James was the Living Bible in the 1970’s. But this coup was short-lived and the KJV soon regained its kingdom. Nevertheless, it’s interesting to note that the first contender to the KJV for best-selling translation was a Bible that was its complete opposite. The Living Bible wasn’t actually a translation at all, but a paraphrase produced by one man (and later checked by a committee) who had no direct knowledge of the biblical languages. But by the 1970’s the King’s English was quite foreign to the average Christian. Although the Living Bible had many critics at the time, no one argued the fact that it was much easier to understand. And at the time, most Christian homes contained one of those green hardback paraphrases whether it was carried to church or not (and many of them were carried to church).

The Living Bible was certainly not the first Bible to come along with more readable English. Many Bible versions were produced throughout the centuries claiming to the successor to the 1611 “Authorized Version.” Noah Webster and J. N. Darby both attempted to improve upon the KJV in the 19th century. Both of their Bibles were improvements, in the opinions of most, but they never saw widespread acceptance. The 1881 Revised Version and 1901 American Standard Version both sought to replace the KJV as the standard translations for English-speaking Protestants, but while technically translated with more accuracy than the KJV, they did not reflect the beauty of the KJV’s style and never gained wide reading outside primarily academic circles.

In the mid-twentieth century, the Revised Standard Version replaced the KJV for many mainline Protestants, but most Evangelicals looked upon certain renderings in the RSV with suspicion. Thus, the KJV was still able to retain its dominion for a couple of decades more, but its reign as best-selling and most read translation was drawing to a close.

ROYAL DETHRONEMENT. Ultimately, it was the 1978 NIV that would finally and permanently unseat the KJV from the #1 spot. The NIV had a number of things going for it that made it successful where other contender translations had failed. Unlike the Living Bible, the NIV was an actual translation from the Greek and Hebrew texts and was produced by a committee of translators. Reading level was seriously taken into consideration in developing the NIV. The average American reads at a 7th grade reading level and newspapers generally read at that level, too. Considering the fact that the New Testament was written in Koine (common) Greek, why should a Bible be difficult to read? Why should it sound like it was written in a bygone era? Further, unlike the Modern Language Bible, the NIV committee employed stylists that helped keep its translation consistent. While not trying to achieve the majesty of the KJV necessarily, the NIV committee did achieve something that other contenders had not: an accurate, consistent, and readable translation of the Bible. I don’t remember now exactly when it occurred--either in the late eighties or sometime in the nineties--but the NIV became the best-selling, most-used, and most read translation. For millions of people, it opened up the Scriptures and made them readable for the first time.

But let’s be realistic. The NIV is not going to be the Bible of choice for the next three centuries like the KJV was. No translation will ever last that long again because the English language changes too quickly in the modern age. Sadly, the 1978 NIV already sounds a bit dated. And although it is still the best-selling English translation of the Bible, I would suggest that over the next decade another translation is going to replace it in the top spot. I don’t have access to NIV sales figures, but I would guess that its sales are already on the decline. If they aren’t, they will be soon.

WHAT’S NEXT? So what are the contenders? The English Standard Version, Holman Christian Standard Bible, Todays New International Version, the New Living Translation (second edition)--these are all major 21st century translations. If I had been propheticlly looking at this list twenty years ago, it would have been easy to suggest that the TNIV, as an update to the NIV, would be the inheritor of the NIV’s mantle. Even up until recently, I thought it still could be. But I’m less and less certain of that fact.

The TNIV suffers on two fronts: (1) It was the target of a major disinformation campaign that has led to its rejection by many of those who should have been in its target audience; and (2) neither the TNIV’s copyright owner, the International Bible Society, or its major United States distributor, Zondervan, have ever given it precedence over the original NIV in terms of promotion and emphasis.

In regard to the first issue, 50% of stores that belong to the Christian Booksellers Association, including major chains such as Lifeway, refuse to carry the TNIV. Supposedly the TNIV’s primary offense is inclusive language; however, these same stores that won’t carry the TNIV will carry the NLT, the Message, the NCV, the NRSV and others that do contain inclusive language. Further, translation such as the ESV, NASB95, and the HCSB all contain more inclusive language than even the original NIV. This is a heinous double standard. Changing these misconceptions will also require a major re-education campaign on the part of Zondervan and the IBS.

As for concerns with the International Bible Society’s and Zondervan promotion of the TNIV, in March of 2007, I wrote an open letter to both organizations here on This Lamp expressing my concerns. IBS never responded, but Zondervan flew me up to its headquarters in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where I met with editors and marketers--all warm, friendly, and welcoming. I didn’t meet anyone who wasn’t absolutely adamant that the TNIV was the future. I also came to understand better why the company was not in a position to completely remove the NIV from the market. Fine. But there’s evidently a breakdown somewhere.

Run this little experiment. Go to Amazon.com and search for “New International Version.” Then to narrow your results, click on “Books” under “Any category” on the left. Now, change the drop down on the top right to “Publication date.” I count 29 new NIV Bibles already projected for 2009. Run the same search for “Today’s New International Version.” The result? Nothing. You will find results counting new editions for 2008, but in comparison to the new NIV editions for this year, you’ll definitely see where Zondervan’s emphasis is. You ask anyone at Zondervan and they will tell you that the TNIV is the future. But the company simply doesn’t seem to be willing to put that into practice. I’m certain that they fully intend to eventually switch emphasis to the TNIV, but my fear is that by the time they do this, it may be too late for it to matter.

INTERESTING RECENT DEVELOPMENTS. Now, let me show you another interesting indicator of what may be the shape of things to come. Below is the August 2008 translation bestseller list from Christian Booksellers Association. These figures reflect sales from the month of June, 2008.

Now, anytime I show CBA translation charts, I always feel obligated to offer a disclaimer. These charts do not reflect the huge number of Bibles sold in non-member stores and bookstore chains including Barnes and Noble and Borders and such. They do not include the sales of retail outlets like Wal-Mart and online retailers like Amazon.com--all of which sell large numbers of Bibles, also. Although some Catholic stores are CBA members, the majority are not; so Catholic translations are never well-represented here. Also, keep in mind that as I have already pointed out, roughly 50% of CBA stores refuse to carry the TNIV, so although it does not show well here, that doesn’t mean that it’s not selling elsewhere. Translations such as the NRSV may also have higher sales that are simply not reflected here. The JPS is a fine translation, but it’s never going to make this list. Okay...

Nevertheless, the above figures do represent an extremely large number of Bibles sold in stores, especially Bibles that Evangelicals are buying. Since we don’t have any actual numbers, obviously the charts are open to a good bit of interpretation. Years ago, while working in a bookstore, I saw a document with some actual numbers. The first three entries counted for the vast majority of all sales. And by the time a translation ranks in the bottom half, we’re usually talking about sales in the single digit percentages.

First let’s look at the charts in regard to the TNIV. The fact that it ranks on dollar sales, but not on unit sales probably means that there aren’t that many inexpensive TNIVs in bookstores. So there aren’t many people buying low cost editions in CBA stores for evangelistic purposes. But what’s surprising is that the TNIV has completely dropped off the units sold chart. So, while it is not carried in every one of these stores, it at least used to still show in the units sold list. The August chart doesn’t mean that the TNIV is not selling in the stores that are carrying it, but it does mean that it has recently been selling less. And I’m sorry, but it boggles my mind that the International Children’s Bible would outsell the TNIV!

But now, let’s look at the chart in regard to the New Living Translation. For the last few years, the NIV, KJV, NKJV and NLT have remained in the top four positions (the HCSB was in the 4th spot after its release for a little over a year). The KJV and NKJV often go back and forth between second and third place, but the NLT is usually ranked fourth.

The unit sales chart has the most significant change. For the first time to my knowledge, the NLT has topped both the KJV and NKJV in unit sells, setting it second only to the NIV. And in dollar sales, it is ranked third and above the NKJV. To my knowledge, the NLT--which has always done fairly well on these charts anyway--has never done this well.

This week, I noticed another interesting development. Over at the NLT Blog, in what was almost an aside comment, it was noted that “Christianity Today, International will be making the NLT the default translation on their websites.” I assume that the NLT is replacing the NIV as the default translation. In my mind, this is an incredibly significant development as Christianity Today, in many ways, represents mainstream Evangelical thought. So it speaks volumes not only to the fact that the NLT was chosen as default translation, but also in regard to the versions that were passed over.

NLT UNDER THE RADAR. Suddenly and seemingly unexpectedly, signs are starting to point to the New Living Translation as a major contender for the spot of top English translation that the NIV has held onto for the last two decades. How did this come about?

Perhaps the success of the NLT can be chalked up to the patient persistence on the part of Tyndale House Publishers as well as near nonstop fine tuning of the translation itself. When the New Living Translation was initially released in 1996, it was far more to the right on the dynamic equivalence scale than it is now. The first edition had many phrasings that still echoed Ken Taylor’s original Living Bible. But with the release of the second edition of the NLT in 2004, a lot of the more dynamic readings were tightened up, active voice replaced passive voice in many passages, and the more questionable renderings were mostly removed. Echoes of the original Living Bible are now all but gone from recent editions of the NLT. I still consider the NLT a dynamic translation, and the best of its breed, but it has now moved much closer to the middle, much closer to the kind of translations I would normally categorize as median translations, containing elements of both formal and dynamic methods, based upon the communicative issues of a particular passage.

In 2007, the NLT was revised yet a third time. But the changes are not as startling as the shift between the first and second edition (see my review of the NLT for discussion of the changes in the second edition). In fact, Tyndale is still referring to the 2007 edition as a second edition, but adding 2007 to the 1996 and 2004 dates. With each revision, the NLT has become...well, I don’t want to say “more literal,” because it’s certainly not a literal translation in the traditional sense of meaning. But it has certainly become less dynamic.

I do not yet have a full 2007 text of the NLT, but when I received the Genesis sampler of the NLT Study Bible, one of the first things I did was to compare the changes in the text from the 2004 edition. As already mentioned, the changes are not on the same level of the change between the 1996 and 2004 editions, in which the NLTse was almost an entirely new translation in my opinion. But the changes reflect a honing of the translation, a fine-tuning of the details if you will. Consider that in Genesis 1-12, there are only 7 verses out of 287 that have been changed from the 2004 edition. That results in a 2.4% change from the 2004 NLTse.

	1996	2004	2007
1:14	And God said, "Let bright lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. They will be signs to mark off the seasons, the days, and the years.	Then God said, "Let great lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. Let them mark off the seasons, days, and years.	Then God said, "Let lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. Let them be signs to mark the seasons, days and years.
1:16	For God made two great lights, the sun and the moon, to shine down upon the earth. The greater one, the sun, presides during the day; the lesser one, the moon, presides through the night. He also made the stars.	God made two great lights, the sun and the moon--the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars.	God made two great lights--the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars.
1:26	Then God said, "Let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves. They will be masters over all life--the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the livestock, wild animals, and small animals."	Then God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, to be like ourselves. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground."	Then God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.
2:5	there were no plants or grain growing on the earth, for the LORD God had not sent any rain. And no one was there to cultivate the soil.	neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth. The LORD God had not yet sent rain to water the earth, and there were no people to cultivate the soil.	neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth. For the LORD God had not yet sent rain to water the earth, and there were no people to cultivate the soil.
2:10	A river flowed from the land of Eden, watering the garden and then dividing into four branches.	A river watered the garden and then flowed out of Eden and divided into four branches.	A river flowed from the land of Eden, watering the garden and then dividing into four branches.
11:26	When Terah was 70 years old, he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran.	When Terah was 70 years old, he had become the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran.	After Terah was 70 years old, he became the father of Abrah, Nahor, and Haran.
12:14	And sure enough, when they arrived in Egypt, everyone spoke of her beauty.	And sure enough, when Abram arrived in Egypt, everyone spoke of Sarai’s beauty.	And sure enough, when Abram arrived in Egypt, everyone noticed Sarai's beauty.

Interestingly note that in Gen 2:10, the NLT reverts back to the original 1996 reading. Since writing my initial review of the NLT, I’ve been contacted by a number of NLT1 holdouts. Some people simply prefer the 1996 edition, and my own wife is one of them. Overall, it is more dynamic (though not in Gen 2:10) and that speaks to some people in a greater way. Personally, I have no problem with that, although I believe the changes made in the 2004 edition and now the 2007 revision as demonstrated above are changes for the better.

Over the last few years, I’ve found it quite interesting to watch the TNIV receive criticism in regard to inclusive language when the NLT had used much of the same kind of language almost a decade earlier. I even asked one of the NLT translators about this--why the NLT had remained virtually unscathed while the TNIV took a beating from its detractors. He felt that the TNIV had been a lightning rod for controversy and this allowed the NLT to scoot by a bit under the radar.

And under the radar it is. The NLT has continued to gain readers while improving the translation itself while many have really not realized such changes were going on. Consider that the 2004 update, as radical as it was, barely received mention by Tyndale itself. In fact, when I began planning my review of the NLT in 2006, I was totally unaware the extent of the changes. And I would not have even known about the 2007 revision had a reader of This Lamp not informed me by email.

But if I’m a proponent of the NLT and have been slow to find out about changes to the text, evidently it’s even harder for the detractors. Tim Challies sought to further propagandize the ESV earlier this month by knocking down a few translations he doesn’t like. Evidently, though, he had no idea that the copy of the NLT he was quoting was two editions out of date.

Want further evidence of the NLT’s under-the-radar status? Check out the Wikipedia entries for the ESV, TNIV, and the NLT. The NLT is older than the ESV by five years and the TNIV by nine. The articles for the ESV and TNIV are substantive because they have both been magnets of controversy and have each had their share of supporters and critics. The NLT, on the other hand, doesn’t even have a full article. It’s a stub, and an out of date one at that. Some of the links don’t even work.

Want more? Consider the interview with J. I. Packer from 2006 in which he heartily endorsed the NLT. He even described the NLT as “brilliantly done.” This should be ironic considering Packer was the general editor of the ESV, a translation which in many ways was created to be everything the NLT is not. But it’s not ironic because Packer is not really recommending the NLT as a primary translation. Rather, he thinks of it as a secondary translation, something perhaps to be read beside a more traditional translation like the ESV. He may even think of it in the same vein as the original Living Bible which many used as a simple commentary to the KJV. But the people I see using the NLT are not reading it as a secondary translation. And I can guarantee you that Tyndale is not promoting it to be anything but a primary Bible.

What made the NIV king of the hill beyond its merits as a translation? Well, there were a number of significant editions of the text that were released in the eighties including the NIV Study Bible, the NIV Student Bible and an NIV version of the Thompson Chain Reference Bible. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, written by top Evangelical scholars demonstrated that the NIV was worthy as a commentary base. The Goodrick-Kohlenberger numbering system tied the NIV’s text to its Greek and Hebrew roots and paved the way for resources like the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Today, there are more modern commentaries based upon the NIV than any other translation.

But now, Tyndale is setting the NLT up for the same kind of reference integration that the NIV has enjoyed. A system known as the “Tyndale-Strong’s numbering system” has been developed to connect the text of the NLT to the original Greek and Hebrew text. In the forthcoming NLT Study Bible, these Tyndale-Strong’s numbers are included right along in the cross reference column next to the text. The Cornerstone Biblical Commentary series and the expanding Tyndale Reference Library relies on the NLT text as well.

Another healthy sign for the NLT can be found in the two NLT-related blogs that have appeared recently. One blog is related to the NLT in general and the other specifically for the forthcoming NLT Study Bible. This is an excellent idea and a wonderful way for Tyndale editors to interact with NLT readers. I made similar recommendations to Zondervan regarding the TNIV as early as two years ago, but an ongoing publisher-based TNIV blog has never become a reality.

Personally, I’ve stated for some time that the NLT is fully capable of being used as a primary English translation for serious study and teaching. Steps are now in place with the growing number of NLT-related resources to make this a reality. And as has been pointed out recently, the NLT translators are no slouches themselves, but rather the cream of Evangelical academia.

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE. In discussing some of these observations with Wayne Leman via email yesterday, he stated “A major translation comes along every few generations and it can become a default translation. The KJV was one of these. The RSV was one, at least for NCC churches. The NIV was one. Now, [in my opinion], the NLT is one. I know that many will disagree with me, but that's okay.” Wayne, who gave me permission to quote him, knows what he is talking about as he is a Bible translation consultant himself and a founder of the Better Bibles Blog.

In my experience, the average Christian really doesn’t pay that much attention to translation issues. I’ve discovered that many people carrying a Bible often can’t tell me what translation they are using without looking at the spine. So, what makes a translation like the NLT rise in popularity, especially among a dozen or so other Bible versions vying for acceptance? I have a hunch that when a person walks into a store looking for a new Bible, he or she opens them up and simply reads various passages. This is where the NLT has the advantage. Without a doubt, of all the major contemporary translations, the NLT’s English sounds the closest to contemporary speech. While some would criticize the NLT for this, we must again remember that the New Testament was originally written in the common speech of the day, not the more formal styles that were used for other, more “official” purposes.

Wayne also wrote yesterday that, “Christian readers today appreciate a Bible version that actually reads as they write and close to how they speak. There have been enough idiomatic English versions around for several decades, so that Christian readers know what good English sounds like in a Bible. If Christian readers have a true choice to purchase a Bible--and don't have to follow the dictates of some ideology--they will often purchase a Bible with good English, at least as a supplement to one that has worse English and is used as their church's pew Bible.”

Readers of This Lamp know that over the past few years when asked for a recommendation for a primary English Bible, I’ve suggested the HCSB, TNIV or NLT. In my own use, the TNIV has been my primary Bible over the last two years, although when I give a Bible to someone who tells me the Bible is difficult to understand, I find that most often I give the NLT. And I’ve done this for well over a decade. In fact, now that I think about it, I’ve given away more NLTs than any other translation in the last ten years, and I have done so because of its superior readability.

I have been teaching from the TNIV the last two years because 70% of those whom I instruct are carrying NIV Bibles. That’s in addition to the fact that I find the TNIV to be an excellent translation. Further, I’ve found that usually a median Bible is best for teaching; although I’ve said that I could use the NLT if enough people in a Bible study or classroom also had the NLT. I’ve often used the NLT in formats that were less interactive such as sermons and devotionals. But the day may be coming in which a majority carries the NLT. If that happens, it would only make sense that I would teach from the NLT. Of course, Tyndale currently lacks a decent NLT reference Bible for teaching or preaching akin to something like the TNIV Reference Bible.

This coming Sunday, I still plan on teaching from the TNIV. But I really wonder what I’ll be teaching from in five years. Could it be that the majority of us will study with the NLT in hand?

---

I’d really like to have a discussion about this. Let’s avoid the “my translation is better than your translation” kind of nonsense. I don’t believe that for one Bible version to succeed another one must fail. I still recommend reading translations in parallel. Regardless, I believe current trends point to the NLT continuing to gain momentum which may eventually lead to its place as the most used Evangelical translation in a number of years. And it may even be able to reach beyond the walls of Evangelicalism. What do you think? Let me know in the comments.

Tags: NLT, Tyndale, TNIV, Zondervan