NLT

Review: Holy Bible: Mosaic (NLT)

09/24/2009 00:01 Filed in: Faith & Reason

This review has been relocated here:

http://thislamp.com/?p=182

Please continue any further discussion at the new location.

Tags: NLT, Tyndale, Wide-Margin

Review: Cambridge NLT Pitt Minion Reference Edition Bible

09/17/2009 23:50 Filed in: Faith & Reason

This post has been relocated to

http://thislamp.com/?p=1435

Please continue any discussion and redirect any known links to the above URL.

Tags: NLT, Cambridge, Pitt Minion

MOSAIC--Finally, a Wide[r]-Margin NLTse! (Well...kinda)

06/04/2009 10:19 Filed in: Faith & Reason

This post has been relocated to

http://thislamp.com/?p=1780

Please continue any discussion and redirect any known links to the above URL.

Tags: NLT

Craig Blomberg Clarifies His Position on the NLT

04/26/2009 01:03 Filed in: Faith & Reason

Craig Blomberg, distinguished professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, has participated on four separate Bible translation committees (ESV, HCSB, NLT, and TNIV). With that much experience, I was curious about a seemingly negative statement of his that I’ve seen on a few websites in regard to the New Living Translation. The specific statement, excised from its original context, reads

I relished the chance to work on the NLT (New Living Translation) team to convert the LBP into a truly dynamic-equivalent translation, but I never recommend it to anyone except to supplement the reading of a more literal translation to generate freshness and new insights, unless they are kids or very poor adult readers. My sixteen- and twelve-year old daughters have been weaned on the NLT and have loved it, but both already on their own are now frequently turning to the NIV.

The original source for this statement is actually a review by Blomberg of Leland Ryken’s book, The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation. The review can be found in the July, 2003, issue of the Denver Journal.

The statement quoted above is used by Michael Marlowe in his fairly critical review of the NLT. In fact, Marlowe gives the context for Blomberg’s quote as “responding to criticism of the NLT.” In Marlowe’s review of the NLT, he makes this statement before supplying the quote by Blomberg above:

Finally, we note that Craig L. Blomberg of Denver Seminary, who was the principal translator for the NLT's Gospel according to Matthew, has explicitly stated that this version is not suitable as a regular Bible for adults. Responding to criticism of the NLT, Blomberg explained that the version is for "kids or very poor adult readers," and he suggested that readers of the NLT should move on to a more accurate version when they are able:

But the context that Marlowe gives is completely wrong. Blomberg isn’t responding to criticism of the NLT at all; rather, he’s writing a review of Ryken’s book! And did Blomberg explicitly say that the NLT “is not suitable as a regular Bible for adults”? Well, not precisely. At the very least Marlowe seems to be overreaching a bit, and seems to be looking for support for the fact that he does not like the NLT. Incidentally, both Marlowe’s statement and Blomberg’s quote are repeated verbatim at the Theopedia’s article on the New Living Translation.

Considering that Blomberg’s review dated back to 2003, I was curious to know if he still held the same feelings about the NLT. Does he really only recommend it to kids or adults who are very poor readers? His statement was made a year before the NLT second edition was released, which I believe fixed a lot of problems in the first edition as well as creating a translation which is sometimes more literal and even more traditional in places than the first edition.

Dr. Blomberg and I have now exchanged a handful of emails on this subject and he has given me permission to share the content of those emails on the internet.

In general, Dr. Blomberg told me that does not recommend the NLT as a primary Bible for adults, but he does recommend it as a supplement to reading other Bibles. However, in another email he offered three contexts for choosing the NLT. I have broken up his statement and added numbers to delineate his three options more clearly:

I very much approve of it for people who want a second (third, fourth, or whatever) take on the text,
or who want to hear it in a fresh way,
or who simply for whatever reason want a dynamically equivalent rather than a formally equivalent (or hybrid) translation.

Dr. Blomberg said that the evaluation immediately above is one he held to ~~even~~ before the release of the second edition NLT. Further, he thinks it’s a shame that comments he made in his review of Ryken’s book were used as they were in opposition to the NLT.*

I will send Dr. Blomberg a link to this post. If you would like to leave your thoughts in the comments, perhaps he may take the opportunity to respond if he has time.

Also, I highly recommend for your reading Dr. Blomberg’s post last year on the Koinonia Blog: “Demystifying Bible Translation and Where Our Culture Is with Inclusive Language.”

*This paragraph was added after the initial posting of this blog entry.

Tags: NLT

The NLT and the Language of Atonement

04/09/2009 09:30 Filed in: Faith & Reason

Can the NLT be used to teach theology if it doesn't use theological terms?

Todd Benkert is a pastor in Indiana and a friend of mine I’ve known for quite a while. Over the years, we’ve had a number of discussions including ones about what what translations are beneficial for teaching and preaching. As I’ve been contemplating making the NLT my primary public use Bible in the church (I’ve already been using it with college classes that I teach), Todd has been thinking about using the NLT from the pulpit. Currently, he uses the ESV, but he recognizes its deficiencies.

In a recent post on Todd’s website Be My Witnesses, we got into a discussion about whether or not the NLT would work in certain public settings. In the comments, Todd wrote the following:

My main qualm, which I can't decide if its a strength or weakness of the NLT, is that is removes justification terminology from the text (see, e.g., Rom 3). On the one hand, it is helpful because the concept is now accessible to the reader. On the other hand, the systematic theologian in me want to retain the word and then explain it. If I can get over that, then I'm all in with the NLT.

Todd gave me permission to reproduce my reply here which I’ve cleaned up a little bit and reproduced below:

Let's take for instance Romans 3:25, which in the ESV reads:

whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

Now, I chose the above verse because it is from Rom 3, which you referred to as a chapter in the NLT which "removes justification terminology from the text." I also made bold propitiation because it is certainly a prime example of "justification terminology."

Propitiation is one of those heavily loaded theological words which carries a lot of meaning in a very small label. Now, as you know fully well, the underlying Greek word is ἱλαστήριον. When a word like propitiation is used in a verse like this, really it acts more as a placeholder for the larger context. In other words, the average person in the pew--in your pew--is probably not going to walk around with a fully developed theology of propitiation in his or her head. Some will, but realistically, most won't.

What this means is that regardless of what word is used here, whether it is propitiation orhg the phrase "sacrifice of atonement" (NIV, NRSV), it will still require some amount of explanation by you. Incidentally, the word atonement was coined by Tyndale for use in his OT translation because he couldn't find a suitable English word for ‏כָּפַר.

The question remains whether it is better to have that theologically loaded word (really just a label, a placeholder) propitiation in the text or is something else just as suitable or even better?

I've seen people evaluate translations of the Bible (and I think I used to do it myself) based on whether the word propitiation was used or not in the New Testament, specifically in Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 1 John 2:2; and 4:10 (although technically, the last two references use ἱλασμός in the Greek).

What's interesting is that although the word propitiation was used in the King James Version, it was not used in William Tyndale's translation upon which the KJV was primarily based.

The Tyndale NT reads this way (with emphasis added) in Rom 3:25

whom God hath made a seate of mercy thorow faith in his bloud to shewe ye rightewesnes which before him is of valoure in yt he forgeveth ye synnes yt are passed which God dyd suffre

So where did the KJV translators get the word propitiation from? Why, straight out of the Latin Vulgate! Here is Rom 3:25 in Latin:

quem proposuit Deus propitiationem per fidem in sanguine ipsius ad ostensionem iustitiae suae propter remissionem praecedentium delictorum

What is inescapable, regardless of how one looks at it, is the KJV translators, rather than trying to actually translate ἱλαστήριον into an English equivalent, instead "cheated" and just grabbed the Latin word (this, of course, is not much different than what was done by simply transliterating βαπτίζω as baptize, rather than correctly translating it as "immerse," but now the real "Baptist" [pun intended] is coming out in me).

So, what does ἱλαστήριον actually mean (I know you know what it means, but bear with me for sake of discussion)? Or what is it that Jesus actually did for us on the cross (the real question)? I'm not going to try to answer the second question just yet, but I will say that when NT writers, especially in the epistles, try to answer that question, their answer at the most basic level is some kind of common analogy for what took place on a spiritual level. This is true, regardless of whether Paul is speaking of ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25 or ἀντίλυτρον ("ransom") in 1 Tim 2:6. In the Reformation, emphasis came back upon ἱλαστήριον as a primary image (which I completely affirm), but in the early church, made up of the poor and in many cases, freed slaves, the idea of ἀντίλυτρον was favored. The reality is we need all of the images the NT provides to try to understand what Jesus did for us on the cross.

But back to my original question in regard to what ἱλαστήριον actually means-- When Paul uses this word, he is borrowing it from two arenas. On one hand, it's a pagan word used to describe the appeasement of a foreign god in their sacrificial ceremonies. The word meant this throughout ancient Greek literature, especially in regard to appeasing the wrath of the pagan God through sacrifice. On the other hand, the word ἱλαστήριον had been "co-opted" a couple of centuries earlier by the writers of the Septuagint to refer to the Old Testament mercy seat--the place above the ark of the covenant where sacrificial blood was sprinkled by the high priest to make atonement (thank you, William Tyndale) for Israel's sins; that is, to restore the people of Israel into fellowship with God.

So what did Jesus do on the cross (if I can take a stab at the second question now)? Well, to follow the lead of the NT writers and also Tyndale, he "mercy seated" us with God.

Now, back to that Latin label/placeholder propitiation... This word sees the ἱλαστήριον as the place of atonement. Jesus was the "place" where God's anger was removed. But as you probably remember, C. H. Dodd in The Bible and the Greeks rejected Jesus as the place of atonement. He saw this as too closely tied to paganism. Furthermore, he was uncomfortable with the idea of a "wrathful" God. He said expiation was a better translation because it was God’s appointed means to deal with our situation. On the Day of Atonement, he makes the effects of sin ineffective. Emphasis is on what God does (expiation), rather than what humans do (propitiation).

And of course, C. H. Dodd influenced translations of the Bible such as the RSV and NEB that opted for the word expiation in a verse like Rom 3:25 rather than propitiation.

But then Leon Morris came along, and in New Testament Studies said that wrath was indeed present in both Old and New Testaments (contrary to Dodd). Further, Morris went on to say that ἱλαστήριον is not an either/or in regard to expiation or propitiation, but a both/and: Morris said God expiates and is propitiated. The opposite of love is not wrath; the two are not incompatible. Anger is an appropriate reaction at times to those you love. The opposite of love is hatred—something into which anger can turn. Morris saw wrath as a positive angry love that does many wonderful things in the world.

In the Day of Atonement, God’s anger loomed large. Sin was taken seriously. Paul’s thought was how the Day of Atonement was understood in his time, not necessarily when it was who first proclaimed in Leviticus.

Since Morris, we have seen the rise of Bible translations that opted not to use either word (propitiation or expiation), but rather simply to translate ἱλαστήριον as "sacrifice of atonement" or something similar, leaving it up to the preacher or teacher to explain further if desired.

So back to the NLT...

The 1996 NLT reading of Rom 3:25 may have simply tried to do too much:

For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God’s anger against us. We are made right with God when we believe that Jesus shed his blood, sacrificing his life for us. God was being entirely fair and just when he did not punish those who sinned in former times.

There's definitely the standard "propitiatory" language in there. In fact, propitiation is defined pretty clearly in that rendering, over and above what the Greek actually says.

The 2004 revision is less overt:

For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past

"Jesus as the sacrifice for sin" is probably closer to that non-specific "sacrifice of atonement" in the NRSV & NIV.

And for point of reference, the translators for Romans in the NLT are Gerald Borchert, Douglas Moo and Thom Schreiner -- a pretty good mix of scholarship and viewpoint.

So, finally, back to your original concern, regardless of how it's worded, I believe there's still PLENTY for you as pastor/teacher to explain. I really wouldn't let lack of formal theological language--especially those which are simply Latin loan words--hold you back.

Tags: atonement, NLT

Sometimes You Just Can't Go Back...So Much for the NASB

04/07/2009 01:39 Filed in: Faith & Reason

A few years before I met Kathy, I dated a girl in high school whom I liked very much at the time. But teenage romance is always more complicated than it should be, and she and I broke up--despite the fact that really, deep down, I was still quite fond of her. A year after dating someone else, I called up the first girl and asked her out again. Things were familiar enough between us--that is, we didn’t have to spend a lot of time getting to know one another--but it was awkward nonetheless. Time had moved on, and so had we. We simply couldn’t go back to the way things were, so we parted ways a second time--this time for good.

And such is life.

Kathy sat me down on the couch this morning, and in no uncertain terms told me, “You can’t teach with whatever translation you’ve used the last two Sundays anymore!”

“Why not?” I sheepishly asked. Although I knew better. I had read the word “booty” from that Bible in front of forty people in our Bible study to the snicker of some and to the red face of my wife. Who uses that word anyway--pirates?

She went on to tell me that every time I read anything from my Bible, it was hard to understand and too different from anything anyone else was reading from. She said, “No one could even follow you!”

I reached for the Bible to which she was referring. I opened it up and showed it to her. “But I like this Bible. It has wide margins. I teach better when I use it.”

“Better for you, maybe, but not for anyone else. So you have to decide--are you going to teach in a way that’s easier for you or easier for those listening to you?”

Here’s what happened: two weeks ago, I did the unthinkable--I went back to my NASB for teaching our Sunday morning Bible study. I taught from the NASB for almost two decades, and then in 2005, while teaching a half year study on Romans, I realized I was spending more time explaining the English of the NASB than explaining what Paul actually said in Romans. I have always been an advocate of modern language translation, but I always felt that in a teaching setting, I would be able to use something a bit more formal. I quit doing that in 2005.

Since then I’ve used a variety of translations--going first to the HCSB and then the TNIV as my primary teaching Bible, but also using the NLT quite a bit and even the NET Bible.

...But I was frustrated. Part of my method all those years involved taking notes in a wide margin edition, and then using that edition when I’m teaching. I carried notes on paper, too, but the subset in my margins were little reminders of the most important information to get across.

Two decades ago, my goal had been to study biblical languages to the point that I no longer needed translations at all. I always carry at least my Greek New Testament with me, but I have two problems with totally abandoning English translations: (1) I simply don’t have every word in the NT in my working vocabulary. Yes, I can prepare a passage beforehand to teach from. But the first time I think of another passage to look at, or the first time someone says, “What about this verse?” I look at that and can translate everything except those two words. So it’s never been practical on the fly to try do that exclusively--at least not yet. And (2), I’m hopefully a bit humbler now, but I recognize that my “on the fly” translation, even if I know every word, is not necessarily better than a standard translation produced by a committee made up of people who are surely smarter than me.

So I continue to use both, using a translation as a primary text when I’m in front of others.

After abandoning the NASB, the translation I’d used since I was thirteen-years-old, I assumed I’d be able to get one of these more modern translations in a wide-margin edition. No such luck. So I thought I’d be patient and wait, but now after three and a half years, still no luck.

Sunday before last, I did what I had been tempted to do many times before, I taught from my trusty old Foundation Press wide-margin NASB. It felt good. I felt like I was spending time with an old friend. And even teaching from Isaiah 38-39, I managed to get away with it, partly by letting people in my class read sections that were...what can I say...a bit awkward sounding. But I made it, I felt like I was a better teacher, and I planned to go on and use my trusty NASB for a second week.

Then this past Sunday, we were running short of time as is often the case. With only a couple of minutes to go, I offered to read vv. 11-12 of Isaiah 53. As I begin to read...As a result of the anguish of His soul...I can already see it upcoming in v. 12 in my peripheral vision. My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities... This is what I noted in my preparation that I absolutely must not read publicly...Therefore, I will allot Him a a\portion with the great... I tried to think of all the other translations that I looked at ahead of time. What word did they use for ‏שָׁלָל‎? Spoil (HCSB, ESV, JPS, NKJV, NRSV, REB), spoils (TNIV, NET)...it was right there swimming about my brain, but I couldn’t remember. And then I read it... aloud:

And He will divide the booty with the strong

I heard chuckles. I could see heads lifting up, including my wife’s. I knew what they were thinking. Did he just say... ? Surely not. No one except for teenagers and pirates say that.

So, the heart-to-heart talk this morning came as no surprise. She had all the conviction of Sarah telling Abraham that Hagar had to go, so who was I to argue with her?

So, I’ll go back to my non-wide-margin Bibles, and wait hopefully that one day, I’ll get a wide margin Bible in a modern translation. But what do I use this Sunday? For the last couple of years, I’ve used TNIV on Sundays mostly, and the NLT during the week. But sadly, I have doubts about the staying power of the TNIV. So maybe this is simply the time to switch.

I use the NLT with my college students midweek because not all of them are believers, and the NLT has the most natural conversational English of any major translation. As I used it tonight with a class, I had to ask myself why I couldn’t use it on Sunday mornings, too? And I don’t have a good answer for that. So maybe this is the crossroads in which I simply need to make the NLT my primary public use Bible. I may have been held back by nothing more than my own traditionalism, but after listening this past week to Eugene Peterson’s Eat This Book, I’m more convicted than ever to present the Scriptures in common, ordinary language, and not the language of heavenly-portals-loud-with-hosannas-ring.

But what do I use? There’s still no wide-margin NLT. I’d certainly want the 2007 edition. So what are my options?

Tags: Translations, NASB, TNIV, NLT, Wide-Margin

NLT Study Bible Review for BSM Now Online

03/30/2009 18:05 Filed in: Faith & Reason

The March/April issue of Bible Study Magazine contains a review by yours truly of the NLT Study Bible. There is now a PDF posted on their website to my review. I’ve been asked to link to their preview page as opposed to directly linking to the PDF which is understandable so that you can see all that Bible Study Magazine has to offer. So when you get to the preview page, scroll down about halfway until you see this section:

Then click on the image or the words “NLT Study Bible” for the full review in PDF format.

If you want to read more about what I’ve written on the NLT and NLT Study Bible, you might want check out the following:

• My original review of the NLT
• My original (and longer) review of the NLT Study BIble
• Rise of the New Living Translation
• Repositioning the NLT as a “Scholarly” Translation

Tags: NLT, Logos

Repositioning the NLT as a "Scholarly Translation" [UPDATED]

10/08/2008 01:45 Filed in: Faith & Reason

Note: for the sake of clarification, I’ve offered a few footnotes since the original posting of this article a few hours ago.

Consider this a mild follow up to my post “The Rise of the New Living Translation,” but I’ll keep this one short and to the point.

Notice the graphic which I’ve swiped from the Tyndale website. Here the NLT is described as “The standard in scholarly translation with rich, clear language.” I have no real argument with this description. The NLT’s language is certainly richer and clearer than the NIV/TNIV, ESV, HCSB, and other contemporary translations. I’ve described the NLT as having phrasings closer to natural, conversational language than any other translation.

But is the NLT scholarly? I’d point to the translators involved and the continued fine tuning of the NLT through three revisions in 12 years to say, yes.

Granted this is the real question. We probably haven’t always thought of the NLT as a “scholarly” translation, and perhaps its status as such was more questionable in 1996, but it has continued to improve. As I pointed out in my “Rise” post, the creation of an NLT-dedicated commentary series such as the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary series, the tying of the translation to the original languages through the newly formulated “Tyndale Strong’s Numbering System,” and the publication of an NLT Study Bible at least on par with--if not slightly more academic than--the standard NIV Study Bible, all point to Tyndale’s repositioning of its flagship translation as a translation intended to be taken very seriously.

The link to the Tyndale Strong’s Numbering System in the paragraph above will take you to a post on the NLT blog asking if the NLT, as a dynamic translation, is suitable for word studies. The newest post on the NLT Study Bible Blog asks “The NLT: Good for Study?”

If you haven’t already guessed--YES, Tyndale is serious about this.

Look, I don’t know what it will take for the NLT to become a standard English translation in seminaries one day, but it’s not beyond imagination considering the NIV has held that spot for over two decades.¹ But let’s put seminaries aside for the moment.

I currently teach in church and in the college classroom. My desire is for the people that I’m teaching to (1) understand the Bible, (2) take what they understand seriously, and (3) let the Bible transform their perspective on life and the world. However, I’ve often noticed when watching others teach the Bible that eyes glaze over when the Scriptures are being read. Reading from the Bible is often a cue to zone out. Why is this? Is it perhaps because we’re too used to what we’ve heard in Tyndale-family translations,² and even from the NIV?

Granted, it never hurts to read the Bible with a little expression, and sadly many preachers and teachers don’t have a clue as to how to effectively read from the scriptures; but it may just be that it’s time for a new kind of translation to catch people’s attention. Maybe it’s time to use a translation that is fresh enough and bold enough to capture the spiritual imagination of people again.

As for the scholarly angle, there are a few things that Tyndale will have to do if they want to take things to the next level.

Beef up Tyndale’s academic catalog. This is where Zondervan, primary US distributor of the NIV, has excelled. Tyndale has a few academic offerings, but there’s much room for improvement.
Continue to connect the NLT to the original languages. I would suggest that Tyndale should immediately launch a project to publish a NLT/Greek diglot. Include notes that offer explanations behind particular NLT renderings from the Greek. Transliterate nothing. This should be a volume strictly for those who have a background in original languages.
Publish a series of articles (maybe an ongoing series of books?) by the translators of the NLT regarding translational challenges and decisions behind the translation.
Publish a series of preaching resources that use the NLT as a basis.
Offer some serious gatekeeper editions: traditional format preaching editions, wide margin editions for study and teaching.
Renew attention to the NLT apocrypha/deuterocanonicals. Publish an edition of the NLT with these books that is not labeled a “Catholic edition.”
Make good use of testimonials from both academics and popular pastors.
Hold off on any further revisions for at least a decade. Three editions in 12 years is unprecedented. The updates to the NLT have been warranted, but readers need to know that the text has been established/set--at least for a while.

I do believe that Tyndale is smartly doing most things well in their promotion of the NLT and repositioning it as a translation both for serious study and one for scholarly pursuits, but there is still a lot of work to done creating a suitable scholarly context for the NLT before it is completely there. Nevertheless, as I originally pointed out in the “Rise” post, Tyndale is not going to be content to sit back and let the NLT continue to be seen as secondary translation to be read alongside supposedly more scholarly ones. Rather, the message being proclaimed is clear: the NLT can serve these purposes as well.³

¹I’m referring primarily to conservative/evangelical schools, but the NIV has also gained acceptance beyond these circles where translations like the RSV and NRSV are considered standards.

²This can quickly become confusing. When I use the designation “Tyndale-family translations,” I’m referring to versions of the Bible that follow in the lineage established by William Tyndale including the KJV, RSV, NASB, NRSV, ESV and others. Obviously, the reader should not confuse this with the fact that the company, Tyndale House Publishers, publishes the NLT.

³As I’ve discussed before, my greatest challenge in using the NLT for teaching would come when discussing poetic passages. Although the second edition of the NLT is an improvement here, I still struggle with wanting to hold on to the beauty of some Hebrew metaphors that often become flattened out a bit in the NLT. However, that is not to say that I couldn’t use an approach such as that in Tom Gledhill’s helpful commentary on the Song of Solomon (The Message of Song of Songs [Bible Speaks Today], IVP) in which he uses both a free translation as well as a literal translation to get the meaning of the Hebrew text across.

Tags: NLT, Tyndale

NLT: "Highway to Hell"

09/30/2008 20:20 Filed in: Faith & Reason

[No, this isn’t an anti-NLT post.]

Sunday at church, our pastor referenced Matt 7:13 with the NIV text on the overhead screen:

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.”

Kathy, who refuses to carry anything other than the New Living Translation, nudged me to show me what her Bible said:

“You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose the easy way.“

When the NLT was released in 1996, I spent the next year or so reading it cover to cover. It was unexpected renderings such as this that made me fall fall in love with the dynamic flavor of the NLT. I look at a rendering like “highway to hell” and at first it startles me, but then upon reflection I delight to realize that it absolutely carries the meaning of the phrase, ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν, into the contemporary vernacular in a clear and contemporary way.

I also appreciate the verses that employ the word “scum” (Matt 9:11; Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30).

The only problem with the NLT’s rendering of Matt 7:13? Now I have that AC/DC song playing in my head...

Tags: NLT, Matthew

Tyndale Releases List of Changes to "NLT 2007"

09/17/2008 16:42 Filed in: Faith & Reason

For anyone who follows advances in Bible translations, it’s been no secret that Tyndale has continued to fine-tune their flagship New Living Translation. The NLT, originally released in 1996, received a major update in 2004 resulting in the New Living Translation, second edition (NLTse). Although still referred to as the “second edition,” the NLT received a less extensive update over the last year resulting in the year “2007” added to the copyright pages of the most recent printings. Some have referred to this as “NLT 2007” when distinguishing it from the 2004 NLTse.

Unlike some publishers [*cough*Crossway*cough*], Tyndale has graciously agreed to make the changes in the 2007 update of the NLTse public. A complete list of changes in the 2007 text can be accessed from a PDF file posted on Tyndale’s website. I’ve not had a chance to look at the changes in depth yet, but a cursory survey demonstrates a continued “fine tuning” of the text for the sake of accuracy. The PDF file released by Tyndale highlights changes to the text in red so that they are easier to spot and examine. Changes made to footnotes are included as well.

My thanks goes out to Mark Taylor and the team at Tyndale House Publishers. In recent weeks they’ve created a team blog and allowed readers to offer feedback via comments. They’ve even been gracious enough to field critical comments, something in the past that few publishers have been brave enough to do in such a public forum. Allowing the changes in the NLT 2007 text to be made public on their website is yet another example of Tyndale’s transparency in recent days, something I believe readers greatly appreciate.

You can view the 2007 changes to the NLT text either at the link I provided above, or go to www.newlivingtranslation.com, click on “Discover the NLT/FAQs,” then pull down the list of FAQs all the way to the bottom. Embedded in the article (“My NLT has copyright dates of 1996, 2004, and 2007 . . .” ) is a “click here,” which takes you to the pdf.

Tags: NLT, Tyndale

Kathy's Ode to the NLT

08/18/2008 23:34 Filed in: Faith & Reason

You know how some people are KJV-only? Well, I think my wife Kathy may be the first official NLT-only believer. And she’s hardcore--only settling for the 1996 NLT1. I can’t get her to switch to the second edition any more than I can get hardcore KJV-only guys to give the NKJV a try. The folks at Tyndale were nice enough to send her a new NLTse (second edition) Life Application Bible, but she mainly uses it for comparison in making her case as to why she likes the NLT1 better.

Sunday, while we were at church, our pastor was preaching from Amos in the NIV, but the words of Scripture on the screen behind him were in the NLT. Kathy saw this as possibly divine interference because she thinks everyone should read from the NLT. She kept nudging me asking, “Why doesn’t he just use the NLT? It’s much easier to understand!” I mumbled something about “1 Corinthians 14:34,” but she just elbowed me even harder.

Don’t tell our pastor, but inspired by the disjunction between speech and screen, Kathy immediately set to writing a little ditty expressing her feelings about the New Living Translation.

You can read it over at her blog (yes, she has one, too) in the post “Ode to the NLT.”

Tags: NLT, Kathy

NLT Study Bible: Hands-On Review [UPDATED]

07/30/2008 00:42 Filed in: Faith & Reason

“But my child, let me give you some further advice: Be careful, for the publishing of new study Bibles is endless, and carrying more than one in your book bag wears you out”
(modified from Ecclesiastes 12:12, NLT).

When I first heard that Tyndale was publishing a new study Bible, I admit that I was a bit ambivalent. There are scores of study Bibles on the market--some very good ones in fact. I was glad to see Tyndale continue to support the New Living Translation, but do we really need another study Bible? And isn’t there already a study Bible for the NLT--The Life Application Bible?

I received the Genesis sampler of the NLT Study Bible (NLTSB from this point forward) a few weeks ago. I literally read every word of it (the same as I had done to the Life Application Bible Gospel of
Mark in the Living Bible way back in the late eighties!) to get a feel for the direction this new study Bible takes. Since last Friday, upon receiving an advance copy of the entire Bible in the mail, I have spent a good bit of time reviewing the full product as well. At this point I can readily suggest that the NLTSB really does bring something new to the already crowded study Bible table.

The NLTSB contains lots of great features that I’m not going to spend a whole lot of time discussing since a number of other reviews are starting to show up on the web that do a fine job covering these. You can “Tour the Features” on the NLTSB website. Also, you can see a list of the contributors at the website as well--a veritable “who’s who” of Evangelical scholarship, but one that represents mainstream thought and offers a variety of perspective within certain boundaries.

IN KEEPING WITH WHAT HAS GONE BEFORE. I have no doubt that study Bibles are big business. And it seems to me that a translation has reached a certain level of acceptance when it begins to show up on shelves in study Bible forms. Study Bibles come with different approaches. There are study Bibles written from the viewpoint of an individual (Scofield, Ryrie, Dakes, MacArthur). Recently there has been a trend for study Bibles to come wrapped around a particular subject (apologetics, archaeology, literary features) or even specific theological perspectives. These two categories are fine if a reader really like the viewpoint of a particular individual or if the reader has interests in a particular subject and wants to discover how that subject relates to Scripture. But for me, I’ve always felt a bit more comfort in study Bibles that offer information of a more general nature and ones that have the perspective of not one particular writer or theological viewpoint, but from from the work of many individuals. In the last two decades, the NIV Study Bible has reigned supreme in this realm as a kind of standard that most study Bibles most often get compared to. The NIV Study Bible has even been adapted to three other translations: the KJV, NASB, and TNIV. Other committee-produced study Bibles in this kind of category include the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible, the Life Application Study Bible (also adapted to numerous translations) and the Jewish Study Bible, to name a few.

2008 sees two new study Bibles in the multiple-contributor category, and that is the NLT Study Bible, the subject of this review as well as the forthcoming ESV Study Bible. And in addition to the kind of standard (at least for Evangelical circles) set by a work like the NIV Study Bible, I would suggest that although it may not be at first apparent, there is another study Bible that is influential upon the NLT Study Bible. I’m referring to the NET Bible with its 60K+ notes. Although as of yet, not widely accepted, he NET Bible raised the bar in a number of ways for study Bibles, and in my opinion its influence is seen in at least three areas in the NLTSB.

The first is the NLTSB’s greater interaction with the original languages. It’s not uncommon to see transliteration of Greek and Hebrew words in the NLTSB’s study notes, even transliterated words beyond those defined in the NLTSB’s brief word study dictionary (more about that to come). Any reader familiar with the NET Bible knows that original language words are regularly incorporated into the notes both in their Greek and Hebrew form as well as a transliteration. The NLTSB offers only transliteration, but this probably suffices for the majority of its target market.

Second, like the NET Bible [print version], the NLTSB intermixes textual notes of the translation with its other notes. This is actually my largest criticism for the NLTSB. The NET Bible can get away with intermixing its textual notes because ALL of the notes came from the translation committee. Reading the NET Bible’s notes is like sitting in on an extended translator’s meeting. As with any translation, I’m very much interested in the footnotes added to the NLT text by the translators as a completely different level of authority and importance from the commentary of the study Bible itself. So the fact that the new 2007 edition of the NLT has a footnote in Gen 10:15 for “Hittites,” reading “Hebrew ancestor of Heth” is totally lost on me because I can’t distinguish it from the rest of the study notes. Even though the study notes in the NLTSB offer an explanation of the footnote, I have no indication that the original footnote itself is from the translation committee. There’s not even an indicator within the text itself that the word “Hittites” required clarification by the translators. If there was one major feature I’d recommend changing in the NLTSB in subsequent printings, it would be to separate the translator’s notes from the commentary.

Another influence of the standard set by the NET Bible: while the number of notes are at a greater number than some study BIbles (the NLTSB boasts 25,900 vs. the NIV Study BIble’s 25,000), these notes in the NLTSB are shorter and more to the point.

But what kind of notes are these? A few weeks back, I asked Tyndale if the study notes in the NLTSB were merely a condensation of Tyndale’s Cornerstone Biblical Commentary series which is also based on the NLT. I was told that it is not, and in fact the study notes in the NLTSB are entirely new, written specifically for the NLTSB (plus, the Cornerstone series is not complete yet).

SO WHAT’S DIFFERENT HERE? One of the promotional charts for the NLTSB compares the approach of it to other popular study Bibles. This is marketing copy, of course, so its value to you will vary, but the various study Bible approaches described this way:

“Using the NLT Study Bible is like being led through Scripture by a caring Bible teacher.”
“Using the NIV Study Bible is like being led through Scripture by a historian.”
“Using the Archaeological Study Bible is like being led through Scripture by an archaeologist.”
“Using the MacArthur Study Bible is like being led through Scripture by a theologian.”

Now, some may argue with any of those explanations on a variety of fronts, but the one major-selling study Bible I saw missing from this list was Tyndale’s own Life Application Study Bible. So I asked Tyndale how the two Bibles differed. I was told that “The Life Application Bible is like being led through Scripture in a discipleship program or by an application-oriented exegete.”

Okay, so the NLTSB is different because, to quote Sean Harrison from the NLTSB Blog,

“Basically, the NLT Study Bible focuses on the meaning and message of the text as understood in and through the original historical context. I don’t see other study Bibles focusing so fully on that. Some study Bibles focus on helping people to accept a particular doctrinal system, while others focus on “personal application.” Others simply provide interesting details about the context, language, grammar, etc., without asking how that information will impact people’s understanding of the text. Still others focus on a particular type of study methodology—topical study, word study, etc. Our goal, by contrast, was to provide everything we could that would help the readers understand the Scripture text more fully as the original human authors and readers themselves would have understood it.“

Of course these kind of descriptions can often overlap. I can see the difference from the Life Application Study Bible, but is the NLTSB all that different in approach from the NIV Study Bible (and its cousins)? Well, you will have to decide for yourself, but I do think it does a few things better, and I will describe those below.

And on a related note, in spite of distinguishing the NLTSB from the Life Application Bible, some notes such as the one discovered by blogger David Ker would make one wonder if there’s not an overly homiletical interest in some of the notes. So, maybe there actually is here and there, but they aren’t necessarily the norm. In fact, as I pointed out in the comments to David’s blog, if you turn to the notes at the other end of the Bible in a book like Revelation, I don’t see any of these kind of preachy statements such as in the last sentence of David’s example. In fact, to quote myself, “[the notes in Revelation] tend to stay with the text, illuminating yes, but not falling into homiletical application. The notes on Revelation also refreshingly tend to avoid any overt connections with interpretational schemes.” The Revelation notes, by the way, were written by Gerald Borchert.

Since the study notes for different biblical books were written by different writers, there may be some consistency issues, but David’s example does not seem to be the norm.

Really, there’s not going to be an unexpected twist to my review. I believe the NLTSB is a solid product. Having said that, however, there are a number of areas in which I believe the NLTSB does things exceptionally well. These are described below.

INTRODUCTIONS WITH SUBSTANCE. Anyone familiar with study Bibles expects to read a one to two page introduction before each biblical book. Included in that introduction are the obligatory sections of author, time of writing, type of literature and an outline. This is where the NLTSB goes above and beyond. Before one ever comes to the introduction to Genesis, the reader will find a four-page, three-column introduction to the Old Testament as a whole. Following that is a four-page essay and table on archaeological sources for Old Testament background. Then the reader finds a separate three-page, three-column introduction to the Pentateuch. Only then will the reader find the expected introduction to the book of Genesis. Thus the NLTSB begins to approach the state of not only functioning as a study Bible but an introduction to the Bible as well.

Of course since study Bibles are usually aimed at a more mainstream audience, I’m always interested to see how such resources handle discussions such as authorship. It doesn’t surprise me for an Evangelical resource such as the NLTSB to reject Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis (my own study and convictions reject it as well). However, I remember being gravely disappointed that in the original 1985 NIV Study Bible that this major theory of Pentateuchal origins could be so easily dismissed in one short sentence. Taking a much different approach, I was pleased to see that in the NLTSB, the issue is not so easily swept under the rug. Although the Documentary Hypothesis is rejected, it is rejected with seven paragraphs of explanation as to why.

On the other hand, Evangelicals always seem more comfortable (for the most part) with source criticism in the New Testament. So, for instance, in the introduction to the Gospels (which is one of four articles before ever reaching the introduction to Matthew), Markan priority for the Synoptics is accepted as probable and credence is also given to the Q source:

“There are also 250 verses of Jesus’ sayings that are shared by Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark, so most scholars believe that they both used a common source, perhaps oral, referred to as Q (from German Quelle, meaning ‘source’ ).”

Some may be interested to know that there is also a separate introduction to Paul’s pastoral epistles in addition to a general introduction to his work.

REINVENTING THE CROSS REFERENCE SYSTEM. I’ll be honest, I don’t use cross reference systems in Bibles all that often because most cross reference columns have more references than I really need. I’m not impressed with big numbers, and I don’t want to waste time looking up insignificant connections. Further, I feel Bible pages look peculiar in which the cross references are so numerous that they no longer fit in a center column, but pile up at the bottom right of the page. To me, that’s overkill. Here’s what I generally need in a cross reference system: parallel passages, intertextual connections, quotations, and maybe a minimum number of significant thematic references. If I need anything more than that, I can consult a topical Bible.

The NLTSB reinvents the cross reference column making it much more useful than merely offering other verses to look up. There are these basic kinds of cross references included, but just enough--not too many. Parallel passages are indicated by two double forward slash marks (//). Asterisks mark intertestamental quotations.

Another new feature in the cross references relate to word studies tied to the original languages. Certain major Hebrew or Greek words are transliterated within the reference column along with its Tyndale-Strong’s number. A reader can look these words up in the “Dictionary and Index for Hebrew and Greek Key Word Studies” in the back of the NLTSB. This dictionary serves as a brief lexicon for about 200 major biblical words. Underneath the reference, a triangled bullet indicates the next occurrence of the particular word much like a chain reference Bible.

Thus the NLTSB manages to combine in its reference system the best qualities of a reference Bible as well as the features of other works such as The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible and The Thompson Chain Reference Bible.

RANGE OF SOURCES. Often study Bibles tend to come across as closed systems of reference rather than leading the reader to further information. Many study Bibles simply don’t refer the reader to other works at all. Perhaps this is another influence of the NET Bible which offers references to books and articles right within its notes. While the NLTSB doesn’t do this in the study notes, there is a “Further Reading” section in each introductory article. I was both surprised and delighted to see such a wide range of selections.

These recommendations aren’t relegated to simply Christian writers. Robert Alter, a well known scholar in the Jewish Studies department at Berkeley is recommended further reading for 1 & 2 Samuel. And even among Christian writers, there is a great deal of diversity. Take for instance the introduction to the Book of Psalms. Familiar readers will know there is a VAST difference between the work of James Montgomery Boice on the Psalms and that of Marvin Tate from the Word Biblical Commentary (the latter of whom wrote one of my two recommendation letters to the doctorate program). And in the introductory article on the Book of Daniel, a very traditional scholar like E. J. Young is listed right along with John Goldingay who dates the Book of Daniel much later than the events described therein.

Now, I have to admit that I believe that such diversity among recommended sources is too often sadly rare in some Christian circles. But this demonstrates a confidence in the editors of the NLTSB that readers can make their own informed decisions in regard to the biblical writings. Frankly, such openness is both surprising and refreshing.

Unfortunately, full bibliographic information is not included with the list of further reading recommends, but simply the name of the author and the title of the work--with the exception of volumes from the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary. All completed volumes of the CBC are included in the appropriate lists as would be expected from a Tyndale publication, and the CBC is the only series that enjoys the mention of its name in the “Further Reading” lists. As for the other recommendations, an author’s name and title of the work is probably all one needs to track down any of these volumes at most online resellers.

ACKNOWLEDGING OTHER TEXTS. The writings of the Bible were not written in a vacuum, of course. But from many study Bibles on the market the reader wouldn’t necessarily know otherwise. Sometimes a study Bible will have an included article on the books of the Apocrypha and reasons why Protestants don’t read them, but very little more attention is paid to these books. Most study Bibles include a begrudging reference to 1 Enoch in Jude, but offer little more.

So I was quite amazed Sunday when looking at the article on “Circumcision” that accompanies Acts 15 to read this statement: “For Jews, it had religious significance as the sign of the covenant that God had established with the people of Israel (7:8; Gen 17:9-14; Josh 5:2; John 7:22; Sirach 44:20).” Yes, right along with references to other biblical books was a reference to the Apocrypha. So I looked further, and I found that references to other Jewish literature abounds in the study notes! The note for Romans 4:1 refer the reader to the Prayer of Manasseh, Jubilees, 1 Maccabees and Sirach by way of background. The note for Matt 5:31 quotes the Mishna! I can’t recall seeing so much interaction with extrabiblical Jewish literature in any other study Bible from an Evangelical publisher ever before.

Two more features of note: (1) a five-page, three-column article with timeline titled “Introduction to the Time After the Apostles” follows Revelation describing the process of canonization; (2) the “NLT Study Bible Reading Plan” incorporates all the additional articles and introductions and if followed five days of the week can be completed in five years.

WHAT’S NEXT? The NLTSB won’t be widely available until it hits the retailers mid-September. However, Tyndale has quite a few events coming up in conjunction with the release of the NLTSB. In August, the complete text and all the features of the NLTSB will be released on the internet. This will include fully searchable text with hyperlinked cross references. Unlimited access comes with the purchase of any NLTSB, and others can obtain a 30-day free trial.

Also in August, NLTSB General Editor Sean Harrison will host live “webinars” demonstrating features of the Bible and answering questions.

Simultaneous with the release of the NLTSB on September 15, software editions of the study Bible will be made available for three platforms (Libronix, PocketBible, and WORDSearch (What? Where’s the Accordance module?!).

The NLT Study Bible website is great place to keep up with these developments and to explore the features of the NLTSB. There’s an engaging blog at the website and an errata page has already been started. I commend Tyndale for the errata page as there’s bound to be errors in a project of this scale, and they’re honest enough to make them known (if only this had been done for Zondervan’s Archaeological Study Bible which was rife with errors).

And if you weren’t able to get your hands on one of the early copies of the NLTSB, be sure to place yours on pre-order.

Overall, I’m impressed with the features of the NLT Study Bible, and I truly believe it is yet another step in facilitating the New Living Translation as a choice for serious Bible study.

ONE MORE THING. I failed to mention that the NLTSB breaks with the recent trend for small type in study Bibles by offering a surprisingly larger and readable typeface. The type in the NLTSB is larger than the typeface in the Archaeological Study Bible, the TNIV Reference Bible and even the TNIV Reference Bible. Tyndale was able to do this by opting for a more traditional two-column biblical text instead of a single-column as with most recent study Bibles. Single-column text requires more pages because it does not use space on the page as efficiently as double column text--especially in poetic passages.

Although I’m a fan of single-column text, the larger typeface in the NLTSB is a welcome “feature.” The study notes conserve space even further by using a triple-column layout and thus are easier on the eyes as well.

Tags: NLT, Tyndale

Rise of the New Living Translation

07/23/2008 00:34 Filed in: Faith & Reason

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

Recommend: The New Living Translation Blog

07/11/2008 01:26 Filed in: Faith & Reason

In case you missed it, earlier this week, Tyndale launched a new blog devoted to the New Living Translation. I had actually missed it as we’ve been traveling since July 2, but from reading all the new posts (six in less than a week) in one sitting, the blog looks as if it’s off to a strong start.

I especially appreciated Keith Williams’ “Words in the New Living Translation.” This post directly addressed a recent post by Tim Challies that took swipes at the NLT (and the Message and CEV) in order to prop up the ESV. I found it interesting that Challies would quote from the 1994 edition of the NLT when the translation has seen a significant revision in 2004 and then another minor revision last year. I felt that Challies’ post was primarily another attempt to promote the value of the ESV by attacking Bible versions that use a different method of translation. In the end, such comparisons are apples and oranges, translationally speaking. I don’t see why ESV readers can’t simply applaud their favorite Bible without attempting to knock other versions down, but the internet is full of such posts. Williams’ rebuttal avoided the trap of pitting one translation against another and instead approached the real issue of translational method and the challenge of communicating meaning from one language to another.

The NLT is one of three primary translations (along with the TNIV and HCSB) that I suggest when asked under general circumstances for a translation recommend. Translations, in my opinion, have to be evaluated on their own merits regarding how well they achieve their translational goals. There is no “one size fits all” translation, but the NLT communicates in a style that is more in keeping with contemporary, conversational English than any major translation I know of.

The NLT Blog is described as “Issues, perspectives, and news related to the New Living Translation and Bible Publishing.” A glance at the contributors suggests that this blog will serve as a great way to interact with the keepers of the NLT. They are off to a good start, and I will be interested to see what future posts hold. While I assume they will highlight specific editions of the NLT, I would hope also to see much discussion about the uniqueness of the NLT itself and further discourse on translation method.

Other publisher-based Bible translation blogs:
ESV Blog
NET Bible Revolution (last updated April 30, 2008)
TNIV Blog (defunct? not updated since November, 2006)

Tags: NLT, Tyndale

Worthy of Note 01/30/2008

01/30/2008 01:11 Filed in: Miscellaneous

Iyov has posted a review of the new ringbinder wide-margin NRSV New Oxford Annotated Bible.

Says Iyov:

So, with all that extra page space, there is plenty of room for making ample annotations. The paper is significantly thicker than typical Bible paper, so there is much less bleed through from a pen. And, I can add extra paper anytime one wants (in the fashion of Jonathan Edwards' Blank Bible). If I make a mistake, I can always remove the page and replace it with a photocopy from my bound edition of the NOAB. If I want to slip in an entire article, or a copy of a page in original languages -- there is no problem. It seems to me that this is the ultimate in flexibility.

I'm glad to see this finally released, although I doubt I'll personally buy one. Regardless, I've got a number of larger blog projects I'm working on, one of which is an update to last year's survey of wide-margin Bibles. I'm glad that I'll be able to include an entry for the NRSV this year.

J. Mark Betrand has written "A (Bible) Reader's Manifesto." Says Bertrand:

But we find ourselves at a point in history when we've never had so many choices, and yet the options are mostly arrayed along a horizontal spectrum -- a thousand different flavors of the same basic thing. I'd like to see more vertical choices, and that might require a shift in perspective. Instead of speaking to end-users as consumers, we might have to start thinking of them as readers.

What is most significant in the post is Bertrand's five-point "Starting Points for Marketing High-End Bible Editions." I can only hope that publishers will pay attention.

James White announced today that he will face Bart Ehrman in a debate early next year on the subject "Can the New Testament Be Inspired in Light of Textual Variation?" This will no doubt be a debate to watch/hear and then discuss.

My esteem for White dropped significantly a few years ago due to the way he handled a theological disagreement with another individual whom I respect very much. I felt his approach to the issue was uncharitable, far too public, and lacking in the kind of collegiality that should characterize Christian scholarship. Nevertheless, White is usually in natural form when he is engaged in formal debate. However, I often believe that White is rarely pitted in his debates against opponents who are equally skilled. At the very least, Ehrman should provide a worthy opponent to White and this is a subject in which both are well-versed.

Christianity Today has released its list of the "10 Most Redeeming Films of 2007." Some entries on the list may surprise you, but it's a very good list. I remember when we used to do more movie reviews and discussion around here.

Finally, in the I JUST DON'T GET IT DEPARTMENT: 2008 marks the 30th anniversary of the New International Version of the Bible. I've seen references on two other blogs (see here and here; oh, and also here) that Zondervan is planning a special wide-margin, high-end leather edition of the NIV Study Bible as one of the many ways that the NIV's 30th anniversary will be celebrated.

This is in spite of the fact that so many of us have asked for one decent wide-margin edition of the TNIV (the so-called TNIV Square Bible is flawed in three areas: (1) it's paper is too thin for annotations because it is a thinline, (2) the user doesn't have wide margin access to the inner column of text, and (3) the binding is subpar). If the TNIV is truly an improvement to the NIV (which I honestly believe it is), then why does Zondervan (and IBS, Cambridge, and Hodder) keep pushing the NIV and publishing new editions? If in ten years the TNIV turns out to be an also-ran translation, it will only be because publishers didn't know how to fully transition away from the NIV.

My suggestion for celebrating the NIV's 30 year anniversary? Retire it. (My apologies to everyone I just offended, including my friends at Zondervan.)

I would like to find simply ONE decent wide-margin, high quality (see Bertrand's post above for the meaning of high-quality) Bible in a contemporary 21st century translation (HCSB, NLTse, TNIV, or NET). I'm still writing down notes in my wide margin NASB95, but the first translation of those I've listed that is released in a single-column, non-thinline, wide-margin edition, I will make my primary translation for preaching and teaching for the next decade. You heard it here first.

Tags: NRSV, textual criticism, Movies, NIV, TNIV, NET, NLT, Wide-Margin

Tyndale Select Insert

11/06/2007 09:13 Filed in: Faith & Reason

The new calfskin Tyndale Selects were released in October in both "ebony" and "mahogany" calfskin covers with Smyth Sewn bindings. No, I do not have one as the $135 price is a bit outside this student's range. However, this is undoubtedly the finest quality NLT ever produced, and a number of This Lamp readers have shown interest in this Bible in the past.

So while I don't have access to a copy of this Bible (and I am not even sure it will be stocked in the stores locally because of its price), I have gained access to the text copy from the Tyndale Select insert. I am reproducing it below because I know a number of you will find it interesting.

TREASURE
God's presence in our lives through Scripture is priceless. His Word is a treasure to be passed down to future generations. Introducing Tyndale Select. For those who want a Bible they can enjoy for a lifetime. This exquisite edition is crafted out of the finest calfskin leather with deluxe features throughout.

FEEL
Highest quality hand-bound calfskin leather. Supple. Durable. Beautiful.

FIND
Dual satin ribbon markers trace your study and mark key passages for personal reference.

REVEAL
A ready resource--full color maps and concordance make Tyndale Select a valuable reference tool.

SURPASS
The highest quality binding available in the clear and accurate New Living Translation

TYNDALE SELECT BIBLE CARE
Congratulations on owning Tyndale Select, the highest quality binding available in the New Living Translation. or a lifetime of use, take note of these tips to protect your investment:

- SPINE FLEXIBILITY
The durable Smyth Sewn binding should be gently stretched as soon as you bring it home so it will remain flexible for decades to come. Hold the closed Bible in one hand with the spine flat on a table. Then hold all of the pages together and let the covers slowly fall to the table. Next take a series of pages from the front of the Bible and lay them down, running your fingers across the top page, near the crease, pressing gently. Sill holding most of the pages upright in your hand, repeat, taking a section of pages from the back of the Bible. Continue repeating this process, first on one side and then on the other, until the entire Bible has been opened into two even halves.

- MARKING
A well-marked Bible with personal notes will become very valuable to you as a companion and customized reference tool. Do not use felt-tip or roller points, as these will often bleed through the pages. Instead, use a pencil or ball point pen or a special Bible marking highlighter or pen, available at most Christian bookstores.

- LEATHER CARE
The best way to care for the calfskin leather cover is to use it. The natural oils from your hands actually nourish the leather fibers. To clean dirt or spills, dab with a soft cloth dampened with water and mild detergent, without getting the leather too wet. Wipe with a slightly damp cloth to remove soap residue. Dry with a clean soft towel.

GUARANTEED FOR LIFE
Premier quality materials and meticulous old world craftmanship come together to create a cherished heirloom. Carry this Bible and appreciate every word knowing the truth it contains--and the Bible itslef--will be a part of a legacy to the next generation.

If for any reason this Bible does not meet your expectations, we will replace it or give you a full refund.

You can also download the PDF insert itself with pictures here:

Note: in the Amazon links to the right, the first link is the ebony edition and the second is the mahogany.

Tags: NLT, Tyndale

NLT Update: August 2007

08/09/2007 21:27 Filed in: Faith & Reason

For those of you who have been holding out for a wide margin edition of the New Living Translation, there's a strong possibility that one may be in your future.

This past week I received correspondence from Kevin O'Brien, Director of Bibles and Bible Reference at Tyndale House Publishers. Although there is no timetable at the moment, the folks at Tyndale are evidently considering taking an existing edition of the New Living Translation and making a wide margin Bible out of it.

O'Brien's question to me, and one that I'm passing on to you is, "Is there is a specific edition of the NLT that you would prefer to see used for such a Bible?" Leave your thoughts in the comments. I'll make sure to pass them on.
_________________________________________________________________

I also heard from Laura Bartlett, who is a marketing manager at Tyndale. Some of you may remember my review of the NLT Premium Slimline a few months back. Although overall, this was a nice text edition of the NLT with a readable font, but it was marred by text that was way too close to the inner margin. It's hard to read without pressing the Bible flat in the middle.

Well, Laura tells me that there's a new NLT Personal Size Large print coming out that includes a larger font (12 pt.) and an inside margin that is a tenth of an inch wider than the previous edition. This might not sound like much, but it's enough to make the Bible much more usable than the earlier edition I reviewed. The new NLT Personal Size Large is also a good bit thicker than the other edition (2128 pages vs. 1560 pages!).

Here are the ISBN's for the new edition:
ISBN-13: 978-1-4143-1405-1 Hardcover
ISBN-13: 978-1-4143-1401-3 Bonded Black
ISBN-13: 978-1-4143-1402-0 Bonded Burgundy
ISBN-13: 978-1-4143-1403-7 LeatherLike Black
ISBN-13: 978-1-4143-1404-4 LeatherLike Burgundy
ISBN-13: 978-1-4143-1871-4 LeatherLike Brown/Tan

To access a PDF sampler of the new NLT Personal Size Large Print Bible, click here.

Laura also mentioned the new Discover God Study Bible:

Our big new deal in NLT Bibles right now is the Discover God Study Bible. The premise is that it’s the only study Bible in which the notes all focus on the person of God, what he has revealed to us about himself in the Bible, and how we can be in relationship with him. It’s not primarily for new believers, which the title can imply. Most of the notes are from Bill Bright’s ministry. It has an innovative topic system that some people are calling the “Thompson Chain of the 21st Century.

And then finally, Laura told me about an upcoming product that sounds extremely interesting. Unfortunately, it didn't make it into the Fall catalog, so I can't talk about it...yet.

Tags: NLT, Tyndale

Plural "You" in John 1:51

08/08/2007 12:28 Filed in: Faith & Reason

This past Sunday, I filled in for my pastor by delivering the morning sermon since he was out on vacation. I drew my text from John 1:35-51 where Jesus calls his first disciples. The theme of my message was discipleship itself: what it means to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, and living each day with the realization that first and foremost we are disciples.

My third point, drawn from John 1:47-51, I labeled "Be ready for the unexpected." In my initial study of this passage, I noticed that in the Greek that in v. 51 Jesus shifts from simply addressing Nathaniel to addressing other disciples who were presumably present. Translating a plural you into English can be a bit tricky since we technically don't have a separate word in standard English for the second person plural. A fairly literal translation of this verse would read something like this:

And he said to him, "Truly, truly I say to y'all [ὑμῖν], y'all will see [ὄψεσθε] heaven open...

Of course, I can translate with y'all because I grew up in the south. And I should also mention that the KJV communicates the second person plural (at least clearly in the second instance) because Elizabethan English also allowed for the distinction by using the now archaic ye:

And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open (John 1:51 KJV)

Regardless, when there is a shift of person in the Bible such as that in v. 51, I readily admit that it's not always significant. But here I believe it is. Jesus' message of what a disciple would experience was not something meant for Nathaniel alone. A few translations make an effort to represent the second person plural, but most traditionally have not. Originally, I had been planning to use the NLT for this message, not only because I believe it communicated the entire passage well, but especially because it brought out the plural "you" here:

Then he said, “I tell you the truth, you will all see heaven open... (John 1:51 NLT)

However, then on Friday, I received my copy of the NET Readers Bible in the mail. Looking at the passage and especially v. 51, I was pleased to see the second person plural rendered here as well:

He continued, “I tell all of you the solemn truth–you will see heaven opened... (John 1:51 NET)

Thus I began my little "NET for a month" experiment and preached from it on Sunday.

I should point out that a number of other translations mention the plural "you's" in the footnotes, including the ESV, HCSB, NRSV, NIV and TNIV. The REB is another translation that renders the plural in the actual text.

So which is better: text or notes? I would suggest that the better rendering is when it can be done in the text for the sake of those listening without a Bible in front of them.

Feel free to leave your opinion in the comments.

Tags: Translations, John, NET, NLT, KJV

Missing My Wide Margin NASB

08/03/2007 13:12 Filed in: Faith & Reason

I've noticed an interesting trend in my habits over the past few weeks: I've gone back to using my wide margin NASB a lot more lately. I haven't done this for public presentation, but I've done it when needing to carry an English Bible for my own needs lately.

Frequent readers of This Lamp will remember that although I've always been an aficionado of Bible translations, I used the NASB for almost two decades in teaching and preaching settings until I became convicted a couple of years ago that the formality and literalness of the translation itself was getting in the way of what I was trying to teach. Since then, I have primarily used the TNIV in public, but I've also used the HCSB and NLT to a certain extent as well. And often even when needing to carry a translation to a setting where I wasn't presenting, I tended to pick up my TNIV.

But yesterday is a good example of this "change" in my habits. I've been meeting a friend of mine for breakfast for a couple of years now, and we usually read a book together and discuss it over bagels. Over the last few weeks we've been reading Bonhoeffer's Cost of Discipleship. Yesterday as I was heading out the door to meet for breakfast, I grabbed a Bible as I always do. But instead of grabbing the TNIV Study Bible which has been my practice for a few months, I picked up my wide margin NASB.

Why would I do this? It's because of my notes. Right now, our reading in Bonhoeffer is right in the middle of his exposition on the Sermon on the Mount. Because I've both preached and taught through Sermon on the Mount on different occasions, I have a wealth (to me) of personal notes written in the margins of that Bible, some of which were copied from my earlier 1971 NASB before I transcribed them to this newer '95 update.

Doesn't the TNIV Study Bible have notes? Sure it does. But the notes in my NASB are my notes. These notes are the facts and insights that stuck out to me. These notes are the triggers I used to discuss the text when I was teaching it last. The TNIV Study Bible is the first study Bible that I have ever consistently carried with me. It's notes are helpful, but I find that I don't automatically turn to them. I look at them if I need to look something up and hope that the information I need is there.

After using other Bibles for over a year and a half now, I have to admit that i really miss my wide margin NASB. And I don't think it's the NASB that I miss so much, although I will always have a great familiarity with it. What I miss is the ability to refer to my notes, to refer to a tangible experience of having spent time--studied and wrestled--with a particular passage before. I don't have notes on every page of my Bible. But the notes that I do have are footprints that I was there, evidence that I stopped and camped out a while, as opposed to merely passing by.

I stay in a continuing conundrum. I really do feel committed to public use of a contemporary translation. And I would prefer a gender-accurate, non-Tyndale translation when presenting in front of mixed audiences. But no usable wide margin edition of a contemporary translation exists that meets these factors. There is no wide margin NLT and the only wide margin TNIV offering limits writing space to one column on a two column page and has paper too thin for extensive use. I might be willing to settle for the HCSB even though it is not gender accurate, but the pages in its only wide margin offering are so thin that they curl when writing on them.

At this point, I would like a new wide margin Bible (leather, of course) in a contemporary translation--any translation. I'm willing to transcribe my notes even a third time. TNIV? NLT? NET? HCSB? Something else? At this point, I'm not even overly concerned with the exact translation, in spite of the fact that I have my personal favorites and feel some are better suited for teaching than others. Whichever publisher first delivers a wide margin edition in one of these translation wins--at least with me.

Every Sunday morning when I leave for church, I push aside my wide margin NASB in favor of the TNIV Study Bible. Despite the fact that as I've studied a passage that I will be teaching I've taken diligent notes in the margins of my NASB, I've been forced to create a subset of these notes in the anemic margins of the TNIV Study Bible or in whatever white space I can manage. But the temptation to grab my trusty NASB and run remains. And I wonder if this temptation is growing stronger?

Tags: NASB, NET, TNIV, NLT, HCSB, Bonhoeffer

Comparing Apples to Pupils: Zechariah 2:8 in the HCSB, NET, and NLT

07/16/2007 07:50 Filed in: Faith & Reason

[Note: Zech 2:8 ENG = Zech 2:12 HEB;
also all Hebrew below has been transliterated as RapidWeaver seems to continue to have difficulties correctly rendering Unicode Hebrew]

I've stated on a number of occasions how much I respect the HCSB translators' decision to regard accuracy over tradition in many of the translation's renderings. In my review last year of the HCSB, I remarked that although the HCSB courageously breaks with traditional wording of a favorite verse like John 3:16, it does so strictly for the sake of better communicating the meaning of that verse which is easily misunderstood in most translations.

And so it is with Zech 2:8 which was part of our Bible study yesterday at church.

Zechariah 2:8
Traditional Renderings	Accurate Renderings
For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye. (KJV)	For the LORD of Hosts says this: “He has sent Me for \|His\| glory against the nations who are plundering you, for anyone who touches you touches the pupil of His eye. (HCSB)
For this is what the LORD Almighty says: “After the Glorious One has sent me against the nations that have plundered you—for whoever touches you touches the apple of his eye— (TNIV)	For the LORD who rules over all says to me that for his own glory he has sent me to the nations that plundered you–for anyone who touches you touches the pupil of his eye. (NET)

I was teaching from the TNIV, but the Explore the Bible study book we use in our class has the HCSB as the default translation. During my preparation before the class I observed the differences in the two translations' renderings of the Hebrew vava. The TNIV uses the traditional "apple" while the HCSB uses the better "pupil." Undoubtedly, the TNIV's phrase, unchanged from the NIV, is a holdover going back to the KJV.

Using Accordance, I scanned the KJV to determine that this translation uses the English word apple for four separate Hebrew words in the OT:

’ishwon: Deut 32:10; Ps 17:8; Prov 7:2
tappuach: Song 2:3; 8:5; Joel 1:12
vat: Lam 2:18
vava: Zech 2:8

Although some of these renderings in the KJV might be more justified than others (especially those on Song of Solomon), none are really accurate considering apples were not grown in Israel during biblical times (see ABD, "Flora"). Of course the translators of the 17th century KJV most assuredly did not know this, but there's really no excuse for modern translations to hold on to the rendering simply for the familiarity of the phrase "apple of his eye."

If anything, "apple of his eye" seems to communicate something slightly different in our culture than what was intended in the text. I did a quick survey of my class yesterday as to the meaning of "apple of his/my eye" and most responses were of the "cutesy" variety, often noting the idea of a daughter being the apple of her father's eye.

In Zech 2:8, vava literally means "gate" of the eye; but ultimately, that's too literal for understanding in English. The meaning here is essentially the pupil as the HCSB and NET correctly translate it. McComiskey notes:

In this analogy, the eye is Yahweh's [...] As the eye is extremely sensitive to touch, so God is sensitive to what threatens his people. The statement develops further the important postexilic theme that God will protect his people and allow no hostile intervention. (The Minor Prophets, vol. 3, p. 1061)

In other words, to mess with God's people is like poking a stick in God's eye, so watch out!

One more note: the NLTse translation of Zech 2:8 bypasses the apple/pupil issue to focus on the meaning of the phrase:

After a period of glory, the LORD of Heaven’s Armies sent me against the nations who plundered you. For he said, “Anyone who harms you harms my most precious possession.

But more important than that, of all the most recent translations, only the NLT attempts to correct the tiqqune soferim found in this verse. That is, the ancient Hebrew scribes were offended at the idea of poking a stick in God's eye, so the wording was changed from "my eye" to "his eye." Thus, in the end, according to one's opinion and evaluation of the dynamic rendering "my most precious possession," the NLT may turn out to be the most accurate translation of Zech 2:8 of those surveyed here.

For another look at a tiqqune soferim, see my post on Hab 1:12.

Tags: Zechariah, HCSB, TNIV, NET, NLT, KJV

Review: NLT Premium Slimline Reference (Large Print)

05/15/2007 10:29 Filed in: Faith & Reason

Longwinded Intoduction. I have a confession to make: I accessorize my Bibles. No, no, no...not with my clothes (although I know someone who does). But rather, I accessorize my Bibles toward my audience. I don't believe in a one-Bible-fits-all approach, especially when it comes to the public proclamation of Scriptures. Audience, presentation, and purpose are all factors I consider when choosing a translation to use. Further--and maybe this is just me--if I am going to use a Bible in a public setting, I want it to have a leather cover--or at least something that looks like leather. Generally, if I buy a Bible just to use as reference at home, I stick with a hardback. But I want my public Bibles to have a leather cover. Somehow that seems more official, more authoritative.

When it comes to natural flow of the English language, it's hard to beat the New Living Translation. In 2004, Tyndale quietly introduced a radical (in my assessment) revision of the NLT, known as the "second edition" (see my review of the NLT for more information). Almost three years had gone by, and I didn't have what I considered to be a decent "public use" copy of the NLT second edition (or NLTse).

Going back to the original NLT first edition (or NLT1) of 1996, I had a nice burgundy bonded leather TouchPoint Bible and later a bonded leather Notemaker's Bible, which as I've said before happens to be one of the nicest wide-margin Bibles I've ever seen. But there's been nothing equivalent to these for the NLTse. The Bible publishing world seems obsessed with thinline/slimline/ultrathin Bibles or study Bibles. It seems that it's getting harder and harder to find a simple text or reference edition of the Bible, in leather, that has not only a readable text size, but also one that's not slimmed down to 3/4 of an inch. And no publisher besides Crossway seems to recognize the value of a wide-margin edition, but unfortunately, they don't publish my translations of choice. So with the NLTse, the only edition I had besides my electronic copy in Accordance, was a blue hardback/pew Bible.

Now, about the actual Bible. I don't consider myself all that picky, but after three years of the NLTse's existence, I still couldn't find a decent copy for public use. However, just last month Tyndale released an edition that, while not perfectly matching my wants/needs, is certainly an attractive edition and will do for now. I've picked up the NLT Premium Slimline Reference (Large Print) in "TuTone" colors of black with a vertical burgundy stripe on the front cover. The binding is called "LeatherLike," and I'll come back to that shortly. You'll find an Amazon.com link to this Bible below, but I cannot find it on Tyndale's site as of this writing. I'll refer to the Bible simply as PSR from this point forward.

Slimline. My main compromise with this Bible is the Slimline factor. I don't care for thin Bibles because the pages tend to be too thin, and will not only wrinkle and wear too quickly, but also have a tendency for bleed through of the Bible's own text and any annotations that a user makes in the margins. The Amazon.com page for this Bible claims that it is 1.1" thick, but I would presume this to be in error; it seems thinner than that. I would have also preferred a single column of text, but the only single-column NLT I know of is the Life Application Study Bible, and that's not what I wanted in a public use Bible.

Text on the page. The box says that the PSR is "large print." Technically, the print size is 9.84 pt. according to a similar offering on Tyndale's site. The type is quite readable and very clear on the page. There is a certain amount of bleed through, but it's not as bad as some other popular Bibles out there. One nice thing about this edition is that even though it's large print, it doesn't say "Large Print" on the binding which is often code for "old person's Bible." Actually, I've preferred larger type in public use Bibles since I was 20 and long before I needed glasses. I've found that when I'm reading in front of an audience, in order to maintain eye contact, I'll need to regularly look away from the page and look at my audience. I found early on that if I used a Bible with small type, it was very easy to lose my place. Therefore, there's always benefit from a large type size (I'd prefer 10 pt. or larger) when teaching or preaching before a group. I suppose another compromise for me personally, is that this Bible contains red letter text for the words of Christ. I'd prefer Bibles not have red letters, but it's hard to find them without it in popular editions. At least the red isn't a glaring bright red; however, I'd have preferred the darker brick-like shade in the sample on the box than the actual pinkish dark red found on the page.

My main complaint about this Bible has to do with how close the inside column of text rests near the binding. It's way too close, and this may be an example of a something that seemed fine in the original proofs but doesn't work in the actual product. The inside margin should be at least 3 or 4 centimeters wider for readability's sake. I'm not exaggerating here when I say that to read from the inner columns of text in this Bible, whether aloud or to yourself, it will take holding it with one hand while the other hand presses the center open. I'm not sure what the continued strain on the binding will do to the spine over a long period of time. And considering the fact that this is not a saddle-stitched Bible, I wonder how well this edition will hold up.

What makes a reference edition a reference edition? To be honest, I'm always on the fence when it comes to cross-references. Extremely large numbers of cross-references don't impress me. I'm not opposed to a cross-reference system, but generally all I need in terms of references are those that point me to intertextual quotations and allusions and those that refer to parallel passages. Many cross-references tend to be thematic in nature and that's not so big of a selling point with me. Since this Bible is called a "Reference" BIble, I was expecting a full cross-reference system. However, that's not the case. Rather, in some verses, there is a † symbol (what is this symbol called?) and a corresponding reference is placed at the end of the paragraph. That's not a bad system in my opinion, but I imagine it would be limited by the space left available at the end of each paragraph. To see the kind of references that are in place in the PSR, I turned to the Gospel of Matthew. There was a † at the end of v. 17: "...and fourteen from the Babylonian exile to the Messiah." This corresponded to a reference to Luke 3:23-38, which is Luke's somewhat different genealogy. Turning the page, I saw another † at the end of Matt 1:24 following, "And Joseph named him Jesus." This led to a reference to Luke 2:1-7, which is part of Luke's account of the birth of Christ.

Then, however, I happened to look up at v. 23:

Look! The virgin will conceive a child!
She will give birth to a son,
and they will call him Immanuel,
which means "God is with us."

There was an asterisk after Immanuel pointing to the textual notes at the bottom of the page which referred to Isa 7:14 the source of the quotation in Mtt. 1:23. Therefore, it looks like the parenthetical references distinguish themselves from the cross references in the textual notes as being more thematic in nature. Turning a couple of pages over, I noticed that in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, many of the notes cross reference to Luke's so-called "Sermon on the Plain" and other passages with parallel themes. In my opinion between these references and those in the textual notes, this is all someone like myself would really need. Others however may still wish for a more traditional columnar cross-reference system.

The PSR also includes a 52-page dictionary/concordance in the back with entries from abandon to zeal. So Aaron is not included, but Abraham is. In actuality, there aren't many individuals listed here. But an entry such as Abraham takes on more of the "dictionary" aspect to this section as it includes topical information with references to particular passages. A few other helps are included in the Bible such as "Great Chapters of the Bible," "Great Verses of the Bible to Memorize" (three pages' worth), a 365-Day Reading Plan (all Bibles should come with one or more reading plans) and eight full-color Bible maps. And although this isn't a wide-margin Bible, so one can't take notes in the text, I counted 18(!) blank pages between the reading plan and the maps which would be perfect for adding one's own notes.

Is it leather if it doesn't "Moo"? I said above that I prefer leather Bibles for public use. Well, technically, this isn't leather--it's something that Tyndale calls "LeatherLike" and I assume is very similar to the materials in Zondervan's "Italian DuoTone" and Crossway's "TruTone" Bibles. A good leather Bible gets softer over time with continued use. This is caused by the natural oils of your hands which soften a Bible's leather over time (and that's also why putting a Bible in a Bible cover or leaving it on a dashboard where it dries out in the heat is the worst thing you can do for a Bible). Well, this LeatherLook looks and feels like a Bible that's well worn in (first we have pre-faded jeans, and now...). It's soft to the touch and even has a slight leather smell (I wonder if that was artificially added at the factory?). I have no idea how these covers hold up over time, and what they'll look like in a couple of decades or more, but I have to say that they are so nice, I wouldn't mind it if I never bought actual leather again. The cover on this Bible is black with a wide vertical burgundy strip going down the front. It' looks very elegant and makes the Bible look like it cost much more than it did. Using these kinds of artificial materials accomplish a couple of things: (1) no cow has to die for your Bible [I'm not overly opposed to leather, but if you had Bossie right there in front of me and said "Leather or no leather..."] and (2) offers an elegant looking Bible at greatly reduced price. Who knows, if fine wines can move away from actual corks, maybe Bibles can move away from real leather.

n the final analysis, this is a very nice NLT which will be suitable for the time being as a public use Bible. I don't like to think of Bibles as consumable items, so I've taken to passing them on when if I decide I'm not going to use a particular edition anymore in the future. For those waiting for something even better, I do know that there is another project in the works at Tyndale which is probably more along the lines of what a person thinks of when considering a true "Reference Bible." At this point, I'm not allowed to say anymore about that Bible, but as I can I will let you know. In the meantime, if you need a nice NLT Bible for public use right now, the Premium Slimline Reference may be your best bet.

Tags: NLT

New Living Translation in Spanish (Nueva Traducción Viviente) Coming in 2009

05/10/2007 00:03 Filed in: Faith & Reason

Excerpted from the press release:

Tyndale Español, the Spanish publishing division of Tyndale House Publishers, announces the launch of a new Spanish translation of the Bible—the Nueva Traducción Viviente (NTV). This Spanish counterpart to the New Living Translation (NLT) is being developed by Tyndale Español in partnership with the Luis Palau Association and the Spanish publishing house Editorial Unilit. The Spanish language is considered to be the third most spoken language in the world, and the intent is for the NTV to have the same ministry impact in the Spanish-speaking world that the NLT has in the English-speaking world.

The Nueva Traducción Viviente (NTV) is an entirely new translation of the Bible with roots in the original Hebrew and Greek texts and the style and dynamic approach of the NLT. Phase One of the NTV project was the creation of a Spanish translation from the English NLT and the original Hebrew and Greek texts. The translation went through a rigorous theological, grammatical, and stylistic review under the supervision of Jaime Mirón, Bible Project Director, from the Luis Palau Association in Portland, Oregon. In Phase Two, now in process, the NTV is undergoing an additional theological, linguistic, and stylistic review with emphasis on the original Hebrew and Greek texts. The NTV development is being overseen by Andres Schwartz, Publishing Director of Tyndale Español, and Dan Elliott, Editorial Director of Tyndale House Publishers. Tyndale Español is also working with Melvin Rivera, president of Intermaná, on various projects supporting the release of the NTV. Intermaná is a consulting organization headquartered in Pembroke Pines, Florida, providing global services to reach the Latin world.

Bible Version Cage Match Round 3 Posted at Lingamish

04/18/2007 08:26 Filed in: Faith & Reason

David "Lingamish" Ker has posted round three of our little comparison between the New Living Translation and the Contemporary English Version. In this new installment, David looks at 2 Corinthians 3 giving particular attention to how the text sounds when read aloud. David also provides his own "Lingamish" translation for part of the text as well.

If you are just now tuning into the series, be sure to read Round 1 (also written by David) and Round 2 (written by yours truly).

READ THIS NEXT SENTENCE VERY FAST TO GET THE SENSE OF HOW I INTEND IT TO BE HEARD: And of course, there's still the post out there that was almost Round 3, in which David called his method and motives a scam, but I thought he was referring to the whole series as a scam, and I took great offense because the work on my part was certainly 100% scam-free, but David ~~recanted~~ clarified, and retitled his post removing any indication that the post itself was Round 3 (which it originally was meant to be), and thus proved my point that too much time spent on the Wikipedia can indeed affect one's reason and sound judgment.

Stay tuned because at some point in the near future, Round 4 will be posted here. I haven't selected a passage yet, but if you have suggestions, feel free to post them as long as your motives aren't "scam-motivated."

Tags: NLT, CEV

TNIV Truth: Former ESV Advocate Now Champions TNIV, NLTse

04/11/2007 21:27 Filed in: Faith & Reason

In his recent post, "Just Another ESV Rant," Gary Zimmerli, owner of the Friend of Christ blog says that he's no longer recommending the ESV. From now on, he'll be recommending translations like the TNIV and NLTse.

For the full post, see my latest entry at TNIV Truth.

Tags: TNIV, NLT, ESV

August Konkel Responds to Readers' Comments

03/28/2007 10:52 Filed in: Faith & Reason

In the discussion of Job 16:18-22, comparing the NLT and CEV, I quoted from August Konkel's commentary on Job. Konkel, president and professor of Old Testament at Providence College and Seminary in Canada, is the primary translator of Job in the New Living Translation, and he also wrote the Job commentary in Tyndale's Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, also based on the NLT.

After some questions were asked about the excerpt from the CBC commentary that I included in my post, I emailed Dr. Konkel to see if he would like to respond. Here are his comments that he sent me this morning:

Regarding the corrected translation in the commentary to Job 16:20:

Why would I give a translation I disagree with? Your reader needs to be
a little more familiar with the process of the NLT and its commentaries.
Editing teams reviewed and made stylistically consistent the entire
translation. The NEB would be an example of a similar process when it
was produced. Further, the editing teams worked with two or three
original translations, as is evident if one looks at the introduction of
the NLT. The commentary did not need to agree with the editor's final
decisions. Perhaps I should have done more to explain the reasons for
their decisions.

Regarding concern over Konkel's translation of vv. 20-21:

A more literal rendering of verse 21: "So that He might judge a man in
controversy with God as fairly as he would judge between one man in a
suit with his fellow" (following the BHS footnote in the second half of
the line).

The vav on the hiphil introduces the conclusion of the plea implicit in
v. 20 b.

I did not discuss all the possible interpretations of v. 20, of which
there are many. But a reference to mockers is most disruptive (see
Clines and Gordis). In Job God is both adversary and redeemer. That is
the nature of faith as portrayed by the author. We do not understand
God; we just trust him. In v.20 Job's advocate is God, whom he knows to
be his friend, though he cannot understand how this friend is dealing
with him.

My thanks to Dr. Konkel for responding to these questions. He also stated in his email that he welcomes further discussion.

Tags: Konkel, NLT, Job

Worthy of Note 3/19/2007

03/19/2007 14:13 Filed in: Faith & Reason

Those of you who are interested in issues related to Bible translations, be sure that you don't miss the following:

1. The new TNIV Truth blog. Ben Irwin, former employee of Zondervan, has a must-read post: "TNIV: Basic Idea or Details of Meaning?"
2. Kevin Sam's thoughts on the New Living Translation.
3. Gary at "A Friend of Christ" blog has begun to rethink his position on the TNIV.
4. ElShaddai Edwards examines Genesis 1:28 in the NLTse, HCSB, TNIV, and REB.

Tags: TNIV, NLT, HCSB, REB

How to Distinguish NLT1 from NLTse Bibles at a Glance

03/18/2007 17:58 Filed in: Faith & Reason

In 2004, Tyndale released the second edition of the New Living Translation (commonly abbreviated NLTse). The second edition was not a minor revision as I demonstrated in my review of the NLT. And at the time of my review, a number of people contacted me saying they preferred the original 1996 release, although in general, I would recommend the 2004 second edition. In my opinion, they're both good translations, with slightly different flavors and very significant differences. In upcoming posts, I'm going to demonstrate some more differences between these two editions.

Anyway, I notice now and then when I'm in a bookstore that NLT1 Bibles are still on the shelves, although their numbers are understandably becoming fewer as they are all out of print. Regardless of whether you are looking for a new copy of the NLTse, or if you want to find that specific edition of the NLT1, how can you tell the difference without opening the Bible and looking inside at the copyright page? Well, the answers pretty easy--look at the logo. If you see the squared off logo (shown on the left), it's the NLT1 (1996). If you see the diamond logo (on the right), it's the NLTse (2004).

Tags: NLT, Tyndale

The Bible Version Cage Match: Round Two (NLT vs. CEV: Job 16:18-22)

03/26/2007 02:06 Filed in: Faith & Reason

Pre-Fight Commentary

If you're just tuning in, quickly go read Round One first.

This post is the second in a series suggested a few weeks ago by Lingamish (a.k.a David Ker) to compare the New Living Translation (NLT) to the Contemporary English Version (CEV). Why these two versions? Well, it seems that back in February, Bible translator and blogger Wayne Leman ran some tests on 14 different English translations of the BIble. The goal was to determine which translations best represented current standard English. Only two translations scored in the top ten percentile: the NLT and CEV with scores of 90% and 94%, respectively (which is really, really good if you care to look at how some of the other translations scored).

These kinds of tests are extremely significant because how well a translation represents standard English can determine how well it connects with a reader. Now, I read from multiple translations in comparison with the original languages when I study a passage on my own. But I'm very picky about what translation I use to read aloud in public. And sometimes I will use different ones based on different audiences as well as whether I am teaching (which is more interactive with my audience) or preaching (which is more passive for my audience).

This is a big change for me because up until a couple of years ago, I used the NASB in public probably 90% of the time. Although I love the literalness of the NASB and still use it in private, I came to the conclusion that it just was no longer suitable for general public use. In fact, out of the 14 translations Wayne surveyed, the NASB (which scored a 23%) only had two translations come in lower: the KJV (11%) and the ASV (6%). But I didn't need Wayne's study to convince me of the NASB's public shortcomings, I determined that a couple of years ago when teaching a half-year long study on Romans. I found myself having to translate the NASB's wording to my audience. And generally, a person shouldn't have to translate a translation.

Now, in Round 1, David made this a virtual cage match by including two other Bible versions for reference points--the NIV and Eugene Peterson's The Message. As far as I understand, the rules of this little challenge only applies to comparing the NLT and CEV. But for my supporting translations, I'm going to include the NASB and the original 1996 edition of the NLT. I'm including the NASB because I always feel like responsible study of the Scriptures with the use of translations should employ both literal (or formal) and idiomatic (or dynamic) translations together to give the reader a sense of interpretive balance. I'm including the original edition of the NLT because I'm still sorting through the differences between the 1996 and 2004 editions of the NLT. The second edition was a MAJOR update to the NLT, although it probably wasn't played up to be that quite so much by the publisher, Tyndale. But the second edition of the NLT tends to be less paraphrastic (i.e. more literal), and I've even noticed that it tends to employ active voice more often than the earlier version. The differences between these two editions will not play such a significant role in the passage selected below. To distinguish between the two translations, I will refer to the 1996 edition as NLT1 and the 2004 edition as NLTse.

Then I'm going to throw a fifth player into the cage. Laura Bartlett of Tyndale was kind enough to send me two review copies of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: the volume on Job/Ecclesiastes/Song of Songs and the volume on Matthew & Mark. I'm in the process of trying to evaluate/get a feel for this series, so while the majority of comments will be my own, I may throw in a word or two from the CBC or in this case, August H. Konkel, the writer of the commentary on Job from which I'm taking my passage.

Finally, I've been looking forward to this little series, because in all honesty, I've never used the CEV that much, and I'm glad for the opportunity to better familiarize myself with it.

The Main Event: Job 16:18-22

For my first contribution to these rounds, I followed David's lead and chose an Old Testament poetic passage. Hebrew poetry, rich in idioms and imagery can often be very difficult to translate into another language. A common idiom in one language and culture may be totally lost in a different one. Often an overly literal translation can totally obscure the meaning of a poetic passage, while going to the other extreme can lose the the spirit of the original. To see this played out in another passage in Job, see my post from a while back, "Grinding Another Man's Grain."

Since there are only five verses in this selection, we will look at each one individually with the exception of vv. 20-21.

JOB 16:18
NLTse	CEV
O earth, do not conceal my blood. Let it cry out on my behalf.	If I should die, I beg the earth not to cover my cry for justice.
NLT1	NASB
O earth, do not conceal my blood. Let it cry out on my behalf.	O earth, do not cover my blood, And let there be no resting place for my cry.

Job can be particularly difficult to translate in places, and elements of this passage are no exception. Although I have looked at the Hebrew for these verses, David and I decided to make this series of a non-technical nature, and I won't go into any great detail regarding the original languages. However, this verse is as good as any for demonstrating a peculiarity in the CEV, and that is the lack of parallelism in poetic passages. Old Testament poetic passages don't rhyme words as some English poetry does, but rather it rhymes "thoughts." This is known broadly as parallelism, and the verse numbers given to poetic passages in the Bible usually do an adequate job of keeping these parallel ideas together (as we go, I will refer to lines 1 and 2 as A and B, respectively). But the translators of the CEV made a conscious decision to eliminate the parallelism since this style is fairly foreign in our culture. This makes for paraphrasing in the CEV on a much greater scale in poetic passages than in other places because the translators have to determine the main idea of the parallel thoughts and condense them to one thought. Certainly this makes for renderings that are easier to understand by 21st century readers of English, but many will feel that something of the core of Hebrew poetry is lost.

Having said all that, the CEV does a fairly adequate job of reflecting the ideas of both lines in v. 18. In the original structure, line A is a plea to the earth itself--not just the planet, but the very dirt from which we all came and to which we all return. Job feels that he has been served an injustice, not only in the incredible loss he has experienced, but also in the accusations from his so-called friends. Such injustice should not go unnoticed or forgotten, so he cries out to the very earth itself, which will one day cover his body, that his "blood"--that is, his life (or the loss of it) because he assumes that his own death may actually be the next step in his tragic events--will be remembered. The NLT renders line A fairly literally. Line B is not so easily understood. The NASB provides the word "resting" to create a connection to line A, but this may or may not be accurate. What's key here is Job's cry--that the very earth will cry out on his behalf as the NLT somewhat puts it. Although not in parallel form, the CEV quite accurately captures the ultimate idea found in the verse with "If I should die, I beg the earth not to cover my cry for justice," although again, this is somewhat paraphrased as justice is not specifically mentioned but assumed.

JOB 16:19
NLTse	CEV
Even now my witness is in heaven. My advocate is there on high.	Even now, God in heaven is both my witness and my protector.
NLT1	NASB
Even now my witness is in heaven. My advocate is there on high.	Even now, behold, my witness is in heaven, And my advocate is on high.

Verse 19 moves the reader to the court in heaven where the Satan of the first two chapters of Job acted in the role of the individual bringing the charge against Job. Although the story of Job never gives any indication that Job was privy to the non-earthly events of chs. 1-2, Job nevertheless acknowledges that he has a defense attorney (to use the modern title) appearing in that same court of heaven on his behalf. We would think of a witness and an advocate (two very closely related words in the Hebrew) as two separate roles in a court of law today, but for Job, these are one and the same person.

Again, here the NLT is fairly literal--this time in both lines. Witness parallels advocate and heaven parallels on high. The CEV inserts the idea that it is God himself who is Job's known defender. God in his omniscience knows the truth about Job's circumstances contrary to the claims of his earthly accusers. This is not necessarily a wrong assertion, but leaves less room for a specifically Christian interpretation of Jesus as mediator such as that found in 1 Tim 2:5, "For there is only one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus" (NLT) or 1 John 2:1, "But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate who pleads our case before the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the one who is truly righteous" (NLT). Nevertheless, the CEV's insertion of God is in keeping with Konkel's correction (CBC) to the NLT translation in v. 20 (see quote below).

As mentioned above, the NLT's rendering of witness and advocate come from two words that are only slightly different and both of which essentially mean "witness," although many translations will use a word such as advocate for the second word for stylistic purposes in English. The CEV's use of protector for the second word may be a bit of an overstatement. If the idea of a protector may be reflected in some inherent meaning, I could not find reference to such in two lexicons I referenced.

JOB 16:20-21
NLTse	CEV
My friends scorn me, but I pour out my tears to God. I need someone to mediate between God and me, as a person mediates between friends.	My friends have rejected me, but God is the one I beg to show that I am right, just as a friend should.
NLT1	NASB
My friends scorn me, but I pour out my tears to God. Oh, that someone would mediate between God and me, as a person mediates between friends.	My friends are my scoffers; My eye weeps to God. O that a man might plead with God As a man with his neighbor!

I am treating vv. 20-21 together because the CEV condenses the two verses to one sentence as seen in the table above. The CEV translators may have taken this route because v. 20 is one of those notoriously difficult verses to translate that I've already mentioned. August Konkel, in the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on Job, makes these remarks which will no doubt be of interest to some of my readers:

The uncertainties of the flow of thought and the ambiguity of the vocabulary of this verse have led to various translations. The older English versions (KJV, RSV) are followed by some more recent versions (NRSV, NLT) in moving the thought back to mocking friends in contrast to the advocate before God in heaven. This, however seems to be an unwarranted disruption of thought. Job has declared that his advocate is in heaven (16:19), and his weeping eyes look to this advocate to defend his case with God (16:20b-21). It is unlikely the intervening line refers to mocking (assuming that melitsay is a participial form of the verb lits... . It is more probably the verse continues the thought of an advocate (melits), the same sense of the word used by Elihu (33:23). The problem then is the identity of the advocate. Rather than meaning "friend," rea'...may be an Aramaic loan word meaning "thought" or "intention" (Koehler and Baumgartner 4:1171). The latter word is assumed in the Gr. translation and various modern versions (REB, NJB): the argument (or prayer) of Job will act as an advocate for him. This would be the same thought Job expressed earlier (13:15-16): his salvation would be that he could make his case before God so that truth might prevail. However, Job was advancing that thought in his speech. If truth is to prevail, there must be a witness to the truth. That witness is in heaven (16:19), and that witness can be none other than God, for he alone knows the whole truth. In tears Job looks to God (16:20), for God is the advocate in heaven who must plead his case. Rather than "my friends mock me," we must translate "my advocate is my Friend." Though God has treated Job as an enemy, Job declares that God is yet his friend and will defend his case (16:21). Job's faith advances as the dialogue progresses [p. 118].

A comment about 20b: the NLT is fairly literal in a number of points in this passage, but the translators chose not to be quite so literal here as the NASB's "My eye weeps to God." While this image might work fine in Hebrew thinking, in Western thought eyes don't weep. Eyes shed tears; people weep. Perhaps one might think I'm splitting hairs or that the Hebrew writer was creating a personification of the eye representing the whole person. Nevertheless, even the KJV opts to avoid over-literalness here with "but mine eye poureth out tears unto God" (the reader will remember that italicized words in the KJV represent those words added to the text for clarity." The NLT's "but I pour out my tears to God" probably communicates the idea best to today's readers, but admittedly lacks some of the rhythm found in the KJV.

Verse 21 is the only place in this passage where the NLT1 differs from the NLTse. The NLT1's exclamation beginning with "Oh" follows the Tyndale tradition, but probably doesn't reflect the Hebrew best. The matter of fact rendering of the NLTse probably best represents the spirit of the original. Job simply states that he needs a mediator! Interesting side point: the original uses son of man (ben-’adam) in line B as a parallel, but very few translations (cf. ASV) have ever translated it as such.

JOB 16:22
NLTse	CEV
For soon I must go down that road from which I will never return.	Because in only a few years, I will be dead and gone.
NLT1	NASB
For soon I must go down that road from which I will never return.	For when a few years are past, I shall go the way of no return.

If there was any doubt as to whether Job feared death was approaching, v. 22 makes it clear that he feared his life was the only thing he had yet to give. The NLT is not overly literal here, and in fact, borrows road from line B and moves it to line A. Nevertheless, the Hebrew idiom of a "road of no return" is well retained. The CEV, on the other hand, seems a bit too unpoetic with it's plain "Because in only a few years, I will be dead and gone."

And the winner is...

Both the NLT and the CEV faithfully deliver the essence of the message of Job 16:18-22 in their versions. The CEV's attempt at combining vv. 20-21 is somewhat understandable considering the difficulty of v. 20, for which even Tyndale's Cornerstone Biblical Commentary makes a correction to the NLT text. Nevertheless, if I'm reffing this cage match, I'm going to proclaim the NLT the winner for not only presenting the text in a very readable style by today's standards (as does the CEV) but also for holding a bit closer to the style, form, and idiom of the original more often.

Tags: NLT, CEV, Job

Bible Version Cage Match Coming Soon

03/05/2007 23:01 Filed in: Faith & Reason

The Bible Version Cage Match is coming.

New Living Translation vs. Contemporary English Version

Check this space later in the week.

In the meantime, be sure to read round one over at Lingamish.

Tags: NLT, CEV

Tyndale House Checks In

01/05/2007 00:05 Filed in: Faith & Reason

A few weeks ago in December, Laura Bartlett, Bible Marketing Manager for Tyndale House Publishers contacted me regarding my review of the New Living Translation. Below are some highlights from our email correspondence that I thought might be of interest to the Bible translation aficionados who frequent this site.

First of all, Tyndale offers a nifty booklet, Text and Product Preview of the New Living Translation that provides an overview of the translation philosophy behind the NLT and sample text. You can get this mailed to you for free simply by requesting one from Laura Bartlett. Email her at LauraBartlett@tyndale.com. The Text and Product Preview is more in depth than anything at the Tyndale House NLT website. Here's a list of subjects from the Table of Contents:

- What People Are Saying About the New Living Translation
- Bible Translation Team
- Questions and Answers
- New Living Translation compared with the King James Version
- New Living Translation compared with the New King James Version
- New Living Translation compared with the New International Version

Following the above topics comes 30 pages of texts from the Old and New Testaments. What's really interesting about these sample passages are the "Distinctive Features of the NLT" section at the end of each text. This is a commentary of sorts that explains translational decisions in the NLT often in comparison with more traditional translations. For my interests, this is one of the most intriguing parts of the booklet. It allows the reader to step inside the mind of the translation committee in the context of the scriptural passages.

Regarding my original review of the NLT, Laura Bartlett corrected my reference to the second edition of the NLT (2004) as the "NLT2." The correct abbreviation, I was told, is NLTse. Actually, I know that, but when comparing the first and second editions of the translation, it seems to make sense to use NLT1 and NLT2. Otherwise, what do you call the first (1996) edition? To simply use NLT would be misleading since it can refer to either version.

I asked her about the mysterious "New Translation" released by Tyndale in 1990, six years before the NLT. I had always been under the assumption that the New Translation was an early version of the NLT. No so. Bartlett explained:

Although Ken Taylor was the primary translator, the New Translation does not have much to do with either the Living Bible or the New Living Translation. It was a project of Dr. Taylor's which he was working on with scholars simultaneous with but independent of the work that the 90 scholars on the NLT translation committee were doing on the NLT. Dr. Taylor's passion was understandable, usable, trustworthy rendering of Scripture, so he worked on translation projects for most of his life, this being one of them. This was really a new work, not based on the Living Bible. It was a scholarly translation of the epistles on which he had a lot of input from other scholars. As the NLT was in progress already as a full Bible, I believe that not many copies of the New Translation were ever distributed.

I still believe the NLT Notemaker's Bible is the best layout I've ever seen for a wide-margin Bible of any translation, but unfortunately it was NLT1 and therefore out of print. I asked if there was a wide-margin edition in the works for the NLT2 but was told that there's no plan for one currently. That's a shame. I firmly believe that if Bible publishers want people to really study, teach and preach from a translation, there needs to be editions available for those who wish to include their own notes.

Short of a wide-margin edition, I asked which of the many NLTse Bibles out there would be suitable for preaching. Laura Bartlett suggested two. First, the Personal Size Large Print. Of this edition she says that "It's a nice size for carrying and the large print makes it easier to read if it's sitting on a pulpit." Another suggestion is the Large Print Slimline Reference Bible. "It's available in LeatherLike in addition to the bonded leather--I think LeatherLike has a better feel than bonded--more like genuine leather. But the font is a little bit smaller than the Personal Size LP. 'Large Print' isn't printed on the cover, just the box it comes in, which is also nice."

One final note. I mentioned in my earlier review of the New Living Translation that it is the Bible of choice for my wife Kathy. Her primary Bible for study and carrying to church is an NLT1 Life Application Bible. She has not yet warmed to the NLTse. So when I got the package from Laura Bartlett, I could feel that there was a Bible inside. I naturally assumed that it was for me--perks of blogging and all! However, it turned out to be a burgundy leather copy of the Life Application Bible in the NLTse not for me but as described in the accompanying note "an 'update' for Kathy." That was an extremely thoughtful gift for her and attentive to the remarks in my review. Thanks, Laura.

Tags: NLT, Tyndale

Grinding Another Man's Grain

10/20/2006 15:49 Filed in: Faith & Reason

Collecting translations of the Bible is an old hobby of mine, and I often write about the differences between them on THIS LAMP [yes, my series on my favorite translations will resume soon--next week, in fact, for the GNB). Different versions of the Bible use different translation philosophies and attempt to meet specific goals. One decision that any translation committee must make relates to how literal vs. how free to render a passage. As I suggested in my blog entry from earlier in the week, "This Is Why," often very literal translations have difficulty communicating metaphors, imagery and idioms because in these types of literary constructions, meaning is not always deducible merely from the individual words.

Consider, for example, a passage I came across today while preparing a talk I'll be giving tomorrow morning to the men at my church. Since we won't be in mixed company, I'm going to address the growing issue of internet pornography. I'm using Job 31:1-4 as my opening text. But in looking at that passage in the context of the whole chapter, I was struck by the way various translations handle Job 31:9-10:

Job 31:9-10
NASB	TNIV	NLT
If my heart has been enticed by a woman, Or I have lurked at my neighbor’s doorway, May my wife grind for another, And let others kneel down over her.	If my heart has been enticed by a woman, or if I have lurked at my neighbor’s door, then may my wife grind another man’s grain, and may other men sleep with her.	If my heart has been seduced by a woman, or if I have lusted for my neighbor’s wife, then let my wife belong to another man; let other men sleep with her.

The three translations shown above represent the translational scale from fairly literal on the left to fairly free on the right with the TNIV right in the middle. Notice that in the second line of v. 9, the metaphor is not only retained quite well in the NASB, but also in the TNIV which renders it almost identically. In regard to faithfulness to one's wife, what would it mean to "lurk at my neighbor's doorway"? The imagery is very specific because it's not the same as "entering my neighbor's house" which would imply something far more. The NLT, therefore, spells it out for the reader: "I have lusted for my neighbor's wife." This translation is not unfaithful to the meaning of the idiom, but the idiom itself has been lost.

Verse 10 is even more remarkable and also relates to my post from last Sunday. Job is essentially saying, "If I have even looked lustfully at another woman besides my wife..." (remember the context of Job 31:1), "may she be given to other men in turn." But would one get that meaning from the NASB's rendering, "May my wife grind for another / And let others kneel down over her"? The wording in the NASB is technically correct, but the over-literalness of the rendering may not communicate the meaning to the average reader. In fact, "May my wife grind for another," might even be inferred as lust, although the actual meaning is much stronger. "And let others kneel down over her" is certainly a very graphic idiom depicting the sexual act, but how clear is that to the modern reader? In fact, to utilize one our modern idioms, you would almost have to have your mind in the gutter to understand 10b at all in the NASB.

On the other extreme is the NLT's removal of the idiom altogether with "then let my wife belong to another man; let other men sleep with her." Again, this rendering is not incorrect, but it loses the cleverness of the phrase so skillfully captured in the TNIV's "then let my wife grind another man's grain." The way this is worded in the TNIV the reader can read it, perhaps read it a second time, and after raising an eyebrow or two, really get the picture of what Job was saying. Even though the idea of "grinding another man's grain" is not an idiom contemporary to our culture, it should still be understandable to the average reader today because of the way the TNIV words it. The NASB's "May my wife grind for another" is too obscure in its literalness.

Essentially, each line in 31:9-10 contains its own idiom--even v. 9a, but we use heart in connection with affection even today, so even the NLT essentially retains the original wording here and rightly so. The idiom in 9b is retained in the NASB and the TNIV, but not in the NLT. The idiom in 10a is kept in the NASB, TNIV, but not in the NLT, but is only clearly intelligible in the TNIV because the NASB is overly literal. 10b's idiom is only retained in the NASB, but because it is not an idiom used in our culture and because of the NASB's over-literalness, it's meaning is mostly lost.

Personally, I like the cleverness of idioms when I can use them in a Bible study setting. I can't fault the NLT for inaccuracy in these two verses, but I feel like something from the text's literary power is lost in making everything so plain to us. For Job to state the words about his wife seem harsh enough as it is (they didn't seem to have a lot of affection for each other throughout the whole story), but it's even colder in the NLT. The TNIV seems to find the best happy medium for this passage by leaving three of the four idioms intact and not translating them too literally.

Side note: to be fair to the NLT, the translators do not always flatten out the meaning of idioms. For instance, Judges 14:18, "If you hadn't plowed with my heifer, you wouldn't have solved my riddle!" will be understandable to most regardless of one's agricultural background!

Tags: Job, TNIV, NLT, NASB

Inconsistency

08/26/2006 21:12 Filed in: Books & Literature

James Dobson repudiates the TNIV translation because of its use of gender accuracy in texts where the context is clearly aimed at males and females together. Meanwhile, Dobson's organization Focus on the Family is offering a book containing photography from Mel Gibson's movie The Passion which quotes biblical passages exclusively from the New Living Translation (NLT) in English (accompanied by Latin and Aramaic). The NLT is a translation that also renders passages using gender-accurate methods. Focus on the Family is asking for a $25 donation in order to receive the book ($16.49 at Amazon.com).

The question is this: Why is the NLT okay, but not the TNIV?

Tags: TNIV, NLT

Biblical Typography: Brian Sooy's Contribution to the History of the Printed Bible

08/20/2006 14:44 Filed in: Technology

No two ways about it, the Bible is a large book. Publishers go out of their way to get around this fact with thinline, compact, and personal size Bibles. Another way they fudge on the size is to use a narrowed typeface. Of course, often this sacrifices readability for a smaller footprint.

A few weeks back when I wrote my review of the New Living Translation, I demonstrated how much more wordy the second edition is over the first by displaying Genesis 1 from both editions in parallel columns. Also making the second edition more text-heavy than the first, according to the NLT website, were the "Many marginal notes ... added to help the reader study manuscript differences and to show the relationship between a literal translation and the rendering in the NLT." All of this makes for a potentially larger Bible. In fact, between more words in the text and added marginal notes, the NLT2 is 10% longer than the NLT1!

Faced with this reality, Tyndale publishers turned to Brian Sooy, creator of the Veritas typeface found in most ESV Bibles and two editions of the earlier 1996 edition of the New Living Translation. Sooy worked with famed calligrapher, Timothy Botts to design a brand new typeface. As stated in "From Genesis to Revelation: Lucerna," we read:

Like any design project, this one had a brief with some technical criteria, to help define and solve the design problem.

• Achieve a better character count (to maximize space and ultimately save paper)
• Eliminate artificial condensing of standard fonts (such as ITC Giovanni).
• Have visual similarities to ITC Giovanni, by Robert Slimbach.
• Make the font "stronger"
• Achieve as good as or better character count than ITC Weidemann or Century Old Style.
• Achieve better character count while maintaining readability.

Tim Botts said afterwards: "I was especially jazzed with the way the new One Year Bible turned out -- a 10% longer text in a stronger typeface -- yielding the same page count! To think we competed with Century OS and Weidemann -- and I think -- won."

We chose some key characters to design with similarities to ITC Giovanni - which Tyndale has been using for many Bibles, condensed 10% for space savings. This was also to show design management that the font would have that warm and friendly look that they had come to appreciate with Giovanni, and that they didn't want to lose. Overall Lucerna has its own character and visual appeal, with limited influence by ITC Giovanni.

So the font is a design solution to these technical and aesthetic considerations. Lucerna has indeed yielded printing/paper savings for Tyndale due to its space-saving design and should prove highly legible for the targeted demographic readers.

Sooy himself named the font. They played around with the name "Tyndale Book," but ultimately chose Lucerna because it is Latin for "lamp" and seemed to go along with Psalm 119:105-- “Your word is a lamp to guide my feet and a light for my path” (NLT). The graphics displayed a few paragraphs above were the best I could find to demonstrate the look and style of both Lucerna and Veritas. However, you can also see them simply by referring to actual copies of the ESV and NLT second edition.

While recently visiting the history of the Bible exhibit, Ink & Blood (see my review here), Sooy had a surreal moment. As he toured through the antique Bibles, some of which resulted in martyrs' deaths, Sooy realized that he, too, had managed a contribution to the history of the English Bible:

What struck me the most as I stood looking at the Bibles, reading the stories of the translators, and considering their impact on history – is that nobody was trying to kill me (that I know of) or persecute me (other than the left-wing side of the political spectrum) for contributing to publishing a Bible.

It seemed to me to be a strange culmination of events: I had purchased my first Macintosh (The SE30) in 1990, and released my first typeface intended for Bibles in 1995 (Veritas). Seven years later, I began Lucerna, and the first Bibles typeset in it were released in 2004.

It's difficult to describe the sensation I had while standing in the middle of all this history. The Lucerna Project was significant both personally and professionally, and I am aware that I have been given the opportunity to contribute to the history of the Bible. But why me? I'll always be grateful for the opportunity.

Both the Lucerna and Veritas typefaces are clear and easy to read. These are much better than the narrowed fonts that are in some Bibles, especially thinlines. As I said at the beginning of this post, the Bible is a big book. I hope that publishers will remember that not every Bible coming off the press has to necessarily be a thinline or a compact Bible. There are lots of us out here who don't mind carrying a larger Bible if that means that the text will not be crowded and the pages will not be too thin to write our notes on.

I note that the Veritas font is available for purchase, but Lucerna is not. Veritas was created independently with Bibles in mind, but Lucerna was created under contract for Tyndale. Nevertheless, I wonder how easy it would be to use a font like Veritas (cost = $75) and simply print my own wide-margin Bible. The idea seems more appealing everyday...

For Further Reading:
• "From Genesis to Revelation: Lucerna"
• "From Parchment to Postscript" (Design Matters Blog)
• "Outreach Edition Font" (ESV Blog)

HT: "Picking the Font for the NLTse" (Andrew Dodson's Blog)

Photo of Brian Sooy borrowed from http://www.flickr.com/photos/69297311@N00/sets/654658/

Tags: NLT, ESV

The NLT's Use of the Dead Sea Scrolls

08/02/2006 12:31 Filed in: Faith & Reason

In writing the previous blog entry on the HCSB’s use of "guy," I happened to notice a rather large block of text appended in brackets to 1 Sam 10:27 in the New Living Translation:

[Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the people of Gad and Reuben who lived east of the Jordan River. He gouged out the right eye of each of the Israelites living there, and he didn’t allow anyone to come and rescue them. In fact, of all the Israelites east of the Jordan, there wasn’t a single one whose right eye Nahash had not gouged out. But there were 7,000 men who had escaped from the Ammonites, and they had settled in Jabesh-gilead.]

I should note that the above addition to the text is in found the second edition of the NLT (2004) and not the first (1996). There is a footnote attached to this additional text that reads, “This paragraph, which is not included in the Masoretic Text, is found in Dead Sea Scroll 4QSam^a.”

Since I can search the notes of the NLT using Accordance, I found that there are around two dozen instances in the 2004 edition in which the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are given preference over the Masoretic Text (MT): Deut 31:1; 32:8 32:43; 1 Sam 1:24; 2:20; 2:33; 2 Sam 6:7; 12:14; 22:36; 22:43; Isa 3:24; 14:4; 15:9; 21:8; 33:8; 37:20; 37:25; 37:27; 45:2; 49:12; 49:24; and 51:19. There are also a number of references that compare readings in the MT to the DSS although the former is favored.

From what I found in my search, the only extensive addition to the OT text from the DSS is the one in 1Sam 10 quoted above. But it begs the question as to whether Bible translations are moving further away from sole dependence on the Masoretic Text. A number of contemporary translations give alternate readings from the DSS, but I don't remember if I've ever come across such a major extension to the text of the Old Testament except for the NLT2 and the NRSV (in the same passage). From a theological perspective, there would be issues of inspiration and canonicity to wrangle with, too. Obviously, for the NLT translators to include this passage, they must assume that it was part of the original canonical text.

And less dependence on the MT also makes one wonder if it's not time to create an eclectic Hebrew OT text, much like the Greek New Testaments that are in use today. With some of the DSS manuscripts well over a millennium older than the MT, at the very least they should be given serious consideration as the NLT translators have done.

Redacted 08/05/2006

Tags: NLT, DSS, Accordance

Heads-Up: NLT Wide-Margins on the Cheap

07/31/2006 12:12 Filed in: Faith & Reason

A few weeks when I wrote my review on the New Living Translation, a number of folks contacted me privately saying that they preferred the first edition of the NLT (1996) over the second edition (2004). While the NLT1 is still on store shelves (I saw some just last week at two different stores), obviously, once they are gone, there will be no more coming.

Personally, when it comes to Bibles, I'm a huge fan of generous wide-margins for taking notes. I would rather create my own notes through personal study than carry someone else's notes with me. Currently, I use a wide-margin NASB for personal study notes and wide-margin a HCSB for teaching notes. It's worth mentioning that a couple of weeks ago Crossway released a really nice edition of the ESV called the Journaling Bible which gives abundant space for notes (if you don't mind the tiny 7 pt print).

Sometime soon, I think I'll write a blog entry detailing the current offerings of wide-margin Bibles, organized by translation. In the meantime, I should mention to you fans of the New Living Translation (first edition) that Christian Book Distributors currently has a great deal on what I would assume to be close-out copies of The Notemaker's Bible: Wide-Margin Edition. You can even choose between black bonded leather ($14.99 instead of the regular $49.99), burgundy bonded leather (also $14.99 instead of $49.99) and the hardback at an incredible $7.99 (down from $24.99). At those prices, even if you merely wanted a copy of the NLT1 for reference, this would be a good choice. It also makes a great choice as a backup if you prefer the NLT1 over the NLT2.

If you've never seen Tyndale NLT Notemaker's Bible, I can tell you that it's really nice. In fact, I would dare say, it's one of the nicest wide-margin Bibles I've ever seen. One of my former students carried one regularly and so I've seen one firsthand. I wish I had a page spread to show you here, but I cannot find one online. However, the Notemaker's Bible has a generous 1 1/2" margin on the sides for notes and an incredible two inches of lined space at the bottom for journaling. The text is in a single-column format (which I prefer for a wide-margin Bible) and I don't know the exact type-size, but it's definitely larger than your average reference Bible and easy on the eyes. The pages are also thick enough that reasonable note-taking shouldn't bleed through. Words of Christ are in black (which I prefer). If you prefer leather over hardback, Tyndale has really improved the quality of their leather--even bonded leather--in recent years, and the Notemaker's Bible is no exception. This is a quality-made Bible that will last a long time.

Currently, there are no wide-margin editions available for the second edition of the NLT.

And before you ask, no--neither Tyndale, nor CBD sends me any royalties! I just thought this was a really good deal and figured I'd share it.

Tags: NLT, Wide-Margin

Bible Bias: An Observed Double-Standard

07/08/2006 01:36 Filed in: Faith & Reason

Kathy and I have been in Louisiana all week visiting family. Yesterday morning, after having breakfast with an old friend, I wandered into a local independent Christian bookstore and browsed the shelves for a few minutes. Having worked in three Christian bookstores over the years, including one in my hometown where I was visiting, I'm always interested in what's new, what's selling, and what's not.

I eventually made my way over to the Bibles. Pretty standard stuff--they had lots of copies of the NIV, KJV, NLT, NASB, HCSB, the Message, a few ESVs, and a small representation of the NAB. One recent translation I noticed absent from the shelves was the Today's New International Version. More out of curiosity than anything else, I asked the more authoritative-looking person working in the store if they carried any copies of the TNIV. She said they didn't have any in stock, but could order anything I wanted. Of course, I wasn't in the market anyway, already having two copies and inquiring simply out of curiosity, so I thanked her, but said it wasn't necessary.

Then, as if to try to demonstrate some knowledge regarding the TNIV, she added that they had received a few copies of the TNIV, but in "polling" (whatever that meant), the local pastors, the TNIV proved too controversial and was viewed with negative criticism. Therefore, they opted not to carry any copies, but she reminded me that any edition could be special ordered.

I looked again at the shelves and saw stacks and stacks of the original NIV, the NLT and the Message. Exactly what in the TNIV was so controversial? Was it the fact that the TNIV is not a formal-equivalent version of the Bible? If so, neither were the majority of the Bibles on the store's shelves. Was it the use of inclusive language for humans when the context of the audience was both male and female? Then why carry the New Living Translation and the Message, both of which do the same thing? Was it because the NIV is so firmly entrenched that people are resistant to any revision--in spite of the fact, that the TNIV is only 7% different from the NIV, and most of the changes are a vast improvement in terms of translational accuracy? Not to mention the fact that the TNIV is often less dynamic in places than its predecessor.

I knew the answer, of course. It was the second option regarding the firestorm of criticism over the use of gender-inclusive--or gender-accurate (the term preferred by the TNIV translation committee)--language. But this is such a double-standard. The NLT in both the 1996 and 2004 editions have used inclusive language, and it far outsells the TNIV. The CBA sales results for July, 2006, show the NLT as the #4 best-selling Bible version while the TNIV isn't even in the top ten:

I find it disheartening to see a good translation like the TNIV suffer from a smear-campaign of misinformation even in my hometown. Maybe that's strong sentiment, but I don't know how else to explain why the TNIV would be shunned while the NLT would be embraced, when they both contain the same supposed controversial features. Why would a store not carry the TNIV because of inclusive language, but continue to carry the New Living Translation, the Message, the Good News Bible, the New American Bible, and the New Revised Standard Version? I simply don't understand.

To that effect, I very politely said to the woman running the store that anything controversial in the TNIV is also found in the New Living Translation. She shrugged her shoulders and said, "You're right, but some people can't even let go of the King James Version yet." She's correct, of course, but as we approach the 400th anniversary of the KJV, maybe it's time for us to move on..regarding a lot of things...

Tags: Translations, TNIV, NLT

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.

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.

Tags: NLT

The New Living Translation (Top Ten Bible Versions #4)

06/23/2006 09:26 Filed in: Faith & Reason

Series note: My early hunch had been that as I got further into this series, the postings would become shorter. Frankly, I don't use the BIbles later in the list as much as I use the earlier ones. And I also assumed this post--the one on the New Living Translation--would mark the point where the entries began to shrink. However, I was mistaken. In the process of reflecting and taking a fresh look at the NLT, I became aware at how little I realized the massive number of changes made between the 1996 and 2004 editions. Whereas before, I had in mind one entity known as the NLT, I now realize that these two editions are quite different. I admit I was simply unaware; I had not been keeping up. Therefore, the focus of this entry is no longer merely on the NLT itself, but a substantial portion of it makes note of the changes made between the first and second editions. And of course, I don't feel that I can ignore some of the history leading up to the NLT, so that's included as well. I have considered breaking this entry up into two or even three parts, but in the end decided it was best left as a single piece.

A reminder that this series is not just a collection of reviews, but more importantly a very subjective take on these Bible versions, including my personal history with them.

Edition designations: I have seen the second edition of the New Living Translation referred to as the NLTse and NLT2. In this blog entry, when referring to the 1996 edition, I will use NLT1; and for the 2004 edition, NLT2. When simply referring to the New Living Translation in general, I will use NLT.

The other day, I noticed the elderly lady sitting in front of me at church was carrying a rather unusual looking black Bible. The Bibles people carry always interest me. When we stood to sing, I leaned over and noticed that the black Bible she was carrying was actually one of the original green padded Living BIbles from a generation ago. The Bible had received so much use over the years that it had turned from green to black! Such devotion is characteristic of what the Living Bible meant to a number of people. I've seen similarly worn Living Bibles used by my grandmother, my father, and Kathy's grandmother.

Kenneth Taylor's "Living" Legacy. Supposedly, the Living Bible came from Kenneth Taylor's desire to produce a version of the Bible that his children would understand. The Bible he produced was not a translation from the original languages, but rather a paraphrase, specifically of the 1901 American Standard Version. The complete Bible was published in 1971. For many people, Kenneth Taylor's Living Bible simply spoke their language. It made the Bible real to them and come alive. Complain all you want about the deficiencies of a paraphrase, this is the Bible that many people were willing to read. The Living Bible held the distinction of being the first Bible version to knock the King James Version out of the top spot in monthly Bible sales. Although it was not able to maintain this dominance, it's brief time in the top spot testifies to is acceptance and significance. The Living Bible would remain in the top ten list of Bibles sold, usually in the top five, until it was replaced by Tyndale with the New Living Translation in 1996.

Billy Graham called the Living Bible "the world's greatest evangelist." I've seen firsthand evidence to that declaration. When I was in college in the late eighties, I worked in a small Christian bookstore. Tyndale House Publishers, the publisher of the Living Bible, sent us a display with free samples from their forthcoming Life Application Bible. These were simply gospels of Mark in the Living Bible with the Life Application notes at the bottom of the page. Over the weeks I had worked at the store, I became acquainted with our mail carrier. From our brief conversations, I gathered that he was probably not a believer, had a bit of a rocky past including a number of failed marriages, and there were hints that alcohol had been a recurring problem in his life. While he was in the store one afternoon, he asked if he could take a copy of the Life Application Gospel of Mark with him. The next day, he came into our store absolutely beaming. He said that after he had made his last mail run on the previous day, he went to a diner and began reading the Gospel of Mark in the Living Bible over dinner. He told me that the words seemed to seize him and he couldn't put it down. Sitting in that diner, he read the entire gospel AND the Life Application notes. Feeling overpowering conviction of the Holy Spirit, and convinced that Jesus had died for his sins, he prayed to receive Christ all by himself in the diner that night. Rarely have I ever heard of people coming to Christ in settings where they were all alone. But in a sense, he was not alone. He said that he had never been able to understand the Bible before he read it in the Living Bible paraphrase. I kept up with him over the next three or so years until we moved. From my observances, his conversion was very real and life-changing.

I never used the Living Bible much, although very early on I had a Children's Living Bible (the text was the same, but color pictures were added) that my grandmother gave me. As I've said elsewhere I rarely carried it to church because I was embarrassed of the word "children" on the cover. However, two uses of the original Living Bible stick out in my memory. First, on the number of occasions when I actually did carry it to church, it was often used as a distraction during a boring sermon by looking up 1 Samuel 20:30 (which was definitely rendered into contemporary English) and snickering with my buddies sitting beside me. Later printings of the Living Bible put the offending phrase down into the footnotes.

My most significant use of the Living Bible came, when as a child in Sunday School, I left church absolutely baffled after our study of Romans 7. Verses 14-20, a mental tongue-twister in most translations, really confused my childlike mind. When I got home, I opened the King James Version (which I had in class) alongside the Living Bible and the light bulbs went off.

ROMANS 7:14-20
King James Version	Living Bible
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.	14 The law is good, then, and the trouble is not there with me, but because I am sold into slavery with Sin as my owner. 15 I don't understand myself at all, for I really want to do what is right, but I can't. I do what I don't want to--what I hate. 16 I know perfectly well that what I am doing is wrong, and my bad conscience proves that I agree with these laws I am breaking. 17 But I can't help myself, because I'm no longer doing it. It is sin inside me that is stronger than I am that makes me do these evil things. 18 I know I am rotten through and through so far as my old nature is concerned. No matter which way I turn I can't make myself do right. I want to but I can't. 19 When I want to do good, I don't; and when I try not to do wrong, I do it anyway. 20 Now if I am doing what I don't want to, it is plain where the trouble is: sin still has me in its evil grasp.

ROMANS 7:14-20

King James Version

Living Bible

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

14 The law is good, then, and the trouble is not there with me, but because I am sold into slavery with Sin as my owner.
15 I don't understand myself at all, for I really want to do what is right, but I can't. I do what I don't want to--what I hate.
16 I know perfectly well that what I am doing is wrong, and my bad conscience proves that I agree with these laws I am breaking.
17 But I can't help myself, because I'm no longer doing it. It is sin inside me that is stronger than I am that makes me do these evil things.
18 I know I am rotten through and through so far as my old nature is concerned. No matter which way I turn I can't make myself do right. I want to but I can't.
19 When I want to do good, I don't; and when I try not to do wrong, I do it anyway.
20 Now if I am doing what I don't want to, it is plain where the trouble is: sin still has me in its evil grasp.

Not only did I understand the passage and was able to apply the Living Bible text back to the King James version, but I also discoverd the value of studying the Bible with translations in parallel--a practice that I continue to this day.

One final note about the Living Bible... As I was preparing to write this blog entry, I pulled my copy of the Living Bible off the shelf to re-familiarize myself with its tone and feel. The copy I have with my collection of English Bible translations is not the green padded hardback with which most people are familiar, but rather a black imitation leather text edition. I purchased this Bible around two decades ago as one of the early items added to my collection. Upon looking at the title page, I was surprised to see something I had never noticed before:

THE
LIVING
BIBLE

PARAPHRASED
A Thought-for-Thought Translation

I had never paid attention to the line that reads "A Thought-for-Thought Translation." I find this interesting for two reasons. One has to do with recent discussions (see here and here) trying to distinguish how a paraphrase differs from a translation. I find it interesting that at some point the publishers began defining a paraphrase as a thought-for-thought translation. I don't think (but someone else will have to verify) that this line was used in the green hardbacks. Is calling a paraphrase a thought-for-thought translation a contradiction in terms? I also found it interesting that the very phrase "A Thought-for-Thought Translation" is now used as a marketing description for the New Living Translation, which is never referred to as a paraphrase, although it undoubtedly includes elements of paraphrase here and there.

I've only heard this secondhand from one of the NLT translators, but supposedly in the eighties, Kenneth Taylor had a strong desire to update the Living Bible. Unable to complete the task himself, his son Mark Taylor convinced him to turn the reigns over to a translation committee. The end product of that effort would, of course, be the New Living Translation.

However, before discussing the NLT, it might be worth noting that in 1990, Tyndale published a text simply known as The New Translation that included Romans through Jude (this corresponds to Taylor's Living Letters, the first portion of the Living Bible published in 1962). The copyright is held by "The Society for the New Translation." As of yet, I have not been able to determine exactly how the New Translation relates to the NLT or if the translation committees are the same. But a number of this text's features stand out.

In the preface, written by Ken Taylor, he notes first of all that the New Translation is translated from the Greek; and thus, it's not merely a paraphrase of an earlier version like the Living Bible was in regard to the ASV. Second, Taylor notes that the New Translation will go back to the method of using italics to identify words added to the text for meaning in English (always a bad practice in my opinion since modern readers see italics as indicators of emphasis). He adds that no modern translation uses this practice (and for good reason I might add), but I think he means that no translation outside of the Tyndale/KJV tradition uses italics.

A third, and very significant feature in light of recent controversies, is the use of gender inclusive language (although that phrase is not used). Talylor writes:

Another outstanding feature of The New Translation is its correct translation of such statements as "He who has the Son has life" to become "Whoever has the Son has life." Since God's grace is for men and women alike, a valid translation must reflect this. It may be an unimportant point for many readers, but to others, both in and outside the church, it is important and helpful.

At the time of the New Translation's publication (1990), only the New Revised Standard Version and the Revised English Bible (both released in 1989) featured inclusive language. This indicates that Taylor and the translation committee had a mindset early on in favor of inclusive language. This would later be reflected in the final release of the New Living Translation six years later. The connections between the two seem to end there, though.

On both the back cover and immediately following the preface, Rom 1:5, 7, 14 and 1 Cor 2:7 are paralleled beside other English translations. To give you a flavor of the New Translation in context with Tyndale's other Bibles, let me recreate the chart with the Living Bible and NLT1 included as well.

	Living Bible	Other	THE NEW TRANSLATION	NLT1
Rom 1:5	And now, through Christ, all the kindness of God has been poured out upon us undeserving sinners; and now he is sending us out around the world to tell all people everywhere the great things God has done for them, so that they, too, will believe and obey him.	NIV: Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the oebedience that comes through faith.	Through Christ^c I have received the gracious gift of being an apostle, to lead people of every nation to obedient faith in Him for the glory of His name. ^c Greek: "we"	Through Christ, God has given us the privilege and authority to tell Gentiles everywhere what God has done for them, so that they will believe and obey him, bringing glory to his name.
Rom 1:7	And you, dear friends in Rome, are among those he dearly loves; you, too, are invited by Jesus Christ to be God's very own--yes, his holy people. May all God's mercies and peace be yours from God our Father and from Jesus Christ our Lord. [note that in the Living Bible, vv. 6-7 are combined]	KJV: To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you, and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.	This letter is written to all of God's loved ones in Rome, called to be His holy people. may God's wonderful, undeserved favor and peace be yours from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.	dear friends in Rome. God loves you dearly, and he has called you to be his very own people. May grace and peace be yours from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Rom 1:14	For I owe a great debt to you and to everyone else, both to civilized people and uncivilized alike; yes, to the educated and uneducated alike.	NKJV: I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to wise and to unwise.	For I am under obligation both to the Greeks and all other Gentiles,^c to the wise and simple alike. ^c Literally, "and to barbarians,"	For I have a great sense of obligation to people in our culture and to people in other cultures, to the educated and uneducated alike.
1 Cor 2:7	Our words are wise because they are from God, telling of God's wise plan to bring us into the glories of heaven. This plan was hidden in former times, though it was made for our benefit before the world began.	NASB: but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory;	but we teach the wisdom of God, hidden in mystery in the past, but planned for our glory from before the beginning of the world.	No, the wisdom we speak of is the secret wisdom of God, which was hidden in former times, though he made it for our benefit before the world began.

Comparing the New Translation to the NLT seems to demonstrate no real influence upon the latter at all. The two are very dissimilar. One might suppose that the New Translation project was completely abandoned in favor of the New Living Translation; however, this may not completely be the case based on information I will present below about the NLT. I wish I had more details about this stage of history at Tyndale House Publishers.

The Old Is New Again: The NEW Living Translation. A couple of Sundays ago Kathy and I were asked to provide a Scripture reading in the worship service. A few days before, our minister of music handed us a copy of Eph 1:2-14 from the NIV Dramatized New Testament., a copy of the Scriptures broken down into "parts" for public reading or performance. Our church has recently gone through the difficult process of combining a declining traditional service with a growing contemporary service. The new format has been called "blended," but probably leans a bit more to the contemporary. As Kathy and I read through the NIV text of Eph 1:2-14, we weren't sure that it was the best translation for the service. Kathy put it bluntly, "It sounds too liturgical."

Now, I should say that upon reflection, I find great irony in thinking of the NIV as "too liturgical." Such an idea three or four decades ago would have been quite laughable. But she was right. This passage in Ephesians has a number of weighty concepts and the vocabulary it contained seemed to be too formal for a passage that was going to merely be proclaimed with no commentary. Immediately, of course, she wanted to use the New Living Translation--her version of choice. But I was more cautious. I wanted to compare a number of Bible versions, especially in regard to how they sounded out loud. We read the CEV and the REB since they are known for their quality when spoken. We read the passage in about half a dozen translations before we settled on the NLT which was, of course, what my wife had suggested in the first place. She was right. The NLT rendered this passage in a manner that was much more like normal people speak in regular conversation than any of the other translations we considered.

This is one of the reasons I like the New Living Translation. Its use of English seems very natural, and in my ear, moreso than most translations. When I was searching for a primary translation of the Bible to use at church in replacement of the NASB, the NLT was a top contender, perhaps behind the HCSB and TNIV. In the end, I eliminated it not because I thought it was necessarily less accurate than these other translations, but because its renderings sounded so natural that I was afraid it would be too different from the Bible carried by the average person I teach. Plus, since Kathy uses it, I am always able to turn to her and have her read a passage.

Tyndale House Publishers released the New Living Translation midyear in 1996. I was just starting the doctoral program at SBTS (first time around), and at that time our school boasted four of the ninety or so translators: Daniel Block, Gerald Borchert, Thomas Schreiner, and Robert Stein. Tyndale gave every student on campus a copy of the new Bible. I was interested in it simply because it was a new translation, but the more I read, the more it impressed me.

I've always been a fan of clever translation, and verses like Mark 2:16 really stood out: "But when some of the teachers of religious law who were Pharisees saw him eating with people like that, they said to his disciples, 'Why does he eat with such scum?'" (NLT1). I'd never seen a word like "scum" in the Bible before, but I felt like that verse accurately captured in English the essence of the original text's meaning. I completely read through the NLT over the next few months and introduced Kathy to it as well. It instantly became her primary Bible version.

The New Living Translation differs greatly from the Living Bible in that not only is it a translation (albeit a fairly loose one) instead of a paraphrase, but it also relied on the work of a translation committee instead of the primary work of one person. The "Note to Readers" in the 1996 edition states that "ninety evangelical scholars from various theological backgrounds and denominations were commissioned in 1989 to begin revising The Living Bible. The end result of this seven-year process is the Holy Bible, New Living Translation--a general purpose translation that is accurate, easy to read, and excellent for study."

The quotation above makes one wonder if the committee referenced is not the same committee that produced The New Translation in 1990 since the above group began work a year earlier. If so, direction seemed to have significantly changed after publication of the letters in the New Testament. Further, whereas the Living Bible (regardless of actual use) was intended as a complementary version for other translations, the NLT was designed to stand on its own as a primary Bible for everyday use.

The introduction to the 1996 edition spends practically the entire first page and then some extolling the virtues of a dynamic equivalence translation, something that the 2004 edition seems to back away from some in its introduction. In fact in the earlier intro, one reads "A thought-for-thought translation prepared by a group of capable scholars has the potential to represent the intended meaning of the original text even more accurately than a word-for-word translation." Strong words in light of the battle over translation philosophies to follow in the years following the NLT's initial publication.

From my perspective, of all the major translations in print today, the English in the NLT seems the most natural-sounding in its use of language. It's one thing to translate the Bible into English; it's another thing to translate the Bible with a contemporary English-speaking audience in mind. With the 1996 NLT, a concerted effort was made to translate ancient designations into terms that would be more meaningful to the English-speaking reader: measures (1 Kings 7:26, "11,000 gallons of water") weights (Ezra 8:26, "24 tons of silver"), calendar days (Ezek 33:21, "On January 8..."), time (Matt 4:25, "About three o’clock in the morning Jesus came to them") and currency (Acts 19:19, "The value of the books was several million dollars"). It's not that this had never been done before, but it cuts against the grain of most major translations, including ones produced in the last five or six years. One has to ask whether the text has been fully translated if the reader is left wondering how much or what time a passage is actually referring to.

The first edition of the NLT is much freer in its translation than the second edition, and it's much freer than most popular translations. I've blogged about this before, such as the entry I wrote about Rom 14:4 in the NLT1. I've also written a post about the NLT's influence from the LXX in Isa 18:1. The dynamic nature of the NLT's translation philosophy gave its translators a great deal of freedom in rendering the biblical text. As I concluded in my post on Romans 14:4, although it's a bit more free than what I prefer in a primary translation for my own use, I cannot say that such renderings are inaccurate. Most of the time when I've had questions as to why a passage has been translated a particular way in the NLT, when I've dug a little deeper, I've received my answer. But that doesn't mean that there's not some paraphrase at play, too, now and then. Consider a verse like Ecclesiastes 9:8, shown here in the HCSB for reference to a literal text with the NLT 1 and NLT2 beside it:

Ecclesiastes 9:8
HCSB	NLT1	NLT2
Let your clothes be white all the time, and never let oil be lacking on your head	Wear fine clothes, with a dash of cologne!	Wear fine clothes, with a splash of cologne!

I have no doubt that cologne communicates meaning well to a modern audience, but it's very difficult to say that this is anything but paraphrase. You find verses like this in the NLT now and then. However, most of the renderings--however free--fall on the border of meaning-driven translation as opposed to actual paraphrase.

You Only Live Twice. The NLT Bible Translation Committee continued to hone their work even after the NLT was published in 1996. A minor revision followed the initial publication. I'm not sure of all the changes, but in a number of places (such as Phil 3:13) in the initial 1996 printing, ἀδελφοί was sometimes rendered "friends." A later printing changed this rendering to "brothers and sisters" which is certainly more accurate.

In 2004 the Bible Translation Committee delivered a second edition of the NLT. I'll admit that I was using the NLT less at this point than I had when it was initially released, and I didn't rush out to get a copy of the update. In fact, I only picked one up earlier this year for my collection. Even then, I didn't take the time to compare the 1996 and 2004 editions other than noting that the Prophets were finally in poetic form, so I had no idea how extensive the changes were.

To be honest, it was when Kathy and I decided to use the NLT in our Scripture reading at church a couple of weeks ago that I first noticed how extensive the changes were. Compare for instance, the passage we read--Eph 1:2-14--in the two editions:

Ephesians 1:2-14

NLT1

NLT2

2 ¶ May grace and peace be yours, sent to you from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
3 ¶ How we praise God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms because we belong to Christ.
4 Long ago, even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes.
5 His unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. And this gave him great pleasure.
6 ¶ So we praise God for the wonderful kindness he has poured out on us because we belong to his dearly loved Son.
7 He is so rich in kindness that he purchased our freedom through the blood of his Son, and our sins are forgiven.
8 He has showered his kindness on us, along with all wisdom and understanding.
9 ¶ God’s secret plan has now been revealed to us; it is a plan centered on Christ, designed long ago according to his good pleasure.
10 And this is his plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ—everything in heaven and on earth.
11 Furthermore, because of Christ, we have received an inheritance from God, for he chose us from the beginning, and all things happen just as he decided long ago.
12 God’s purpose was that we who were the first to trust in Christ should praise our glorious God.
13 And now you also have heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago.
14 The Spirit is God’s guarantee that he will give us everything he promised and that he has purchased us to be his own people. This is just one more reason for us to praise our glorious God.

2 ¶ May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace.
3 ¶ All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms because we are united with Christ.
4 Even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes.
5 God decided in advance to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. This is what he wanted to do, and it gave him great pleasure.
6 So we praise God for the glorious grace he has poured out on us who belong to his dear Son.
7 He is so rich in kindness and grace that he purchased our freedom with the blood of his Son and forgave our sins.
8 He has showered his kindness on us, along with all wisdom and understanding.
9 ¶ God has now revealed to us his mysterious plan regarding Christ, a plan to fulfill his own good pleasure.
10 And this is the plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ—everything in heaven and on earth.
11 Furthermore, because we are united with Christ, we have received an inheritance from God, for he chose us in advance, and he makes everything work out according to his plan.
12 ¶ God’s purpose was that we Jews who were the first to trust in Christ would bring praise and glory to God.
13 And now you Gentiles have also heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago.
14 The Spirit is God’s guarantee that he will give us the inheritance he promised and that he has purchased us to be his own people. He did this so we would praise and glorify him.

I noticed when comparing these passages in the two NLT versions for the first time, that the NLT2 was tighter, less given to unnecessary words. Note in v. 5 that there is a preference for active voice over passive. And yet the second edition was still able to do what the NLT1 had done best--communicate God's Word in a natural, even conversational manner. Some might find it interesting to note that when we put our Scripture reading together, Kathy and I chose to use vv. 2-11 from the NLT2 and vv. 12-14 from the NLT1. The words Jews in v. 12 and Gentiles in v. 13 in the NLT2, while certainly implied in the context of Paul's message, seemed less appropriate for our Southern Baptist congregation. We also liked the freer rendering of the NLT1 for the last sentence in v. 14: "This is just one more reason for us to praise our glorious God." In fact that freer rendering is one of the very reasons I've liked the NLT over the years. I admit that I have not spent as much time as I would like with the NLT2 yet, but I hope that in the desire to streamline the translation, wording such as this has not been lost in too many places.

But such tightening (my term) has certainly been one of the goals for the NLT2. In the FAQ section of the NLT website, one reads, "The translation of difficult terms is made more concise. In the NLT, difficult terms are often made easier to understand by expanding them into longer phrases. The second edition often shortens these expansions--without sacrificing clarity." In most cases, this is probably for the best, but I believe some changes could be debated. Consider, for instance, Romans 3:25.

Romans 3:25
NLT1	NLT2
For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God’s anger against us. We are made right with God when we believe that Jesus shed his blood, sacrificing his life for us. God was being entirely fair and just when he did not punish those who sinned in former times.	For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past,

What exactly did Jesus do for us on the cross? Well in more traditional translations, specific theological words have been used: propitiation in the KJV, NASB, NKJV, ESV and HCSB and expiation in the RSV, NEB, and REB. However, some translations such as the NIV, NRSV and TNIV have opted simply for "sacrifice of atonement" which can be said to mean either of the two previously stated theological words. When the NLT1 stated that "God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God's anger against us," the translators are clearly communicating propitiation without using the word. By opting for "God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin," the result is something much more like the NIV or NRSV. Was this the translators' intention or merely the result of making the NLT2's wording more concise?

It's interesting to note the differences found in the first page of the Introduction to the second edition. Whereas the first edition served as a defense for dynamic equivalence translations, most of that wording is now gone, or at least lessened. The new introduction speaks more to the differences, strengths, and weaknesses of the formal and dynamic philosophies of translation. And surprisingly, one reads:

The translators of the New Living Translation set out to render the message of the original texts of Scripture into clear, contemporary English. As they did so, they kept the concerns of both formal-equivalence and dynamic-equivalence in mind. On the one hand, they translated as simply and literally as possible when that approach yielded an accurate, clear and natural English text. Many words and phrases were rendered literally and consistently into English, preserving essential literary and rhetorical devices, ancient metaphors, and word choices ... On the other hand, the translators rendered the message more dynamically when the literal rendering was hard to understand, was misleading, or yielded archaic or foreign wording. They clarified metaphors and terms to aid in the reader's understanding. The translators first struggled with the meaning of the words and phrases in the ancient context; then they rendered the message into clear, natural English ... The result is a translation that is both exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful.

Such give and take between translation philosophies sounds very close to the "Optimal Equivalent" method of the Holman Christian Standard Bible. Regardless, this is a far cry from the principles of the 1996 NLT, and from what I've seen so far, the new text definitely reflects this change in method.

The changes between the two editions are so great, they are for all practical purposes almost two completely separate translations. I corresponded with one of the translators this week and he called the shift between editions "massive." He stated that once the decision was made to restore the prophetic sections to poetical form, entire sections had to be redone. He estimates that the Prophets are 80% changed and the rest of the text somewhere between 30-50%. From what I've read, it seems to be at least 50% if not more. If you lay the two editions side by side, hardly any verse has been left unchanged. I read a good bit of Genesis the other night with both editions side by side, reading one verse in one and then in the other. I'm amazed at the extent of the revision.

Consider, for example, Genesis 1--

Genesis 1

NLT1

NLT2

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was empty, a formless mass cloaked in darkness. And the Spirit of God was hovering over its surface.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
4 And God saw that it was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” Together these made up one day.
6 ¶ And God said, “Let there be space between the waters, to separate water from water.”
7 And so it was. God made this space to separate the waters above from the waters below.
8 And God called the space “sky.” This happened on the second day.
9 ¶ And God said, “Let the waters beneath the sky be gathered into one place so dry ground may appear.” And so it was.
10 God named the dry ground “land” and the water “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land burst forth with every sort of grass and seed-bearing plant. And let there be trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. The seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.” And so it was.
12 The land was filled with seed-bearing plants and trees, and their seeds produced plants and trees of like kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 This all happened on the third day.
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.
15 Let their light shine down upon the earth.” And so it was.
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.
17 God set these lights in the heavens to light the earth,
18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 This all happened on the fourth day.
20 ¶ And God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.”
21 So God created great sea creatures and every sort of fish and every kind of bird. And God saw that it was good.
22 Then God blessed them, saying, “Let the fish multiply and fill the oceans. Let the birds increase and fill the earth.”
23 This all happened on the fifth day.
24 ¶ And God said, “Let the earth bring forth every kind of animal—livestock, small animals, and wildlife.” And so it was.
25 God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to reproduce more of its own kind. And God saw that it was good.
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.”
27 ¶ So God created people in his own image;
God patterned them after himself;
male and female he created them.
28 ¶ God blessed them and told them, “Multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. Be masters over the fish and birds and all the animals.”
29 And God said, “Look! I have given you the seed-bearing plants throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food.
30 And I have given all the grasses and other green plants to the animals and birds for their food.” And so it was.
31 Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was excellent in every way. This all happened on the sixth day.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
3 ¶ Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
4 And God saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.”
And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day.
6 ¶ Then God said, “Let there be a space between the waters, to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth.”
7 And that is what happened. God made this space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens.
8 God called the space “sky.”
And evening passed and morning came, marking the second day.
9 ¶ Then God said, “Let the waters beneath the sky flow together into one place, so dry ground may appear.” And that is what happened.
10 God called the dry ground “land” and the waters “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land sprout with vegetation—every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.” And that is what happened.
12 The land produced vegetation—all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 And evening passed and morning came, marking the third day.
14 ¶ 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.
15 Let these lights in the sky shine down on the earth.” And that is what happened.
16 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.
17 God set these lights in the sky to light the earth,
18 to govern the day and night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And evening passed and morning came, marking the fourth day.
20 ¶ Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.”
21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.
22 Then God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply. Let the fish fill the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.”
23 And evening passed and morning came, marking the fifth day.
24 ¶ Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.” And that is what happened.
25 God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 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.”
27 ¶
So God created human beings in his own image.
In the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 ¶ Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.”
29 Then God said, “Look! I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food.
30 And I have given every green plant as food for all the wild animals, the birds in the sky, and the small animals that scurry along the ground—everything that has life.” And that is what happened.
31 Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good!
And evening passed and morning came, marking the sixth day.

One thing you'll notice if you read the passage in parallel, is that practically every verse has been changed. Further, in spite of the aforementioned desire for conciseness, the NLT2 passage is actually longer! It's longer because there has been a return to more traditional language. And repetitiveness of the Hebrew style that had been condensed in the NLT1 has been retained in the NLT2. Look at the second sentence in v. 5 in each of the versions. The NLT1 simply has "Together these made up one day." The NLT2 has the more traditional "And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day." Is this an improvement upon the original? I'm not so sure. In v. 27 the more traditional, literal and certainly theological phrase "image of God" has been retained in both versions. Although there has been endless debate regarding the exact meaning of this phrase, the NLT1 attempted to make plain the sense of this concept (to some degree) with the phrase "God patterned them after himself." This has been removed from the NLT2 in favor of more traditional wording.

I had Kathy, who reads the NLT1 as her primary translation and is much more familiar with it than me, compare the two editions. She spent an hour the other night comparing multiple passages. She has a mixed reaction. She acknowledged that some of the changes--poetic forms, more active voice, certain tighter passages (although she prefers Rom 3:25 in the NLT1)--to be an improvement. But she doesn't care for the passages where the translators have attempted to opt for more traditional wording.

I'm not exactly sure why the translation committee made certain passages more traditional. Perhaps they wanted to make the NLT more mainstream. The Tyndale website boasts that the NLT is the fastest growing translation, so maybe the changes have worked. But at this point, I'm a bit on the fence. As I've said--for how I've used the NLT, the freer style of the original better suited my purposes. To me, the changes in the second edition move it closer to the NIV and further away from Kenneth Taylor's "Living" tradition.

Nevertheless, I will acknowledge that the NLT is an extremely valuable translation that most often speaks the Bible's message in a manner like "real" people actually communicate without resorting to paraphrase (most of the time). And the second edition is extremely noteworthy in the history of English Bible translations. Never before have I seen a revision (not just a minor update) come so fast after the initial release (eight years total) and never have I seen changes this extensive between editions.

How I use the NLT. I don't use the NLT that much in personal study, so when I do use it, I use the NLT primarily as a tool in communicating the Bible's message to others. In Sunday School at church, I have Kathy with me, and I often call upon her to read from the NLT, especially when I note that members of the class aren't quite catching what the more traditional translations are saying. I have, on occasion, taught from the NLT, especially when dealing with very familiar passages such as the Sermon on the Mount. I found that a translation like the NLT will help even experienced Christians hear the Bible in a fresh way. I know that when I read the NLT1 for the first time a decade ago, it was so refreshing. I look forward to familiarizing myself with the NLT2 and eventually reading through it as well.

The NLT makes a great Bible to give to an unbeliever or a new believer. A few years ago when I coordinated a specifically seeker-targeted outreach, we ordered NLT's by the case to give away to visitors. I would have no problem giving or recommending the NLT to a believer at any level of growth.

The last few days spent with both editions of the NLT has renewed my interest in the translation. I may have to find excuses to use it more often in a variety of ways.

What edition of the NLT I primarily use. I should have noted already that I have electronic copies in Accordance of every Bible version I've written about so far. When I am writing a blog entry such as this, Accordance is often my tool of choice over a bound copy because with an electronic text, I can cut and paste. I only recently added the NLT to Accordance in preparation for writing this blog entry. I noticed in the Accordance discussion forums that the first edition was no longer going to be distributed on future CD's, so I went ahead and unlocked a copy of it. The upgrade to the NLT2 was only a $10 upgrade on top of that. Now I will be able to use both on my PowerBook.

As for print Bibles, in the NLT1, I have the original yellow marbled hardback that I received free when the NLT1 was first released. I also bought a burgundy bonded leather Touchpoint edition a few years back for public use. Currently, I only have a basic pew/text edition of the NLT2. Kathy uses a burgundy bonded leather Life Application Bible in the NLT1 for her main Bible. She has no immediate plans to "upgrade" to the NLT2.

For Further Reading:
- A User's Guide to Bible Translations by David Dewey, pp. 178-181.
- New Living Translation Website
- New Living Translation Frequently Asked Questions
- Translators of the NLT
- NLT Wikipedia Page
- Bible Researcher NLT1 Page
- Bible Researcher NLT2 Page
- Better Bibles Blog NLT Page

- Addendum to This Review (Added 6/23/06)

Next in series: Eugene Peterson's The Message

Tags: NLT, Top Ten

Bugs or Boats? Isaiah 18:1 in the NLT & the LXX

03/26/2006 16:30 Filed in: Faith & Reason

NOTE: Due to deficiencies in Internet Explorer, Greek and Hebrew fonts in the blog entry below may not display correctly if you are using that browser. I encourage you to use a better application such as Firefox (Mac or Windows) or Safari (Mac) for optimal viewing.

A few weeks ago, I wrote a blog entry entitled "Romans 14:4 in the NLT." It was in response to a seemingly odd translational choice in the New Living Translation (NLT) discovered by my wife while studying her Sunday School lesson. Upon further examination, I discovered it wasn't as odd as first thought; it was just an example of the dynamic equivalent method of the NLT translators.

Well, it happened again last night. Kathy had her copy of the NLT next to her Sunday School book which includes both the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) text as well as the King James Version (KJV). Again, she made the statement, "Well my Bible reads completely different in this passage."

The passage in question is Isaiah 18:1. Note the original Hebrew below and a selection of a few recent translations:

BHS	HCSB	ESV	TNIV
ה֥וֹי אֶ֖רֶץ צִלְצַ֣ל כְּנָפָ֑יִם אֲשֶׁ֥ר מֵעֵ֖בֶר לְנַֽהֲרֵי־כֽוּשׁ׃	Ah! The land of buzzing insect wings beyond the rivers of Cush	Ah, land of whirring wings that is beyond the rivers of Cush	Woe to the land of whirring wings along the rivers of Cush

Geoffrey Grogan notes in the Expositor's Bible Commentary that "The phrase 'the land of whirring wings' (v. 1) is highly evocative for any hearer or reader who has been in the Nile valley, with its swarms of insects." And most, in fact, are agreed that the reference to whirring wings is a reference to bugs. Note that the translators of the HCSB, under their guidelines of "optimal equivalence" felt free to even add the word "insect" to the verse for the sake of clarity.

But there are no bugs in the NLT's rendition of this verse. The NLT (2nd ed.) reads, "Listen, Ethiopia--land of fluttering sails that lies at the headwaters of the Nile... ." The fluttering sails here are undoubtedly referring to the sails of boats as evidenced in 18:2, "that sends ambassadors in swift boats down the river."

Why the boats instead of bugs? Good question. At the very least, the NLT is being consistent in it's roots to the original Living Bible. Compare all three editions together:

The Living Bible (1971)	New Living Translation (1st ed./1996)	New Living Translation (2nd ed./2004)
Ah land beyond the upper reaches of the Nile, where winged sailboats glide along the river!	Destruction is certain for the land of Ethiopia, which lies at the headwaters of the Nile. Its winged sailboats glide along the river.	Listen Ethiopia--land of fluttering sails that lies at the headwaters of the Nile,

Of course, the Living Bible traced its roots to the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV) of which it was a paraphrase. But contrary to the Living Bible/New Living tradition, even the ASV seems to imply bugs (or birds?):

"Ah, the land of the rustling of wings, which is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia."

So where do the boats come from? Well, upon further investigation, I found that the boats tradition goes back to the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures from the second century BC. Below is the LXX along with my translation:

LXX	Translation
οὐαὶ γῆς πλοίων πτέρυγες ἐπέκεινα ποταμῶν Αἰθιοπίας	Woe to the wings of the land of boats beyond the rivers of Ethiopia.

Undoubtedly, the Living/New Living tradition is based on the LXX and not on the Hebrew text. But the real question is "Why?" Unfortunately I don't know. Perhaps someone does and can offer an explanation in the comments. I might only speculate that perhaps Kenneth Taylor, when working on the original Living Bible consulted a commentary that drew a connection between the buzzing of insect wings and the flapping of sails. Or perhaps he read a source that made a case for the wording of the LXX. Undeniably, there's a connection being made between the insects of v. 1 and the boats of v. 2. That was enough for the translators of the LXX evidently.

Personally, I'd want to stick with the Hebrew tradition.

If you have a definitive answer as to how the LXX tradition found its way into the Living Bible/New Living Translation, please share it in the comments.

Tags: Isaiah, NLT, LXX

Romans 14:4 in the NLT

01/29/2006 17:48 Filed in: Faith & Reason

Our Bible study this morning at church covered Romans 14:1-12. Saturday night, Kathy and I were looking over the lesson when she suddenly exclaimed, "My Bible reads completely different from these other versions. " She was referring to her translation of choice, the New Living Translation (NLT), compared to the Holman Christian Standard Bible and the King James Version which were included in the Sunday School commentary.

I read through the NLT after it was released in 1996, but have never used it extensively for study or teaching. Its dynamic equivalence is a bit too dynamic for my tastes. However, I respect the translators, some of whom I've known personally. Therefore, the NLT is a translation I trust.

Kathy, on the other hand, took to the NLT immediately. If there's ever been a translation that fits someone's personality, the NLT fits Kathy. You'd have to know both of them to understand that statement. I tend to avoid the translation battles. I firmly believe that a person should read the translation that speaks to him or her best. What's the best translation? The one you're willing to read. Of course, I'm speaking in terms of the major current translations, not those that might be on the fringe of reliability.

In comparing her NLT to the other versions, Kathy was struck by how different Rom 14:4 read in her Bible. The NLT always reads a bit differently from other standard translations, but this was different. Note the differences below, especially in the first line.

New Living Translation
Who are you to condemn God's servants? They are responsible to the Lord, so let him tell them whether they are right or wrong. The Lord's power will help them do as they should.
New American Standard Bible	Holman Christian Standard Bible	King James Version
Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.	Who are you to criticize another’s household slave? Before his own Lord he stands or falls. And stand he will! For the Lord is able to make him stand.	Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
Greek New Testament
σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ κρίνων ἀλλότριον οἰκέτην; τῷ ἰδίῳ κυρίῳ στήκει ἢ πίπτει· σταθήσεται δέ, δυνατεῖ γὰρ ὁ κύριος στῆσαι αὐτόν.

The theme of the passage is Paul's admonition against judging each other in gray areas or disputable issues of the Christian faith. In v. 4 he makes an analogy using the example of household slaves. Of the translations represented above, the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) is the most accurate in the first line because it correctly translates ὀικέτης as "household slave." Paul used this word instead of his more standard word for slave or servant, δοῦλος, because it better suits his analogy. Unfortunately, the HCSB capitalizes the L in "Lord" in the first instance of Paul's use of κύριος. Thus his play on words between a servant's earthly lord and one's heavenly Lord is obscured. The NASB translators more accurately translate the first use as "master." The wordplay itself is lost, but the distinction between the earthly master and the heavenly Master is retained.

But note the NLT's "Who are you to condemn God's servants?" Where did that come from? There was no mention of God in the first line of the other versions. I looked it up in the Greek New Testament, and there was no reference to God there either. Kathy is used to her NLT reading differently from other versions, but I think this was the first time she'd ever doubted its accuracy. I was a bit befuddled, too. That verse taken by itself seemed to be totally mistranslated. I personally know two of the three men who were responsible for translating Romans in the NLT, but I didn't understand why they would translate the verse this way.

I mentally pushed the issue aside and continued to study the passage since I would be teaching it Sunday morning. When I came to bed later Saturday night, I whispered in my sleeping wife's ear, "Your translation is accurate. I'll tell you about it in the morning."

As I continued my study, I eventually understood why the NLT translators presented their verse in this way. The Apostle Paul is making an analogy. In the context of casting judgment on each other over secondary issues, Paul is essentially asking the question, "Would any of you show criticism to another man's servant?" Of course not. It wouldn't be the place of someone to do that in the ancient world. When I taught the passage this morning, I tried to make a modern analogy to being frustrated with rowdy children in public places. Often we are tempted to say something perhaps as a reprimand to them or perhaps to their parents, but we often don't because they aren't our children. This is close to what Paul was saying to the Roman Christians. It wouldn't be fitting to criticize another person's servants because odds are they are fulfilling the will of their master. Paul is stressing that likewise, we belong to God. We are his servants, and it's neither appropriate of us to pass judgment on each other for this disputable issues.

Now I just explained to you what the verse meant. I have interpreted it for you. The NLT translators describe their dynamic-equivalence method as "thought-for-thought." In the preface of the New Living Translation, they describe their method in this way:

...to translate the thought of the original language requires that the text be interpreted accurately and then be rendered in understandable idiom. So the goal of any thought-for-thought translation is to be both reliable and eminently readable. Thus, as a thought-for-thought translation, the New Living Translation seeks to be both exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful.

When the NLT translators rendered Romans 14:4 as "Who are you to condemn God's servants? They are responsible to the Lord, so let him tell them whether they are right or wrong..." they were taking the interpretive step for the reader and accurately rendering Paul's thought in the passage. The point is about judging God's servants. That may be a bit more than what I personally want my primary translation to do for me, But I can't label it incorrect.

Tags: Romans, NLT

"CLASSIC" THIS LAMP (reset your bookmarks)

New Posts at http://thislamp.com

Pre-Fight Commentary

The Main Event: Job 16:18-22

And the winner is...