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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• What method did the NLT translators use in making the NLT?
• Who were the translators of the NLT?
• What texts did the NLT translators use in their translation work?

Here’s the bottom line:

In summary, I couldn’t be happier with the NLT Bible. Many folks who pick up a
copy of the NLT and read it for the first time say that it’s like they’re
reading the Bible for the very first time. I couldn’t agree more. It’s a breath
of fresh air. The readability is absolutely fantastic and knowing that the
NLT is translated by top notch scholars with a deep care for the original
languages put me over the top.

It’s well worth reading how he arrived at this conclusion, complete with a graphics and a Bible Translation chart (though we envision the chart a little differently–it’s not an exact science). And once he made up his mind, he purchased a Tyndale Select Bible and took an amazing 100 photos of this Bible.

The issue of sentence structure in English Bibles is interesting. On the surface, one might assume that an English Bible could/should simply follow the structure of the sentences in Hebrew and Greek. But the very concept of a “sentence” differs from language to language.

Let’s look at the prologue to Romans (Rom 1:1-7) as an example. We begin by reminding ourselves that koine Greek does not actually use punctuation or paragraph breaks, nor does it differentiate between upper case and lower letters. This might surprise you, because the UBS Greek New Testament uses paragraphs, capital letters, and punctuation (commas, periods, question marks, and semicolons). But this is because the editors of that Greek text have made judgment calls as to how the Greek “sentences” should be presented in a format we’re accustomed to seeing in English.

In the UBS Greek text, Rom 1:1-7 is presented as one long sentence (i.e., the first full stop comes at the end of verse 7). But does that mean that English translations should also use only one sentence for that passage? Formal-equivalence translations tend to do so. For example, KJV, RSV, NASB, NRSV, and ESV all use only one sentence for this long prologue. Interestingly, the NKJV uses two sentences. NIV and TNIV use four sentences. NLT² uses nine sentences.

Which approach is correct? I would argue that they all are. Each translation uses a unique translation philosophy, and the structure of English sentences plays into that philosophy. Unfortunately, the proponents of formal equivalence sometimes imply that the only legitimate style of translation is to follow the sentence structure of the original texts as closely as possible. But life isn’t quite that simple.

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

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

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

Romans 3:25
KJV	RSV	ESV	NLT
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation . . .	whom God put forward as an expiation . . .	whom God put forward as a propitiation . . .	For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin.
Hebrews 9:5
KJV	RSV	ESV	NLT
And over it the cherubim of glory shadowing the mercyseat;	above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat.	Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat.	Above the Ark were the cherubim of divine glory, whose wings stretched out over the Ark’s cover, the place of atonement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

With the New Living Translation, the Bible was divided into sixths, with a scholar appointed general editor over each large chunk. Then individuals books of the Bible (or small collections of books) were parceled out to three experts (I worked on Matthew), who compiled long lists of suggestions for revising Ken Taylor’s original
Living Bible Paraphrased. We ranked these in terms of priority, sent them to the general editor over our part of the Bible, who synthesized a selection of them, interacted with a Tyndale House stylist, and sent a draft back to us for us to repeat the process. Eventually the full translation emerged.

Dr. Blomberg is describing the process for creating the 1996 edition of the NLT text. The 2004 second edition was another stage in the development of the NLT, and I suspect other members of our blog team who were actually involved in those events (I didn’t come on until 2005, and I am not a participant in Bible Translation Committee discussions) might write a thing or two about that on this blog in the future. But I am getting off topic.

It may be surprising for some to read that Dr. Blomberg has been involved in translation work for the NLT, HCSB, ESV, and now serves on the committee responsible for the TNIV. In fact, he is one of several excellent scholars who have participated in multiple translation projects. Just comparing the list of the ESV’s Translation Oversight Committee with the full list of the NLT Translation team reveals 25% overlap (three of the 12 ESV committee members participated in the NLT: Paul House, Robert Mounce, and Gordon Wenham). Expanding to the list of ESV translation reviewers would reveal significantly more overlap between the two teams. Similar overlaps can be observed between the NLT team and the NIV/TNIV Committee for Bible Translation (Blomberg, Douglas Moo, Larry Walker).

These scholars believe it is important to produce translations that are true to the original Greek and Hebrew, and meaningful for those who read it. They work very hard to ensure that God’s Word is faithfully communicated in English. And they do this for each translation they contribute to, whether it be the “essentially literal” ESV, the “optimal equivalence” HCSB, the “balanced” TNIV, or the “dynamically equivalent” NLT.

In this vein, I would also like to point to another comment Blomberg makes later in the post:

More than ever, I have an intense appreciation of how much easier it is to
criticize a translation than it is to produce one that will be both as clear as
possible and as accurate as possible.

That is unequivocally true. There will always be facets of the original text that are captured better by one translation or another, and it is easy to point out where the NLT (or TNIV, or ESV, etc.) has “missed” something. Instead, why don’t we celebrate the wonderful work that these scholars do and appreciate the fact that we have multiple excellent, peer-reviewed Bible translations in English?

Thanks for your work on Bible translation, Dr. Blomberg. Thanks to all of the scholars that have dedicated their life to helping everyone understand God’s Word more clearly.

The history of the NLT is one reason for the confusion, but another is related to other common misconceptions about Bible translation itself, specifically the philosophy known as dynamic equivalence. In the simplest terms possible, dynamic equivalence is a philosophy of translation that intends to communicate the meaning of the Bible, as it would have been understood in its original setting, as accurately as possible in today’s language. This is often discussed in contrast with another philosophy of translation, formal correspondence or essentially literal. Again, simply, formal correspondence intends to communicate the words and word order of the original as closely as possible in the modern language. Of course, every translation of the Bible is more complex than those definitions imply. A strict formal correspondence translation would be unintelligible in any language, and a dynamic equivalent translation could become overly concerned with the limitations of its intended audience.

The juxtaposition of these two complementary translation philosophies, often with an eye to which of the two is “superior,” often feeds some misconceptions about one philosophy or the other. This can happen from either side of the debate. In a recent post at Tim Challies’ blog, some misconceptions about dynamic equivalence are presented, and I’d like to address them here.

The main idea of Challies’ post is that words are of the utmost importance in any communication. At a basic level, that is certainly true. He begins his post with a few examples to illustrate the importance we often place on knowing and studying the exact words and not simply the message of important documents such as ransom notes, court transcripts, and love letters. Very true, but in all of the examples he cites, translation is not in view. If the kidnappers had written the ransom note in French, I’m sure any parent would insist on getting a fluent French speaker to translate the letter for them in language that made sense. And courts use on-the-fly interpreters to translate witness testimony into English for jurors. So, there isn’t one-to-one correspondence between the emotional examples Challies begins with and the conclusions he makes about Bible translations.

But what about words in translation? First, it is important to understand that there is almost never a one-to-one correspondence between any word in one language and a word in another language (especially when one of the languages is ancient). To point to one example used in the post, machaira is a Greek word that refers to “a relatively short sword or other sharp instrument, sword, dagger” (BDAG), along with related metaphorical meanings. It is unlikely that any English reader, when given the word “sword,” would conjure up the mental image of a 5-inch dagger. So the English word and the Greek word are similar–certainly related–but not equivalent.

So Challies’ concern that the English word “sword” isn’t present in the NLT and other dynamic equivalent translations isn’t quite the problem he makes it out to be. To translate a metaphor in the original with an English phrase that captures its meaning, as the NLT does in Romans 13:4, is not “making a mockery of the words that were breathed out by God,” as Challies characterized it. Rather, it is a transparent attempt to clearly communicate the force of the language to English readers today. When Paul wrote Romans, representatives of the government literally phorei machairan (“carried a sword”). This is no longer the case, at least not in most English-speaking areas of the world. It is appropriate to explain the metaphor in this context. In Acts 12:2, the word machaira is not being used metaphorically. James was probably literally killed with a sword. This doesn’t display an inconsistency in the NLT translation philosophy; rather, it displays a deep commitment to communicate the meaning of Scripture as clearly as possible.

In Psalm 32:1, Challies compares the NLT to the ESV and wonders, “what has become of the word ‘covered’? . . . Is ‘covered’ not one of the words God breathed out and wrote in His book?” Again, the assumption that an English word is inspired is suspect. The word in Hebrew is kesuh, and “put out of sight” is just as legitimate a translation as “covered.”

More could be said about these issues, but I would like to close by pointing out some of the implicit and explicit claims about the value of dynamic equivalent translations of the Scriptures in Challies’ post. Here is a sampling of his words: