An Interview with Dr. Joseph Coleson
Most of my authors are reasonably smart people—church leaders, college professors, pastors, and the like. Even so, I was intrigued to learn that one of my writers was not merely an expert in biblical Hebrew but also a translator of what has become the fastest-growing new version of the Bible—the New Living Translation (NLT).
Joe took a break from his summer writing schedule to answer a few questions about Bible translation in general and the NLT in particular.
What was your involvement in translating the NLT?
My initial involvement was as a member of the team responsible for Hosea through Zephaniah in the Minor Prophets. Then all team members were invited to make suggestions where we wished, especially as version 2.0 was in preparation. Since then, I’ve done study notes on Joshua and Ruth for the study Bible coming out in September, and am nearly finished with Joshua for the commentary series.
What’s the distinctive of this translation?
The distinctive still remains the flavor, or tone, of Ken Taylor’s original Living Bible. The change in creating the New Living Translation was to make that paraphrase a real, bona fide translation. All the reports I hear from around the world (not all from Tyndale House, by a long shot) are that the NLT is an inviting, readable version, attracting people who’ve never before read the Bible for its own sake, just because they want to.
What were the aims of the translation team?
Our first mandate was, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”; Tyndale wanted (rightly) to preserve and update the readability of the Living Bible—which did, after all, lead the way in many respects in the renewal of interest in Bible translation in the mid-20th century. Where it needed to change to be a dynamic translation, rather than a free paraphrase, we were to suggest the changes we thought would do that.
What do you like about the NLT?
I think we accomplished those aims; the NLT is a translation, not a paraphrase, but it retains and updates the fresh, exciting, compelling voice of the “old” Living Bible.
Do you have any criticisms of the translation?
I do wish it were gender inclusive where the Hebrew and Greek texts call for that—which is a great many places most folks don’t suspect. I’m not talking “politically correct” here; I’m talking accurate translation so the Bible speaks as it was intended to speak, and as ancient readers understood it, or should have.
Why have we seen so many new translations recently?
It began out of real need. No translation ever again will last as long and as well as the KJV did. Now the active life of almost any translation will be perhaps twenty or thirty years at most, unless it’s updated, as many “new” translations have been and are being. A less honorable motive for a few new translations is profit, or marketing. (Notice I didn’t say “dishonorable,” only “less honorable.”)
Some might say the NLT is not an “accurate” translation. How would you respond to that?
Except for the gender accuracy issue, I rate it at just under the NRSV and the NASB (NASB is not gender inclusive, either), and above several others I won’t name here.
Gender inclusion is a bit of a hot-button with some. What’s your opinion?
I seem to have anticipated this one, haven’t I? But I can’t say it too strongly: not to reflect the text accurately at points where the text is intended to include both men and women, is to betray the text and its Author. (Is that strong enough?) The places where non-gender-inclusive English is a betrayal of the Hebrew or Greek text are more numerous than one may think, if one’s only language is English.
With respect to God, we should leave masculine pronouns in the text as masculine pronouns. We also should find a word or phrase that translates Shaddai for what it is, the major feminine title for God in the Hebrew Bible—“the God who Nourishes,” “the God who Sustains,” or something like that; literally, it is “the breasted One.” (We should retire the misleading Almighty, as a translation of Shaddai.)
Which translation do you favor for serious study?
I allow my students to choose their own versions, with a few being off limits. When they ask, I rate as I mentioned above—NLT just a bit below NRSV and NASB, perhaps because NLT does represent a bit more the “dynamic equivalence” translation philosophy; the other two, more the “formal equivalence” philosophy. That can make a difference sometimes (though less often than one may think) in word by word and phrase by phrase reading and study.
Many of us read a variety of English translations from time to time—for what specific readership or use would you recommend the NLT? (i.e., devotional reading, study, preaching preparation, etc.)
I recommend it for all three purposes you mention. But I wouldn’t use NLT (or any other) by itself for close study and/or sermon prep. In those contexts, for those who don’t have Hebrew and/or Greek, I recommend using and comparing several translations together. For the kind of daily reading you’re encouraging on your blog this summer, NLT is excellent. When I want to read straight through a book in one or two sittings, I use NLT.
Do you see any theological biases in the NLT?
Not much, and nothing that’s particular to the NLT. In most cases, claiming bias in mainstream Protestant translations may say more about the one making the claim, than about the translation.
Do you see a need for any other English translations at present?
“At present,” no, we don’t “need” more. But we shouldn’t stop the process; it takes a long time to produce a new translation. Those available now probably can minister to my grandchildren, who are acquiring their language skills now. But their children may need new ones.
If we don’t need more, why will we continue to see new English versions appear?
Though produced originally in other languages, the Bible remains the greatest treasure of English literature. We’re not going to stop people who love both Bible and literature from translating it, nor should we try. Rather, we should expect high standards—including the complex preparation required in many fields, and integrity, to name only two—of those who offer us new translations.
Any chance of creating a translation by Wesleyan scholars?
I would like to see a translation produced by Wesleyan scholars. Maybe we are the ones who “need” a new one, as we are the one theological tradition not well served, at a few important points, by the translations currently available. Among the Wesleyan/Holiness denominations and those in the UMC who’ve maintained or recovered their Wesleyan roots, I think we have enough OT and NT scholars now that we could pull it off.
Are you still excited about Bible reading after all these years?
Yes! I began my own journey of Bible translation in Dr. Leo Cox’s first-year Greek class forty-three years ago this fall. Since then, I’ve studied and taught most of the Semitic languages (and Greek, too)—Hebrew for over thirty years now. It just gets better and better! I continue to be amazed at God’s redemption purposes revealed so beautifully in the word, written—because it points to the Word, Living.
August 8, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree that, as far as dynamic equivalence translations that aren't paraphrases, the NLT is hard to beat. I thought Joe did a good job of recognizing the inaccuracy of versions that keep "man" in places where the Greek or Hebrew is generic.
No one is forcing anyone to buy the NLT if a person wants a more wooden translation (which may actually mean it is worse as a translation, even if better for serious study). There is no "best" translation--it depends on what a person hopes to get from the translation.
But I would say what Joe did not. The NIV's days are at an end. In any category except familiarity, there is now something better out there (making it the new KJV). The TNIV in particular is a great improvement, which I even prefer to the NLT.
Great interview! I'd like to extend my thanks to Dr. Coleson for his work on the NLT, NLT Study Bible, and Corenerstone Commentary.
But I'm confused about his claim that the NLT isn't gender-inclusive. If you'll excuse the lengthy comment, here's a quote from the introduction to the NLT:
One challenge we faced was how to translate accurately the ancient biblical text that was originally written in a context where male-oriented terms were used to refer to humanity generally. We needed to respect the nature of the ancient context while also trying to make the translation clear to a modern audience that tends to read male-oriented language as applying only to males. Often the original text, though using masculine nouns and pronouns, clearly intends that the message be applied to both men and women. A typical example is found in the New Testament letters, where the believers are called “brothers” (adelphoi). Yet it is clear from the content of these letters that they were addressed to all the believers—male and female. Thus, we have usually translated this Greek word as “brothers and sisters” in order to represent the historical situation more accurately.
We have also been sensitive to passages where the text applies generally to human beings or to the human condition. In some instances we have used plural pronouns (they, them) in place of the masculine singular (he, him). For example, a traditional rendering of Proverbs 22:6 is: “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.” We have rendered it: “Direct your children onto the right path, and when they are older, they will not leave it.” At times, we have also replaced third person pronouns with the second person to ensure clarity. A traditional rendering of Proverbs 26:27 is: “He who digs a pit will fall into it, and he who rolls a stone, it will come back on him.” We have rendered it: “If you set a trap for others, you will get caught in it yourself. If you roll a boulder down on others, it will crush you instead.”
We should emphasize, however, that all masculine nouns and pronouns used to represent God (for example, “Father”) have been maintained without exception. All decisions of this kind have been driven by the concern to reflect accurately the intended meaning of the original texts of Scripture.
If Dr. Coleson is available for clarification, I'd like to know if he meant that the NLT wasn't consistent in applying this philosophy, or if he just thinks it doesn't go far enough (a la the Shadday example).
Keith,
Thanks for the corrective comments on NLT’s gender language, and the quote from the introduction. I just took time to check a few places, and it’s better than I remembered, so I probably should say I stand corrected, for the most part.
I do hope (perhaps in a third edition, in a few years?) we can leave Shaddai untranslated, with footnotes about its meaning; get away from “help” language (for Hebrew ‘ezer) in Genesis 2:18; take out the two extra “submit”s in Ephesians 5:22, 24; and correct the translation of 1 Timothy 2:12, 15 (to cite the most important of my parade examples).
Of course, no other translation with mass appeal has addressed these issues, either, and to pursue the “parade” language a bit further, the problem of leading too far, too fast, is that one can end up with no one following. I am confident Mark Taylor and his team will do the right thing, at the right pace.
Ken ...
How about, "In any category except familiarity and market share"?
As a publisher myself, I don't underestimate the powerful grip of both consumer preference and marketplace momentum.
Don't forget that the KJV is still the most read version--because all those older KJV readers still use it. Will baby boomers do the same with their beloved NIV?
Also ... the NIV is much easier to read aloud than the NLT, making it a much more useful translation for public worship.
Not that anybody reads the Bible in church anymore ;-)
When the TNIV came out, I was surprised that it received so much negative attention for its gender inclusive language when the NLT had slipped under the radar. That's when I realized that the NIV had become the new KJV. (Though I haven't heard anyone say "If the NIV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it is good enough for me.")
I agree with Joe that translation production needs to be on-going--"evergreen" to quote the TNIV translators.
Post a Comment