The NLT is not a scholarly translation?

I recently noticed a short burst of folks on Twitter linking to James White’s blog post, “Ephesians 1:11 and Bible Translation.”

When I read Dr. White’s post, I noticed the focus of the post was not on Bible translation, but on a debate he’s engaged in and within the context of that debate his opponent used

the Message and the New Living Translation as supports for his denial that this text encompasses the entirety of God’s sovereign decree.

The focus of the post is not Bible translation, or to debate the nature and translation work behind the mentioned translations. But what I found intriguing was what Dr. White said about the New Living Translation:

Their “rendering” (I use the term loosely) of the text are as follows:

It’s in Christ that we find out who we are and what we are living for. Long before we first heard of Christ and got our hopes up, he had his eye on us, had designs on us for glorious living, part of the overall purpose he is working out in everything and everyone. (The Message)

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. (The New Living Translation)

The Message, of course, is not a translation at all, and the NLT is really stretching it to use the term “translation” in its name. Despite this, the NLT is still accurate in having “he makes everything work out according to his plan.” (emphasis added)

While I can understand his statement about The Message, I do not agree with his depiction of the NLT. Or, at least, I’m not sure what he means. The NLT is a high quality English translation (opinion, I guess; mine versus his). The scholarly work that went into the translation is evident throughout. Just because the English isn’t high brow, stale as a college textbook, and doesn’t need a thesaurus as a companion, does not mean its status as a true translation and role as a text all Christians can use in study are in question. Yet, Dr. White went on to consider the NLT as not on par with “scholarly translations”:

But scholarly translations are consistent in their rendering of the text

He went on to list the NASB, NET, ASV, ESV, NKJV, HCSB, and NRSV within the “scholarly translation” category. I’ve listened to Dr. White talk about translations in the past, discussions about the translation process, studies and work he’s done in the past, and have been impressed with his knowledge about the original languages and textual criticism, and what it takes to produce a translation and the importance of doing so. But I wonder why he would not consider the NLT a scholarly translation. Was it because the translations he considered “scholarly” used predestination (one had having been destined and another having been foreordained)? Or is there something in particular with the NLT going on? Does it have to do with word choice or the process behind it?

I guess that is a question for everyone.

For those interested in more info about the New Living Translation, check out their site and that of Tyndale.

Tags: new living translation, nlt, translation, bible, new testament