Dan Block Interviewed on the NLT
Sam Rainer interviews Dan Block on the quality of the NLT. There’s a great deal of useful information in this interview. I would note that it is very positive about the NLT, as would be expected in an interview with the head of the translation committee.
You’ll also learn some things about the translation process. I strongly favor translations done by a committee, and the reasons why the committee approach is valuable are clearly expressed here.
While avoiding terminology like “dynamic equivalence,” Dr. Block strongly advocates the meaning-for-meaning approach to Bible translation. I’m not sure why people try to avoid various terms that have been used for this over the years. I find that both “dynamic equivalence” and “functional equivalence” express the process. It seems to me that it’s mostly marketing that drives terminology here. New translations don’t want to take on the criticism that goes with terms that have been used for some time, and thus come up with something new. But the process itself really hasn’t changed.
There are the extremes of attempting to match word by word or form by form on the one hand, and then to express the meaning in contemporary, living language on the other. All translators deal with this kind of issue. The question is just what are you going to convey to the reader.
Let’s take the example discussed in the interview regarding measures. Should measures be converted into modern terms so that the actual lengths and widths are more comprehensible? Consider the Temple Vision in Ezekiel, which runs from chapters 40-48. The angel uses a rod of a specified lengths in cubits (a specific cubit, in fact) and his measurement results in lots of even results. If the measurements are convert to yards and feet, this evenness disappears.
Is this important? That’s a matter of interpretation. My point is not that the decision to convert is wrong, but rather that it is a decision, and you convey different information each way. A further decision is whether to footnote the alternative, i.e., if you convert the unit of measure in the text do you footnote it, and similarly if you choose not to do so, do you footnote the conversion?
In my ratings of Bible translations on this site, I use a separate 1 – 10 scale for functionality and formality. I think the NLT shines on this point, as I rate both high, seven and six respectively.
In any case, the interview is a valuable resource, whether or not you place the NLT at the highest. Personally, for a functionally equivalent translation I like the Revised English Bible, but I most commonly recommend the NLT. Why? Because the NLT is more readable and hearable to American ears, and I’m usually making my recommendation to an American audience.
(Featured image generated by Adobe Firefly Image 4 Ultra using a prompt generated by Google Gemini Pro.)
