I now want to offer some reflections on the conference from the perspective of one who is relatively new to the field and new to the discussions the field is having. You can grab PDFs of pre-conference paper drafts, bibliographies and abstracts in this public folder. Go quickly, I don’t know how long it’ll last.

Formal vs. functional

The discussion between formal and functional equivalence is one that professional Bible translators are still very interested in having. It’s not clear, however, whether the issue arises with actual, genuine consideration in mind or merely to serve as an opportunity to reinforce/promote one’s own thinking on the matter. There does seem to exist a certain dismissive attitude toward formal equivalence to the extent that one presenter went so far (in my mind at least) to equate formal equivalence with bibliolatry. Such uncharitable equations are neither helpful nor further the discussion.

Coming from a biblical studies and theological background, I have observed a tendency for those focused mainly on biblical studies and theology to lean toward formal equivalence while those with (minority language) translation field experience to strongly favor dynamic equivalence or what’s increasingly termed “meaning-based translation” (more on that). This bifurcation leaves two possibilities in my mind: (1) biblical studies is lagging way behind translation studies in adoption of dynamic equivalency or (2) a synthesis is in order. I find the latter option most likely.

“Meaning-based translation”

Increasingly, “meaning-based translation” is the phrase used to describe the Bible translation philosophy employed by many within Wycliffe and its partner organizations. I admit my ignorance of the genesis of the term, but I can’t help but wonder if it isn’t a strategic adoption which in a way sidesteps the formal vs. functional discussion. Does “meaning-based translation” proffer a tertium quid in name only? Is it implying that formal equivalency isn’t meaningful?

One presenter wisely noted that we must be careful in touting notions of accuracy, faithfulness, and meaningfulness as there are different degrees and different arenas of each. For example, in translating an idiom word-for-word a translator has captured the individual lexical meaning but missed the phrase-level meaning (the idiom). Is such a translation “accurate”? In a way…but we must be more specific: more accurate in what way?

The same presenter referenced the prefaces to both the ESV and the NLT wherein each make claims of accuracy. “Who’s right?” she quipped. “I think they both are, but in different ways.”

Age difference

The overwhelming majority of conference attendees were age 50+ white males, matching the description of a missionary linguist as “an ugly farmer.” I fully expected more GIAL students to be in attendance as the conference was hosted by the school, offered at a deep discount and right on campus. It would be wonderful to see more student interaction in the future.

Inbreeding

My feeling is that the Bible Translation Conference was not well-advertised (which isn’t to say it wasn’t well-attended. I think I heard that there were almost 200 attendees). There should have been ads in scholarly journals, ads on biblical studies blogs, and invitations sent to colleges and seminaries. My feeling is that there wasn’t any of this. If a conference is going to be truly challenging and beneficial, there must be a diverse mixture of interested attendees. Simply meeting with one’s work colleagues to confirm already established opinions isn’t a academic pursuit, it’s inbreeding. In the future, the conference would be greatly enriched by the presence of professionals and students from the fields of biblical studies, theology and non-SIL linguistics.

Lack of training in biblical studies and theology

The conference confirmed in part my desire to see a greater degree of training in biblical studies and theology for Bible translators. One attendee who works in OT translation projects was, as far as I could tell, unaware of textual criticism. Additionally, of the papers I listened to, only one explored the theological dimension of Bible translation and even that was somewhat in passing. There is much gold to be mined here and Bible translation will be greatly enriched when translators grow proportionally as theologians and linguists.

Challenge to stay current

A major challenge facing the above reflection about a need for greater training in biblical studies and theology is how exactly can translators working in remote locations stay abreast of current trends in those fields? This challenge matters because good translations depend on translators being well-informed. For example, one presenter explored the meaning of kataluma in Luke 2:7, Jesus’ birth narrative. Kataluma has traditionally been understood as “inn” while current scholarship (within at least the last 10 years) has found evidence suggesting that kataluma is better understood as “guest room.” (Read more about that here.) To my surprise the presenter was met with a great degree of incredulity in the question and answer time. Being familiar with the discussion before the presentation, the new scholarship was a closed-case for me. Others, however, weren’t ready to trade tradition for “scholarly conjecture.” The presenter was met with appreciation by one lady one said she had just recently been working through the translation of kataluma in her project and they were having trouble coming up with a good word for “inn.”

Fortunately, digital technology is making it easier to stay informed through blogs, ebooks, and mp3 and video lectures, if translators want to and make the time.

Funding will always be an issue

Bible translation is an expensive endeavor. May God provide!

“He said to himself, from his earliest years that God suffers in the great multitudes whom his sacred word cannot reach. Religious truth is captive in a small number of manuscript books, which guard the common treasure, instead of diffusing it. Let us break the seal which holds the holy things; give wings to the truth, that by means of speech, no longer written at great expense by the hand that wearies itself, but multiplied as the air by an unwearied machine, it may fly to seek every soul born into the world!”

The invention of the printing press was but the breaking of one seal which “holds the holy things.” The aim of Bible translation is to further “give wings to the truth.”

What translation would you pick? How about the number and color of ribbons? Skinny margins or wide? Sans serif font? Leather bound?

I can’t help but think of the many millions around the world today whose dream Bible would be simply the Bible in their own language. Current estimates suggest around 340 million people speaking 2078 languages may have a need for Bible translation to begin.¹ That’s millions of people who still dream of a Bible while we’re designing our dream Bible.

Retired Wycliffe translator George Cowan put it in terms of having a gourmet meal while others dine on crumbs.

Although they didn’t finish their work, their journey is now complete. How will you expire?

I was overjoyed to find out about the publication of The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition, a new critical edition of the Greek New Testament with a very liberal license (“You may freely distribute the SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT), but you are not permitted to sell it on its own, either in print or electronic format”).

Thanks to the above license I am pleased to make available an experimental conversion of the SBLGNT to ebook format that I made (.mobi and .epub). This is only the text and does not contain the apparatus. (I’m not ready to tackle the apparatus yet, if ever.) Please report any bugs.

Although the text displays very well on my Kindle 3, viewing in the Kindle for PC app produced little boxes where some characters should be. I am interested to hear if this conversion displays properly on older Kindle models.

Behold the SBLGNT’s first convert.

Download

Version 1.2 is my conversion, which features a table of contents and chapter breaks. Timothy Lee’s version features dictionary-like look-up of any verse based on the first three letters of the book (note: Philemon is phm), the texual apparatus and front matter.

Version 1.2 - sblgnt.mobi - sblgnt.epub (Table of Contents, chapter breaks)

Timothy Lee 2.0 – sblgnt-timothylee-2.0.prc (complete with apparatus) – RECOMMENDED

Release Notes

2011-06-10 – Timothy Lee 2.0

2011-04-03 – Timothy Lee‘s version added

2011-01-11 Version 1.2 – added quick jump to chapters

2010-12-08 Version 1.1

More on the SBLGNT

• http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2010/10/sbl-and-logos-bible-software-announce.html
• http://www.supakoo.com/rick/ricoblog/2010/10/29/OnTheSBLGreekNewTestamentSBLGNT.aspx
• http://blog.logos.com/archives/2010/10/introducing_the_sbl_greek_new_testament.html
• http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2010/10/initial-impressions-of-the-sbl-greek-new-testament.html
• http://michaelwholmes.com/sbl-greek-new-testament-2/

Method of Conversion

View the separate files listed below in this directory: http://katadrew.com/files/sblgnt

1. I started with the SBLGNT text in XML.
2. Created XSL and CSS stylesheets.
3. I applied the stylesheets with Mobipocket Creator to create an HTML file.
4. I saved the HTML file as a DOC in Word
5. Emailed the HTML file to my free Kindle email address for Amazon conversion.
6. AZW file appears on Kindle.
7. Connect Kindle to PC and edit metadata with Calibre.

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrew, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation

photo credit: bemky

Several weeks back I attended a birthday party in honor of an elderly woman who has been coming regularly to a Bible study that I lead at the senior apartment complex where she lives. While this woman has verbalized on many occasions her trust in the Lord, I’m not exactly sure where her son’s family is at after meeting them for the first time at the party. It’s always interesting to hear the first remarks people make once they learn that one is a seminary student.

They asked what denominational affiliation the seminary has. I told them it is Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, a Southern Baptist school. They then replied that they attend a local Catholic church but are open to “all things spiritual.” I was happy to agree that I, too, am open to “all things spiritual” as far as the plain meaning of the statement goes. I have nothing against spirituality. In fact, a non-Christian ex-worker once remarked to me that he finds it shallow that many Christians while religions aren’t spiritual. I agree.

Their second question was what I wanted to do after I graduate. “So are you going to be a minister or something?” I said that I could be but that I’m pursuing work in Bible translation. “Oh, that’s interesting. There’s a lot that’s lost in translation.” This is one of those statements that people often repeat after hearing because they think it sounds clever, but they’re not actually sure if it’s true; it only seems to be true on the face of it. The idea that a lot is left behind in translation just seems to makes sense.

I wasn’t sure whether to take this comment as a dig at Bible translation or what. I should have asked what they meant by that. I find this to be a good course of action to get to the bottom of people’s thinking. They’ll either be able to articulate a well-crafted explanation of whatever it is you asked them to clarify (rare) or they’ll stumble and sort of trail off (more common). Instead I replied by saying that over and over again in my studies I’m amazed at how well translations are able to reproduce what’s there in the original. For example, I’m doing an independent study this semester on Exodus wherein I’m reading through the Hebrew, the Septuagint, and two modern translations four times each to get a feel for what’s lost and how what is communicated is communicated. So far I’m amazed at how well the message of the text sings loud and clear.

Translation is what it is but I think I can safely conclude that the message of the Bible sings out loud and clear in any language despite whatever may be lost (a topic for another time). That is the point of translation: that God’s redemptive message faithfully sing loud and clear.

On this last aspect where one might expect the work of redemption to continue into eternity future, Edwards writes,

“The Work of Redemption is not an eternal work, that is, it is not a work always a-doing and never accomplished. But the fruits of this work are eternal fruits…[A]s God’s electing love and the covenant of redemption never had a beginning, so the fruits of this work that shall be after the end of the work never will have an end” (A Jonathan Edwards Reader, p. 130).

Why many parts?

My dad asked this question last week as we talked about the relation of the Testaments and the span of redemptive history. Why did God wait so long? My mind was immediately taken to Galatians 4:4 where Paul speaks about God sending for his son in “the fullness of time.” We must remember that what is a long time in our minds is perfect timing is God’s grand scheme of redemptive history. Still, we wonder why.

Edwards likens the many parts of redemptive history to the construction of a building:

“Like an house or temple that is building, first the workmen are sent forth, then the materials are gathered, then ground fitted, then foundation is laid, then the superstructure erected one part after another, till at length the topstone is laid. And all is finished. Now the Work of Redemption in that large sense that has been explained may be compared to such a building that is carrying on from the fall of man to the end of the world. God went about it immediately after the fall of man. Some things were done towards this building then, immediately as maybe hereafter shown; and so God has gone as it were getting materials and building ever since, and so will go on to the end of the world. And then the time shall come when the topstone shall be brought forth and all will appear complete and consummate” (A Jonathan Edwards Reader, 132).

This analogy, however, does not serve to explain why God did things this way. It just makes it more understandable, more reasonable when we think of redemptive history as a work in progress.

Still, why many parts?

God’s glory.

Edwards, as you may well be aware, argues thoroughly and compellingly for God’s glory as the end of all his works (cf. “The End for Which God Created the World”). Most importantly, this is the testimony of the Bible. Therefore, Edwards can conclude his sermon on the work of redemption by saying (n.b. read slowly),

“In all this God designed to accomplish the glory of the blessed Trinity in an exceeding degree. God had a design of glorifying himself from eternity, to glorify each person in the Godhead. The end must considered as first in the order of nature and then the means, and therefore we must conceive that God having proposed this end had then, as it were, the means to choose” (A Jonathan Edwards Reader, p. 135).

In my own words, God’s goal (his end) is to glorify himself. (Don’t worry: your joy in life is not opposed to God glorifying himself but included in it.) The goal is always first or primary. The way to accomplish the goal is secondary or subordinate. God has the right to choose how to accomplish his goal. He chose to do it in many parts. God’s timing like his plan is perfect. We therefore trust him.

A Jonathan Edwards Reader

The book I’ve quoted in this post is A Jonathan Edwards Reader published by Yale University Press. I ordered my copy from Westminster Seminary Bookstore for a class on Jonathan Edwards I’m taking this semester. Use the following referral link to check it out in the Westminster Bookstore (every click gets me closer to a free book): Jonathan Edwards Reader

What’s great about Psalms is that by reading one a day or something similar one covers more topics than would be covered by doing a topical study. Topics emerge which you might not expect to research or do more reading on or even think about. When we think of topics of Scripture, we think of faith, love, peace, and patience, all virtues that are relatively easily understood, learned, and applied (not always, but usually). For such virtues we hang out in Paul’s letters or in the Gospels with the Old Testament almost entirely forgotten. Psalms brings such oversight to a screeching halt.

Covering lots of topics by reading through Psalms, however, is by no means “a walk in the park.” There are hard sayings which we Christians aren’t quite sure what to do with. David seems always to be crying out to God for him to crush his enemies. He wants God to shut their mouths because they’re mocking him. Let them get caught in their own traps that they laid for him. David appears a guiltless man pursued by bandits unjustly whom he wishes God would smite.

At this point in reading (coming across such things), a two-option tension arises:

1. How should I interpret (tweak?) this Scripture to make it more palatable to my own experience and understanding of God? Or…
2. How should this surprising passage of Scripture change me, my understanding and theology?

You see, it’s either change or be changed. I can say, “David didn’t mean such-and-such, he meant this,” changing the text. Or, I can say, “Woah, I didn’t realize the saints operated in such a way or that God would be like this,” allowing myself to be changed by what I read.

But I must be careful here because a careful reading and interpretation of a hard passage is not “changing” the Scripture. For, what is careful reading and changing of interpretation of a passage but changing what I think a specific word means or refers to? Thus, it is me, the reader, who changes not Scripture. I allow what I think something means to change to be more consistent with Scripture. On the other hand, what we must never allow happen is a changing of the Scripture to suit oneself or one’s personal understanding. I am not the measure of all things nor does the Scripture have to account for what I deem my incontestable experience.

The word of God stands. I change.

“If your struggle against sin depended on your knowledge of Deuteronomy, how well would you do?”

It might be fair to say that our struggle against sin should include a working, quotable familiarity with Deuteronomy. Nonetheless, point taken.