Antonia Carcelen-Estrada in ‘Covert and overt ideologies in the translation of the Bible into Huao Terero’ (65–86) relates how the Bible came to be translated into Huao Terero, the language of the indigenous people of the Ecuadorian Amazon, called the Huaorani. Two threads run through this essay: one is the history of how the Huaorani came to be subjugated and exploited by outsiders, an endeavor led by missionaries set on translating the Bible into Huao Terero and converting the people to Christianity, and the other is the nature of the Bible translation that was carried out. The resistance in translation in this context has to do with how the Huaorani have managed to resist outsiders and their ways and beliefs, including Christianity, while seeming to comply.

This is an important perspective for Bible translators to consider, especially given the role positive “Stories of Impact” play in the “marketing” of Bible translation organizations like Wycliffe. However, the positive impact of Bible translation is not without its academic advocates, most notably Yale Divinity School’s Lamin Sanneh. He concludes in his article “Christian Missions and the Western Guilt Complex”

that Christian missions are better seen as a translation movement, with consequences for vernacular revitalization, religious change and social transformation than as a vehicle for Western cultural domination. Such an assurance should help alleviate some of the Western guilt complex about missions.

Read the rest of the review.

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!

So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up (Eph 4:11-12, NIV 2011).

In this translation, the translators–like all translators–have made decisions that smooth over ambiguity in the original. In fact, a reading of the above may leave you wondering where the meat of the discussion is to be found. Well, compare the NIV 2011 above with the KJV below (or with the Greek New Testament).

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (Eph 4:11-12 KJV)

The difference lies in the way the three phrases of v. 12 are handled (and relatedly to the translation of katartismon “equip/perfect,” a NT hapax legomenon). The NIV 2011 (and all contemporary translations that I’m aware of) links “equip” (“perfect” KJV) with what immediately follows, “for works of service” (“for the work of ministry” KJV).

Thus, in the NIV 2011, Christ gave apostles, etc., for two things:

1. to equip his people for works of service and
2. in order to build up the body of Christ

but in the KJV, Christ gave apostles, etc., for three things:

1. for perfecting (equipping) the saints
2. for the work of the ministry
3. for the edifying of the body of Christ

The discussion of the relationship of Eph 4:12 with every member ministry is concerned with whether the first phrase “to equip/perfect” is linked to “works of service.” In other words, are the saints equipped by apostles, etc., for ministry or are the saints simply equipped by apostles, etc., but not for ministry.

Caution in the Use of Ephesians 4:12

I cannot settle the question of the best translation for v. 12 because I see compelling lexical and contextual reasons in favor of both renderings; but I would like to comment on the use of these verses in relation to every member ministry.

First, the Greek original appears ambiguous to me; thus, we get the different renderings of the NIV and the KJV.¹  This is not a matter of textual criticism per se but a question of to which phrase to join another particular phrase, not always an easy choice. Reading v.12 in Greek presents both options to me. I would therefore caution against utilizing Eph 4:12 to decide definitively the question of every member ministry, whether for or against. Read, interpret and apply humbly, and with your brothers and sisters in Christ.

As a result, I’m not sure I can agree when Michael Horton writes, “Reflecting the actual construction of the Greek, the older translation [i.e., KJV] draws three lines of purpose clauses…,” as if the newer translations don’t reflect the “actual” Greek in some way.² Instead, I think it makes more sense to assert that reflecting the “actual construction of the Greek” would entail preserving the ambiguity of the Greek. Nor do I appreciate the uncharitable statement of commentator Andrew Lincoln when he remarks on this verse that it’s “hard to avoid the suspicion that opting for the other view [i.e., NIV 2011] is too often motivated by a zeal to avoid clericalism and to support a ‘democratic’ model of the Church.”³ Why question the motive of every member ministry?

Secondly, I believe Michael Horton, for example, creates a false dichotomy between proper “ministry of the Word” and every member ministry.⁴ He may have us believe that if a congregation is seeking to actively involve its members in the church’s ministries then there will be an undue exaltation of the people of the congregation to the detriment of the ministry of the word. This does not necessarily follow. Surely a local body can both prize the involvement of its members and prize the ministry of the word–unless, of course, there is something unscriptural about involving members, but I do not think this can be determined on the witness of Eph 4:11-12 alone.

Thirdly, what is “every member ministry” anyways?! Is it giving Joe Pew the pulpit on a Sunday? Or, simply allowing Mrs. Pew to bake bread and wash feet? Is every member ministry simply allowing each member to utilize his or her own God-given giftings? If so, has Horton set up a straw man of every member ministry, one which usurps the ministry of the word?

Footnotes

• http://trevinwax.com/2011/02/10/islam-and-contextualization-a-conversation-with-collin-hansen-j-d-greear/
• http://www.edstetzer.com/2011/02/the-son-of-god-and-ministry-to.html
• http://www.jrdkirk.com/2011/02/08/translating-son-of-god/
• http://www.missionfrontiers.org/blog/post/bible-translations-for-muslim-readers

Reports

• http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/02/09/translating-%E2%80%9Cson-of-god%E2%80%9D-for-muslims/
• http://www.edstetzer.com/2011/02/scripture-translation-and-mini.html
• http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/02/09/translating-son-of-god-for-muslims/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+between2worlds+%28Between+Two+Worlds%29

Praying for the Bibleless

I was not prepared for the beautiful, powerful prayers of God’s people at Union Missionary Baptist Church. We went last night to cast a vision for what God is doing through Bible translation to bring his message of hope and redemption to Bibleless communities all over the world, but we left having caught a vision of the people of God rising up to pray for the Bibleless all over the world and for workers to be sent out. How warmly we were welcomed as advocates for the Bibleless!

Last night two prayers in particular messed me up, put me in shambles.

Pastor Gene read from the Cameroon entry in Operation World, the country in which we’re preparing to serve as Bible translators. But Gene read not from the latest edition of Operation World, which just came out at the end of last year, but from the previous edition. In the Cameroon entry in the previous edition the country’s suggested prayer needs include most urgently the need for Bible translators and Bible translations in order to combat spiritual poverty and nominal Christianity. Gene then pointed to Emily and me on the front pew and said, “Here’s an answer to this prayer request.” I’m an answer to prayer!? Hearing God’s people last night praise him for sending us out was too much for me. The prayers of God’s people messed me up…in a good way.

Secondly, in the picture above you’ll notice a large banner-like printout. This printout is a list of all the languages in the world that still do not have a Bible translation; there are over 2,000 all over the world! When fully rolled out, the list stretched from the pulpit all the way to the back of the sanctuary. Before we prayed God’s people gathered on either side of the list, picked it up and chose a language for which they would pray out loud. The prayer of one gentleman whose face I never saw absolutely messed me up. He held his portion of the list and prayed, “Lord, I had no idea. How many of us went through today without thinking one bit of any of this. I’m ashamed.”

He went on to offer a passionate plea for the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers. His prayer messed me up and continues to mess me up…in a good way.

In the July-August 2010 issue of Missions Frontiers magazine (I had never heard of it) Paul Eschleman (or him), founder of the JESUS Film Project and Vice President of Evangelism Strategies for Campus Crusade, lists what he sees as the top five “global evangelization priorities for the Church,” the focus of which is “disciple-making breakthrough in every people group of the world.”

• 5 – Church planting and presence
• 4 – Reaching oral learners – “Two-thirds of people worldwide are oral learners. That is, they prefer to learn through proverbs, music, poetry and especially stories.”
• 3 – Increasing evangelization, with a focus on Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus – “We need more intentional demonstration of love and prayer for the largest religious blocs throughout the world: Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. If you add the folk Chinese of China, the total population of the three groups is 3.5 billion people – over half of the world’s population.”
• 2 – Engaging the unengaged people groups – “At present, there remain about 3,500 people groups (of all population sizes) that are still unengaged; the total population of these groups is over 350 million.”
• 1 – Scripture translation – “Scripture translation is the #1 priority throughout the world because it’s impossible to do ministry without a Biblical foundation.”

Now I was initially drawn to this list because, well, Bible translation is listed as the top priority and I’m pursuing work with Wycliffe as a Bible translator. So, the list looked pretty good to me. Secondly, what’s interesting is that church planting is listed number five when everywhere you turn today the emphasis seems to be on church planting. Do a search on Twitter for Darrin Patrick.

Respond

Is church planting overrated? Should Bible translation really be the Church’s top priority?

PDF

Read the full PDF of Paul Eschelman, “The State of the Unfinished Task” in Missions Frontiers (July-August 2010), 10-11. Don’t miss the nifty diagram.

photo credit: ~Oryctes~

The Wycliffe segment is sandwiched between pieces on Middle East street names and the Locavore language. It runs from minutes 8:30 to 23:30. Read about this edition of The World in Words and download the MP3. Also, subscribe to the podcast while you’re at it.

photo credit: mr lynch

photo credit: Lawrence OP

Sing for Joy

Every Sunday morning the pretentiously titled local classical station–The Classical Station–airs several syndicated programs featuring sacred music. One of those is Sing for Joy, a production of Minnesota’s St. Olaf College. Every week the College Pastor presents choral music selected to coincide with the readings from the revised common lectionary. The result is a beautiful production that is well worth your listen, especially if you come from a non-liturgical tradition such as I. I’ve found that keeping up with the common lectionary vocally enhanced by world-class choirs is a delightful way to connect with the Church universal. Sing for Joy presents that certain bountiful depth of sacred music that is too often forgotten. My only disappointment is that the broadcasts, as far as I can tell, are not available via podcast. There is, however, a vast streaming archive available on their site of current and past episodes. You can listen wherever you are no matter the day of the week. Check it out.

Lectionary at Lunch

I discovered this second gem on iTunesU. Concordia Seminary St. Louis hosts an enviable Lectionary at Lunch group every Wednesday that is led by a professor who reads through the OT and NT lessons in Hebrew and Greek, translates them and discusses particular points of interest. The podcast of the group is available free of charge and is well worth your listen, especially if you’re interested in exegesis, translation and original language study. I can’t tell you how beneficial this is to listen to. Check it out.

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.