Imagine translating the Bible into a language that has never been written before. A native speaker is found who also speaks his country’s national language. The native speaker turned translator begins translation with the help of an expat consultant who has been trained for this very task. The translator and the native translator work together through the medium of the country’s national language, not the first language of either of them. How many cultural influences are at play in such a (common) circumstance?

United Bible Societies translation consultant Robert Bascom writes, “The task of cross-cultural communication involved in Bible translation is especially daunting in view of the multiplicity of cultures involved.” He identifies up to five cultures that may be at play in a given project:

1. The culture of a given biblical text
2. The culture of the translation consultant (often an outside/expat trained in the West)
3. The culture of the language of communication (e.g., French culture in francophone Africa)
4. The culture of the translator
5. The culture of the country where the work is being done

Robert Bascom, “The Role of Culture in Translation” in Bible Translation: frames of reference, ed. Timothy Wilt (Manchester: St. Jerome, 2003), 81.

We can’t help but rejoice at the increased involvement in Bible translation by so-called “target” communities. May we all see ourselves as “partners” in Bible translation for the glory of God and the building up of the Church.

In a victory the Caudwells could scarcely have imagined 12 years ago, the churches of Basketo now have the Gospels of Mark and Luke in their mother tongue, and the entire Basketo New Testament is currently being reviewed. Throughout the process, the credit for the work was due not to one or two missionaries, but to a wide team of translators, consultants, and supporters both in Ethiopia and worldwide. Today, the Basketo people are more than 90 percent Christian.

Indigenous missionaries like Getachew are increasingly sent out to neighboring people groups. Foreign and local ministries are ministering in greater ways than either could alone. “Foreigners increasingly need to adopt a posture of service to the local and national leaders,” says Simon.

Continue reading

I am pleased to give you this information about the upcoming biennial Bible Translation Conference. You may have already gotten this information from another source, but I don’t want anyone to miss out on this tremendous opportunity. In particular, please note the abstract deadline.

We are excited about the ways this conference has been used over the years to encourage the Bible translation community. At our last conference in 2011, more than 320 Bible translators, linguists, literacy specialists, anthropologists, sign language and orality specialists, consultants, and other professionals attended. They came from over 71 service fields, 41 countries, and 55 Bible translation organizations and training institutions. The next conference will continue the trend!

DATE AND LOCATION:

The upcoming Bible Translation Conference will be October 11-15, 2013, in Dallas, Texas, at the International Linguistics Center. It is co-sponsored by SIL International and the Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics.

THEME:

The theme for this year’s conference is

PROMOTING EXCELLENCE IN BIBLE TRANSLATION

We will be accepting abstracts for papers on the following sub-themes:

a. Workforce and Training (including project management, cluster projects and other models, developing independent thinking and critical analysis skills, training paradigms, developing consultants, etc.)

b. Bible Translation Theory and Practice (including textual and exegetical issues, factors of genre, key terms, extended metaphors, drafting approaches, etc.)

c. Print and Non-Print Media (including storying, arts and performance, signed languages, scripts, study notes, multi-media, internet and new media, etc.)

d. Engagement and Impact (including host community participation, scripture engagement, acceptability, ethics, contextualization, Scripture selection in the translation process, etc.)

We encourage submissions that present case studies of experimental or innovative approaches. The abstract deadline will be May 3, 2013.

The BT2013 Call for Papers, costs, plenary speakers’ names, and registration deadlines will follow at a later date.

ACTION STEPS:

1. This preliminary announcement informs you of the theme for the 2013 Conference. You are encouraged to plan to submit an abstract. We will accept abstracts until May 3, 2013.

2. Please plan to attend BT 2013, October 11-15.

3. Please help us spread the word by forwarding this email to interested colleagues.

For more information see:

http://www.gial.edu/news-views/bt-conference or write BTConference_Dallas@sil.org

At the moment, I’m most seriously considering digital versions given my somewhat transient life–currently living in France, but about to move to Africa in the new year. Additionally, I love the Logos app for my Android smartphone and wouldn’t be surprised if purchasing their biblical language set of BDAG and HALOT integrated perfectly into the app. On the other hand, I’m not currently a user of Logos on my computer, thus I’d really only be able to access the lexica on my phone–not a terribly inviting notion. But Is it the case that if I purchase the lexica I’d only be able to access them through the app or would I somehow be able to use Logos for PC without buying a huge package?

Or, do I go with Bibleworks? of which I have an older version thanks to a very benevolent friend.

Or, ought I just buy the physical books?

I’d love your thoughts on the best way to add BDAG and HALOT to one’s library in 2012. Thanks!

You can easily understand why the creators of the video chose such a well-known verse as the example passage to be translated. I often employ John 3:16 as well when I’m speaking on Bible translation. but for different reasons. Yes, the verse is well-known, but the translation issues involved in translating John 3:16 are not.

First, a comparison of English translations shows the different ways in which the Greek word monogenes has been translated. We have, for example, “only-begotten” in the beloved King James but “(one and) only” in more recent translations like the English Standard Version, the New International Version and the New Living Translation (NLT, the version referenced in the video above). This change from begottenness to uniqueness reflects an evolution in the understanding of the underlying compound mono + genes. John 3:16 most likely speaking of the Son’s uniqueness and not his begottenness.

Secondly, one encounters the issue of how best to translate the very first word in the Greek, houtos. This adverb may either be translated as an adverb of manner meaning “in this way” or as an intensifier like “so much.” You may have noticed that the video above (quoting the NLT) opts for the second of these, rendering John 3:16: “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son…” while the Holman Christian Standard Version, for example, goes with “in this way” but adds the following footnote:

The Gk word houtos, commonly translated in Jn 3:16 as “so” or “so much” occurs over 200 times in the NT. Almost without exception it is an adverb of manner, not degree (for example, see Mt 1:18). It only means “so much” when modifying an adjective (see Gl 3:3; Rv 16:18). Manner seems primarily in view in Jn 3:16, which explains the HCSB‘s rendering.

I’m inclined to side with the translation “in this way,” but see also the value in translating houtos as “so” in this verse, given that it represents the ambiguity present in the original. I for one would not immediately think to translate houtos as “so much” like the NLT has done.

My opinions aside, the above video highlights–unwittingly I suppose–more than it’s designed to address in the world of translation.

Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer, “Oral Texts? A Reassessment of the Oral and Rhetorical Nature of Paul’s Letters in Light of Recent Studies,” JETS 55.2, pp. 323-341.

In this article, Porter and Dyer critique Ben Witherington’s rhetorical critical approach to NT interpretation, taking exception with his emphasis on the NT culture as primarily an oral one. They write, for example, “it is too simplistic to describe the NT era as an oral culture as opposed to a written one–the truth is that it is much more complex than this” (p. 329). What follows is the ushering in of statistics and estimates of literacy in the ancient world. This is what I want to highlight in this blog post in bullet point form.

Porter and Dyer (P&D) note the following concerning literacy in the NT era (pp. 329-332):

• A “book culture” existed (e.g., Roman philosopher Galen reportedly saw books in the market attributed to him that he had in fact not written. He then countered these forgeries by authoring On His Own Books. Thus, according to P&D the fact that forgeries existed signal a “book culture.”)
• Well known libraries existed, both public and private in the NT area (e.g., Alexandria and Ephesus)
• The cost of producing written documents in the NT era was not “exorbitant” (e.g., “the cost of copying a book ranged between two to four drachmas–the equivalent of from one to six days pay.”)
• 20-30% of men and 10-15% of women in the Roman Empire were literate, though these numbers are contested as you can imagine. (See the full article for the source of these percentages.)
• Even the illiterate must have constantly come in contact with the literate world thereby giving them a degree of literacy
• One must define what is meant by literacy and recognize degrees of literacy
• While Jesus did say, “Whoever has ears, let them hear,” he also said, “Have you not read…?” (Matt 12:3, et alibi)

Here’s a pic of a very cool wall I stumbled upon in Paris that has “I love you” in a myriad of languages. For the life of me I couldn’t get make the sun streaks coming through the trees to go away for the photo. Dommage !

Kerr, Glen J. “Dynamic Equivalence and Its Daughters: Placing Bible Translation Theories in Their Historical Context,” Journal of Translation 7(1): pp. 1-19.

Here are two interesting excerpts to spur you on to read more (p.11 and p. 13, respectively):

“The truth is that practice in translating has far outdistanced theory[.]“

and

[O]ne gets the sense that much of the writing on dynamic equivalence was a sort of polemic against formal equivalence, which was viewed as the regnant approach to Bible translation in need of dislodging.

This post is especially for Joe, who was looking for something like this ages ago.

Unfortunately, Dr. Carson begins his talk by saying he won’t be discussing this christological title in connection with Bible translation as he just came from doing so. One always stands to benefit, however, from Carson’s careful exegesis and that’s what you’ll find in this lecture (I hope–still listening!).

HT: Credo blog

Of particular interest is the third point, which reads,

“The translation of Scripture should faithfully reflect the Word of God in the original human languages. It must be listened to in its time-conditioned, at times even inelegant, mode of human expression without “correction” or “improvement” in service of modern sensitivities.”

Very much an approach that seeks to bring the reader to the text rather than the text to the reader, flowing from the preceding point,

The first principle with respect to biblical texts is that of fidelity, maximum possible fidelity to the words of the text.

Here’s a question: what presuppositions lie behind prescribing “maximum possible fidelity to the words of the text” if it is “at times even inelegant”?