Abstract: The various Bible translation agencies, starting in the 1930s, have struggled to consistently produce high-quality, widely used Scripture portions for minority languages. This paper examines methodologies used in translating minority language Bibles using translation team case studies over several decades. Which translation and checking methodologies ensured that these languages received accurate and natural Scripture portions that became widely used? Set out are current, widely accepted practices that hinder accurate and natural Bible translation in these studied languages, and methods that seem to promote the rejection of Scriptures by minority language people. Further examined are the issues of translation team selection, training and when a language group is ready to be entrusted with Bible translation, and implications for further research.
Editor’s note: This is part 1 of a 3-part series.
Introduction: Longitudinal observations of minority language translations
For minority language speakers (defined in this paper as under 1 million speakers), who dream and understand their world best through a minority language, Bible translation projects are a critically needed mission strategy for individual and church growth. The translation team composition and make-up of these translation projects have varied widely across and within the Bible translation agencies, as have the complexities and differences in language, local cultural, economic and social situations that the Bible translation teams have worked in over the decades to produce Scriptures. These differences in project variables have made comparison and research difficult. Very few research efforts have been undertaken. Several exceptions exist (for example, the work of Wayne Dye1See for example The Bible Translation Strategy: An Analysis of its Spiritual Impact (Dallas: Wycliffe Bible Translators, 1980); “Conditions Necessary for Scriptures to be Used,” Word and Deed 2.2 (2003):6–10; “,a href=”https://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/26_2_PDFs/89-98_Eight%20Conditions.pdf” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>The Eight Conditions of Scripture Engagement: Social and Cultural Factors Necessary for Vernacular Bible Translation to Achieve Maximum Effect</a>,” International Journal of Frontier Missiology 26.2 (2009): 89–98., and SURAM,2See <a href=”https://www.sil.org/system/files/reapdata/81/48/24/81482401611600786303933718281375711095/ebook73_SURAM.pdf” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”><em>Scripture Use Research And Ministry</em></a>, compiled by René van den Berg (SIL International: 2020). The SURAM Report presents the results, conclusions and recommendations of the SURAM (Scripture Use Research And Ministry) project, which ran from 2014 until early 2017 and investigated the use, or lack of use, of translated New Testaments in eleven languages spoken in Papua New Guinea.). Unfortunately, self-reporting on the underuse of New Testaments is highly discouraged by the mission agencies due to the need to recruit both workers and funds.
In “majority languages” (defined in this paper as above 1 million speakers), the translation team structures have also varied widely, such as William Tyndale in English and Martin Luther in German, both well-educated men, who translated mostly alone (but with associates who gave feedback). A variable in the acceptance of these two Bibles was that Luther and Tyndale, in their respective languages, were already best-selling authors. In contrast, the King James Bible included a dozen drafters and two main revision teams who served together. Another variable is whether the translator is a native speaker. For example, William Carey wrote a widely-read and best-selling mission pamphlet in his own language, but unlike Luther or Tyndale, Carey courageously attempted to translate Scripture into languages that were not his mother tongue. All of these translations by Carey were of a low enough quality that in later years, they were re-translated, rather than revised.
In the 1930s, a new understanding among Western Christians, led most notably by William Cameron Townsend, awakened and acted on the overwhelming need for thousands of minority languages to have the Bible translated. This need still exists today. Thousands of missionaries were sent to learn languages and lead the translation projects in the models of Carey and Townsend serving as: (1) language learners; (2) lead translators; and (3) translation editors. Not widely known is that like William Carey, the New Testament translation which was produced by Cameron Townsend was later fully re-translated (not just revised) by the minority speakers he served.
The need for native speakers to revise the work of both these honored missionaries should cause us to reexamine our statistical desire to compile language lists and then check off as “completed” languages receiving Scripture portions until the last language is started in such efforts as Vision 2025, the Joshua Project, and the Race to Zero. Perhaps we need a change from Vision 2025 (“a Bible translation program in progress in every language still needing one by 2025”) to “a Bible translation in use in every language still needing one in the world.” This is a change in metrics from “completed” to “in use” by mother-tongue speakers. (How much use is necessary to qualify as “in use,” and how that use can be measured, is not the focus of this paper. The focus of this paper is the widely-used methods that are causing lack of use.)
Today, linguistic classes prepare future missionaries to lead national translation teams. In previous decades, these missionaries were designated as Bible translators. Today, there is confusion between the role of a Bible translator and a Bible translation advisor. For the purpose of this paper, I recommend a change in definitions: a Bible translator sits at the keyboard during translation sessions and also has editing privileges with the text. A translation advisor works with the translators, helping the team check for accuracy and doing exegesis, but is not in control of the keyboard. The advisor may be the Paratext translation program administrator, and assist in team coordination, but the advisor only gives suggested edits to the translators, changes that the translators have the final authority to make.
Given the above examples, I would argue that native speakers should always be the “translators,” sitting at the keyboard and given final editing privileges. Outside helpers should only be able to make suggested edits, to avoid the types of problems that arose for translators like William Carey and Cameron Townsend.
A question to ask is: have the linguistic and Bible translation classes that Western missionary Bible translators typically undergo, and the resulting mission assignments they are given, caused unintended results by giving these budding linguists status and authority over minority language speakers in translation decisions? These linguists have almost never translated anything prior to taking these linguistic classes. Yet, they are typically given authority to edit as a translator and make final decisions in these mostly unwritten languages. This broadly happens for four main reasons (listed below).
- There is often a lack of literate and well-educated nationals located within the language community with time free to translate. Most of the academically talented minority language speakers gravitate out of the rural language group to the cities to get better-paying jobs.
- The source of funding for Bible translation is external to the minority language people group, usually provided by the agency that also supplies the expatriate linguist.
- The introduction of literacy and editing are new innovations in most of these languages. Thus, the rules of written language need rapid development, unlike for example, English, with its over 600 years of sometimes erratic written language development and use in universities. The orthographic development of English greatly slowed after the introduction of the best-selling Webster’s Dictionary and other dictionaries became widely available references for writers.
- Thus, the newness of written language development leads the minority speakers to defer to “the expert” because of several factors. These cultures seek to please those visitors who are cultural outsiders, who in this case are linguists with a very keen linguistic interest. A disagreement with the linguist over a question of written language would cause shame to the mother-tongue speaker who has only language custom and practice, rather than a written dictionary to refer the linguist to answer a disagreement or question. In most cases, it is the linguist who has developed the word lists and dictionary, which then gets standardized. The nationals do not want to show a lack of hospitality to the outsider (who often wins arguments with the minority language speakers because of the knowledge he or she learned in linguistic classes). I have personally observed these types of interactions many times, and have heard many stories from minority speakers of expat linguists winning arguments with minority language speakers just through their use of linguistic jargon.
In any majority language where literature is not a new innovation, in order to become a best-selling author, or to sell books, the commonly accepted practice and understanding is that it requires a native speaker to edit the manuscript. I do not know of any non-native speaker who has become a bestselling author in English who has not had a native speaker of English edit the work (nor an example in any other majority language). One of the issues this paper will seek to address is: Should editorial privileges in minority language translation projects default to the non-native speaking mission personnel? Is the withholding of editorial privileges from the native speakers one of the causes of underused minority language translations?
Part 2 of this series will address this question more deeply.
0 Comments