Editor’s note: This is part 3 of a 3-part series. Read part 1 and part 2 first, which lay out the problems with the commonly used methods of translation checking and argue that most of these problems will be resolved by giving native speakers editorial control over their Bible translations. This final section will give recommendations for increasing the quality of translations of God’s Word.

Quality Control (QC) is the root of many of the problems in Bible translation. Manufacturers, such as auto manufacturers, would never allow the Quality Control Department to make its own rules and standards. Why? Left to themselves, many QC departments would make rules to totally dismantle each vehicle. Furthermore, the QC process is based on customer feedback. Mission agencies have little accountability and feedback from the minority language people they serve. These minority language people are often from “shame-based cultures” where the higher value is to “save face” and not be shamed or shame, rather than to tell the truth. The minority language speakers are highly reluctant to tell the truth when someone asks, “It’s good, isn’t it?” Minority language speakers are isolated by the agency control and rules and are left quietly frustrated. Because these nationals respect and love these expats, they are hard-pressed, and they have hidden their true feelings and requests for revisions in order to keep relationships intact. Thus, Bible translation agencies often assume, since no one disagrees or gives any significant or specific unpopular feedback about a Bible translation, that the people group has a ‘lack of spiritual hunger’ when they reject their translated Scriptures. This suppression is partly because the QC process is owned and controlled by a small group of well-meaning, highly-esteemed “senior Bible translation consultants” (the “Quality Control Department”), who today, use virtually the same techniques introduced in the 1940s, with very few new tools or techniques mentioned earlier in this three-part paper. 

Mission leaders, many who have never been involved in translation work, trust the respected, senior Bible translation consultants, who serve in nearly all the Bible translation agencies. They assume that the advice from these consultants—who have also set the rules that they as the quality checkers get to work by—ensures high quality. In reality, these senior consultants have only been trained by older missionaries, and are passing on this very same training, with increased rules and training modifications from time to time. These rule modifications include requiring those who follow them, especially the nationals, to have higher qualifications than when they themselves were trained (see the FOBAI standards). These rules protect the status quo policies, much like a union would control standards without the name “union” attached. The rules require that translated texts be published with this inherently weak, extremely labor-intensive process. Their standards are required in order to get publication approval. Even more problematic is that many agencies also require all revisions to go through the same, long-term 3-6 chapter a day process. The fact that revision happens with all popular majority language Bible translations is overlooked. Also overlooked is that out of 220 Papua New Guinea languages with published New Testaments, only two New Testaments have completed full revisions/re-translations using this process. Yet over 100 translations are now over 25 years old and will soon need revision or retranslation and republication. 

Because the VE/BTE process is the standard by which everyone is trained, the assumption is that it works. But unfortunately, with the exception of the examples in this paper, no one to this author’s knowledge re-consultant-checked a consultant-checked passage in unaccepted New Testaments and published the results. One Bible translation agency, which is also involved in church planting, informed this author that they have a policy to spot-check a number of chapters in any NT book produced by other agencies before they allow their agency church planters to use the book. These results are held privately to avoid embarrassing other agencies. The results of the spot-checks are the basis for the recommendations for new translations in many of the languages where they are church planting. That information came to me twice, once when I was told our team’s newly retranslated NT had been approved for their church planter to use, whereas the previous 1982 translation was deemed unusable and in need of retranslation by their team. At another meeting between agency leaders, I listened as a fellow agency leader in an agency where I had previously served asked the leaders of this other agency why this other agency was retranslating NTs in languages that they knew our agency had already completed and printed NT in already. 

Conclusion 

The Own Language Checking Method, which engages national church leaders fluent in their own language to use the majority language checking approach to check and approve the translated text, has demonstrated better use of the Scriptures by the national churches, increased discipleship and teaching of the national churches and their leaders. It also dramatically improves quality, ensures sustainability for future reprints, revisions and OT translation, and cuts about 60–70% of the time to complete OT translations and NT revisions! Bible translation agencies still launch a very high percentage of flawed and rejected New Testaments even with the requirements to produce linguistic papers, such as grammar and anthropology research papers prior to the publication of Scripture. One way to stop these failures, and to increase quality, is not by increasing paperwork or linguistic requirements that spin the project inwards towards more agency control and requirements, but to release the translation process by spinning both the responsibility and control out to the church leaders and local community, which will also require greater community engagement and discipleship that results from the Scripture production process.

Recommendations for leadership discussion:

Questions for discussion for funders to ask: 

1. In majority languages above a million people, Bibles can be produced using a business model, where at least the costs are covered. However, will most minority language groups, who can’t sell Scripture in a business model, ever benefit like English or German from sales that cover the cost of revision improvement? Or will we leave these minority languages locked in a form of servitude to mission agency rules (rules that were created for and by expat missionaries)? How can minority people groups qualify for funding and help to revise and print a revised Bible? 
2. When is a language group ready to be entrusted with Bible translation, which is one of God’s primary discipleship tools? I have been told by agency leaders, “When the minority group pays for the book, they can control it. Until then, our agency sets the rules.” Could changing agency rules to allow Old Testament projects and Bible revisions to use church leaders from the language group to check and approve the Bible text be a transition solution?
3. Why are the major Bible societies and translation agencies still allowing the VE/BTE process to continue to be applied to language groups where national educated Christian leaders who speak the language in the current generation are now available?

Concluding Recommendation #1: The Bible translation agencies would do well to focus on Bible use and Bible translation as the best discipleship tool that leaders of developing churches need, rather than the race to zero languages needing a translation started.

Recommendation #2: This paper shows that approving and sending translations to the printer with the types of errors mentioned in this paper under the current FOBAI QC standards is actually not meeting FOBAI standards, and is unacceptable. This paper directs us to the need for the VE/BTE process to be significantly researched and re-evaluated as a way to check the quality of translations.

Recommendation #3: The majority language translation process that does not use a VE/BTE is the ideal, and clearly exceeds FOBAI standards in the resulting Scripture output. Thus, the majority language approach has not shown “equivalence,” but a superior product. As many minority languages as possible should be encouraged to use it. Agencies can move some minority language translation projects from the minority language VE/BTE method to the majority language method. 

Recommendation #4: Will the Own Language Checking Method put the senior Bible translation consultants out of work? No! There are still many hundreds of minority languages that need the VE/BTE consultants, specifically languages with only a few thousand speakers, or those languages with less than 6–12 Bible school or seminary-trained church leaders. However, where four or more church leaders, preferably from different denominations, are available to help and are able to participate, the Own Language Consultant Method should be the first choice for Bible translation funders and Bible translation agencies.

Recommendation #5: Some agencies use “community checkers” who don’t have final publication authority. If some of these community checkers are church leaders, then these community checkers need to be further trained and elevated by the agency and language group to be given translation consultant status to reject the translation for publication if the translation does not meet their standards. 

Recommendation #6: Bible translation consultants and agencies vary in their respect for God’s Word. Having a doctorate degree does not necessarily make for a better translation. Unfortunately, in the 72% of the New Testament (in which I participated as the team advisor) when we checked 3–6 chapters a day with the expat senior mission consultants, some senior expat consultants, in addition to missing errors by using the VEs, also encouraged our team to translate with liberal theology that lowered the authority and quality of the Bible! We did not invite those consultants to return to check further passages. My experience has been that minority language speakers and church leaders are theologically more conservative than many Western Bible translation consultants.

Recommendation #7: Most of the talented nationals we want involved in Bible translation are busy church leaders who can’t drop life to attend yet another, and another, and another training course. This is one reason Bible translation agencies are getting less qualified people in many mission translation programs, because the people chosen to attend the workshops are the only ones who are sitting around in the villages having the time to attend every 5–6 week course; or the missionary asks for a volunteer. (Ask for volunteer help long-term, and get volunteer results.) Mission agencies need to rethink their strategies and use adult training methods. Church leaders cannot attend a set of 4–10 courses, each running for five 5–6 weeks, before they become approved checkers. How would this method work in the Western world? Eugene Peterson, who translated The Message, used two university professors (who were friends) to check his work. 

It is the hope and desire of this author and of the people I know who speak minority languages, that those in the Western world will empower them to use majority language Bible translation checking methods in their pursuit to get clear, accurate and natural Bible translations. They would like their language group members to benefit from Scripture access in the same way that majority language believers do. Will our Western control over funds and checking methods change in order to allow excellent Bible translations for all people and language groups?

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor . . . and Yourself by Steve Corbett, Brian Fikkert , et al. Jan 24, 2014.

Mattocks, Richard (March 2005). “SIL International Scripture Use Research Study – Factors that Influence the Use of the Local Language (LL) Scriptures.” (2002–2005) Interact, Translation Section Meeting, (2005), SIL-PNG Biannual Conference, Language Bung [Gathering].

Mattocks, Richard, (Note) Dozens of missionary translators have been interviewed, observed and involved as subjects of this research. Their names and the language groups involved are withheld for their privacy. This is a standard followed in all research to avoid embarrassment of the research subjects. This is especially important given that church members and supporters of these hard working missionaries sometimes do Google searches. 

Philip A. Noss. A Guide to Bible Translation: People, Languages, and Topics. Edited by and Charles 

1. Houser Swindon, UK: United Bible Societies; Maitland, FL: Xulon Press, 

Tyndale Bible Translators (TBT) is the only Bible translation agency that requires church pastors and church leaders to be engaged in the translation and approval process. This church-leader-led checking process is best suited for New Testament revisions and Old Testament translations. Tyndale Bible Translators’ focus is not on “new starts in new languages”, but on New Testament revisions and Old Testament translations, which is a huge, underserved need today! https://tyndalebibletranslators.org 

TBT is looking for men and women willing to be Bible translation facilitators and advisors. This role helps the nationals research the best way to translate difficult concepts. It involves “all-day discipleship Bible studies” (team translation sessions), serving in the role of the exegesis, dictionary, and research assistant’. This role facilitates national translation team members (church leaders) as they discuss and revise drafts, and team check each verse. One of these nationals controls the keyboard, using Paratext, while you sit with them as an advisor-checker and give occasional computer assistance. Your role would also entail the mundane and unpopular “washing the feet” kinds of service (i.e. ensuring the national translators have working computers, get needed bus fares, stipends, and ensuring that medical needs are cared for, so that the translators’ families are willing to let them translate). Minority language translations fail and stall-out without this practical assistance and support. (Think of the picture of an axle and hub on a bicycle wheel that keeps the parts of the wheel held tight and spinning together.) TBT does not want an expat missionary to become ‘the translator’, but instead the ‘translation facilitator’ (other agencies require expats to be fully trained as the linguist translator).