# Responsible translating



## TimV (Oct 21, 2008)

I went through some old papers and found an essay I did that was published in the Chalcedon Report in 1990, while some things I learned while living with a Bible translator were fresh in my mind. The article isn't on line, nor do I have anything in file form, but I'll type some paragraphs on this thread.

The code words, buzz words, etc.. will have changed in the last few decades, but the principles are the same. The man I lived with is in his seventies, and he and his wife are still, after I guess 50 years, living in PNG and working on translating the Bible into a small local language. 



> How would you feel if a Bible translation you had supported with your tithe called Christ the Pig of God? Or how about translating the word demon as troll? Well, this has been happening all around the globe.....I'd like to discuss a few general principles for accurate translating.
> 
> First, what kind of person should attempt a translation?.......if the word _almah_ in Isaiah 7:14 can be translated as virgin or young woman, do you flip a coin? Of course not. You must decide based on what you know of the rest of Scripture. Because of this translators must be exceptionally well grounded in theology and committed to certain revelational pre-suppositions.
> 
> ...



and this is important



> _We must avoid arguments which purport urgency...._



I wrote that because you get beat over the head when discussing quality translations from Arminians who keep telling you that the translations have to be done fast, otherwise people will die and go to Hell without hearing the Gospel.


----------



## TimV (Oct 21, 2008)

So, I can't see how anyone (speaking practically, as in 99% of cases) other than an Elder should be doing Bible translations.

Now, as to methods, I'm sure there's another name for "dynamic equivalency" nowadays.



> As to the methods of translation, we must beware of cultural (dynamic) equivalencies which pervert symbolism. Biblical symbolism is well though out by God and should not be altered. If a group of people have never seen a lamb, it is better to teaching them what a lamb is than to attempt to make Christ more culturally relevant by equating Him with a pig! A lamb is harmless and mild, but the pigs of tribal people gore their dogs, eat their young goats and give everyone diseases.
> 
> Also, we should not be such slaves of cultural equivalency that we reinforce superstitious beliefs and practices. It should be evident to anyone that this is precisely what happens when the demons of the Bible are equated with goblins and poltergeists.


----------



## JBaldwin (Oct 21, 2008)

I haven't thought about this in a long time. When I was a missionary studying French, I studied for a year with several Wycliffe Bible translators. They were young, inexperienced, almost baby believers with NO theological training, but a lot of training in translating. I don't know what their relationship was to the Lord, but it didn't strike me that they had much depth to their faith. 

Even though most of these folks were not going to start out translating the Scriptures, but instead putting spoken languages into writing, they all expected that one day they would be translating the Bible. 

This was back in the days when I was still arminian in my theology, and even then, it puzzled me that these were the folks who would be handling the Scriptures.


----------



## TimV (Oct 21, 2008)

Exactly, and I'll post an example later on that will blow conservative Reformed folk away.


----------



## TimV (Oct 21, 2008)

> The Geneva Bible, the KJV and Martin Luther's German translation were all the results of some of the best minds in the world expending huge amounts of time and energy. In this tradition, the best translators today usually devote their whole lives doing one language, often only completing the NT after 20 or 25 years. Yet we read of William Carey doing dozens of translations.......I'm sure that Carey and others like him had good intentions for cranking out these quick unscholarly translations. Unfortunately the result is that in many parts of the world people will not read their Bibles. They are so garbled and grammatically inaccurate they can't be understood by the general population and are an embarrassment of the educated. Unfortunately , this is still going on. In PNG I met a Swiss family that had done five translations by giving a native of each tribe (who spoke English as a third language) a _Good New for Modern Man_ paraphrase. They were then instructed to translate the word of God into their own language with just this.



This is in addition to deliberate "dynamic" translations. Also in addition to really, really bad theology that people hold on to and support by these poor translation, which I didn't deal with in the article, but I saw in South Africa.


----------



## TimV (Oct 21, 2008)

> We must be careful of whom we support. True Christian Bible translators enjoy it when people take an interested in their work. Do not be afraid to ask them specific questions about their methods.....



How many of you are on a missions committee? Or have such a committee in your church? Think about your responsibilities.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 21, 2008)

Thanks timv!!!!


----------



## turmeric (Oct 21, 2008)

I'm on a missions committee. We have a young couple interested in translating. They already have degrees from a Bible school and will be spending some time at Wycliff's SIL program in Eugene, OR soon. Even then, it will probably be some time before they go out, which I think is a good thing. We won't be havin' no pigs!


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 21, 2008)

As far as the "Urgency Argument" goes, there IS an urgency.

One way to NOT dilute the translation of the Word is to simply refuse to call one's work a translation. In one area here the church put out a summary of the Bible's stories in a simple trade language with the main points of Jesus' words explained at the end for empahsis. This merges translation with interpretation, but also gets Gospel teaching into a people's heart language. However, no one calls this a translation, the title is simply "Stories from the Bible."


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 21, 2008)

As far as time and measures (of grain, of currency, of wages), one solution is to give the meaning-based equivalent, such as "a full day's wage" instead of X numbers of X currency. This is one thing that translators do that is not too objectionable and helps the local cultures here.


----------



## TimV (Oct 21, 2008)

> As far as time and measures (of grain, of currency, of wages), one solution is to give the meaning-based equivalent, such as "a full day's wage" instead of X numbers of X currency. This is one thing that translators do that is not too objectionable and helps the local cultures here.



And who decides what the "dynamic equivalency" is of the measurement?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 22, 2008)

"traduttore, traditore"


----------



## Grymir (Oct 22, 2008)

Thanks TimV! This is good stuff. Post more. We are waiting.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 22, 2008)

TimV said:


> > As far as time and measures (of grain, of currency, of wages), one solution is to give the meaning-based equivalent, such as "a full day's wage" instead of X numbers of X currency. This is one thing that translators do that is not too objectionable and helps the local cultures here.
> 
> 
> 
> And who decides what the "dynamic equivalency" is of the measurement?



For cultures that don't know what monetary units (such as talents) are, two things are often done here: 

(1) Convert the unit into what it meant back then (if that knowledge is available, such as "about one day's wage" etc, or (

2) put in "talents" and then put in a note immediately afterward or as a footnote (usually this is done in the text itself because tribalshere can't get the idea of footnotes well).

For units of time (the 9th hour, etc). Often the time of day is translated ("about 9am in the morning, etc.). Others, again, put both the literal unit of time and then what that unit of time means.

The same is done for domesticated animals (an explanation is often given in parentheses)




Here's some articles about translation issues:


Can You Get There from Here? Problems in Bible Translation


Contemporary Units of Measurement in Bible Translations - Parableman

Parableman: Bible Translation Archives

Bible Translation Issues Relating to Imprecision




Usually the New Testament here is about 50% larger than it is in english or Greek.


No Bible is absolutely literal: 

Here is a range of literal to transliteration for a Matthew verse:

1. Not two strouth-s assar-genitive-singular pôl-3d-plural-present-passive?
2. Not two strouth-s assar-’s/of/from/for pôled-they-are?
3. Not two strouths assar-for pôled-they-are?
4. Not two strouths for (an) assar they are pôled?
5. Are not two strouths for an assar pôled?
6. Are not two strouths sold for an assar?
7. Are not two sparrows sold for an assar?
8. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?
9. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?
10. Two sparrows sell for a penny, don’t they?
11. Are not sparrows two a penny?
12. For only a penny you can buy two sparrows.
13. You can buy a couple of sparrows for pennies.
14. Sparrows are a dime a dozen.

How many of the above are acceptable?


How about splagna (sp?) as in "bowels of affection" - how do we translate medical and bodily terms whereby different body parts are given the seat of emotions (i.e. "my liver quakes to see you...")? Bowels of affection, quaking livers, is it permissible to translate some equivalent of joy for this idiomatic terms?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 22, 2008)

From: WYCLIFFE BIBLE TRANSLATORS: WHITHER BOUND

Consider some other examples of how Wycliffe has changed the Word of God to conform with culture. These examples were given by Ross Hodsdon of Bibles International, formerly with Wycliffe:

In a translation for eskimoos in Alaska, “lamb” was replaced with “seal pup.”

In a translation in the Makusi language of Brazil, “son of man” was replaced with “older brother.”

In another Wycliffe translation “fig tree” was replaced with “banana tree.”

We believe this thing is wrong. When one departs from the principle of a literal translation, the mind of the translator and the culture and understanding of the people become the authority rather than the actual words of Scriptures.

Again, I am not talking about a wooden literalness, but about an unwavering commitment to the actual wording of the Bible text.

Consider a few more examples of how the dynamic equivalency method of translation results in corruption of Scripture. These examples are given in Translating the Word of God by John Beekman and John Callow, of Wycliffe Bible Translators:

Matt. 8:20--”foxes” was translated “coyotes” in the Mazahua language of Mexico.

Mark 4:21--”on a candlestick” was translated “on a grain bin” in the Korku language of India.

Lk. 9:62--”plough” was translated “hoe” in the Carib language of Central America.

Lk. 12:24--’storehouse” was translated “basket” in the Villa Alta Zapotec language of Mexico.

Matt. 20:22--”the cup” was translated “pain” in the Copainala Zoque of Mexico.

Matt. 10:34--”a sword” was translated “there will be dissension among the people” in the Mazahua language of Mexico.

Acts 22:22--”away with such a fellow from the earth” was translated “kill him” in the Otomi language of Mexico.



A good book to read: Translation as Mission: Bible ... - Google Book Search


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 22, 2008)

http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 22, 2008)

TimV said:


> > The Geneva Bible, the KJV and Martin Luther's German translation were all the results of some of the best minds in the world expending huge amounts of time and energy. In this tradition, the best translators today usually devote their whole lives doing one language, often only completing the NT after 20 or 25 years. Yet we read of William Carey doing dozens of translations.......I'm sure that Carey and others like him had good intentions for cranking out these quick unscholarly translations. Unfortunately the result is that in many parts of the world people will not read their Bibles. They are so garbled and grammatically inaccurate they can't be understood by the general population and are an embarrassment of the educated. Unfortunately , this is still going on. In PNG I met a Swiss family that had done five translations by giving a native of each tribe (who spoke English as a third language) a _Good New for Modern Man_ paraphrase. They were then instructed to translate the word of God into their own language with just this.
> 
> 
> 
> This is in addition to deliberate "dynamic" translations. Also in addition to really, really bad theology that people hold on to and support by these poor translation, which I didn't deal with in the article, but I saw in South Africa.



I remember seeing a page on the bible-researcher.com site a few months ago where a member of the UBS recommended using the AV for translation purposes for those not fluent in the biblical languages. His recommendation was based upon the linguistic transparency of the AV to the greek and hebrew.


----------

