# Rushed translations via Wycliffe Associates?



## Stope (Apr 26, 2017)

In a perfect world a team of greek scholars, who also are brilliant at the mother tongue of a community that needs the Bible, would translate the Bible with multiple checks and balances. This has been the MO 

Now folks like Wycliffe associates, and others, full of good intentions, are willing to "risk" accuracy in exchange for turning out a translation in just a few months. They do this based upon variations of a model where, something like: A coordinator, with no Greek or mother tongue of receiving language, connects with a small team of people in the native land and speak Language of the coordinator (usually English), and then the team takes an English version, translates to native language, then its reverse translate by outside party from the mother tongue to English and then if the English is "good" then you know the other one is "good."

Thoughts?


----------



## yeutter (Apr 27, 2017)

That approach sounds like an invitation to disaster.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stope (Apr 27, 2017)

yeutter said:


> That approach sounds like an invitation to disaster.


In what ways?


----------



## Edward (Apr 27, 2017)

It would probably be of more benefit to the people to teach them English, or Spanish, or French, and then give them a Bible in one of those languages. It's not like they have the vocabulary in their unwritten native language that will meet all of the needs for the translation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 29, 2017)

A real disaster is never having the Word of God in your language. 

I think Wycliffe is trying to figure out how to avert that disaster. In the process they are weighing options such as this. Local language translations are already being done without reference to the Greek or Hebrew. With proper checks the quality of the translation can be confirmed to some degree as accurate. Greek and Hebrew scholars are few and far between. Back translating and the rigorous checks which are obligatory ensure a good degree of accuracy. Ideally, there would be 100,000 devoted Greek and Hebrew scholars dedicated to translating native translations, but the reality is that most translators are not fluent in Greek and Hebrew and use a number of helps in English to render the translation. Or they use native Mother-Tongue translators and check their progress.

The bigger problem is the doctrine of dynamic equivalency within Wycliffe. Not their checks and procedures.

If you feel strongly about this topic, I can connect you with linguistic training and even buy you plane tickets out here to get started in rendering more accurate translations possible


----------



## Jack K (Apr 29, 2017)

The opening post includes a suggestion that translators working where there's no native-language Bible ought to have some experience in biblical Greek and Hebrew. That might be nice (if their Greek and Hebrew skills were solid), but to put such a policy in place would stop translation in its tracks.

It's extremely rare to find a biblical Greek and Hebrew scholar who is also highly skilled in a language which does not yet have a written Bible. It's hard enough to find English speakers with a solid Bible understanding who can handle the task.

We in the English-speaking world are spoiled to have a huge number of exceptional Bible scholars who work on translations into English. There is such an overflow of highly skilled translators that we fight over whose work and which translation is best, even to the point of publicly badmouthing those who produce a translation we heard is somehow inferior. We are exceedingly rich in the written Word of God, and don't realize how good we have it.

I count myself privileged to have known, when I was a child, several devout men who became highly bilingual in English and Navajo and dedicated themselves to the task of giving the Navajo people the Bible in their language. They were among the most hard-working and careful people I've known. They checked and cross-checked. They studied theology. They used English-language resources that gave them scholarly information about the Greek and Hebrew texts. They read passages to other native speakers, checked for possible misunderstandings, rewrote, and repeated the process multiple times. And they produced a Bible translation for people who didn't already have one (much less several) in their language.

These men are heroes to me, even though they didn't know biblical Greek or Hebrew.

Having seen some of that process, I wonder along with Jason about the wisdom of trying to complete a translation in a matter of months. But until the Western church starts devoting a surplus of Greek- and Hebrew-trained scholars to foreign translation projects, I hesitate to criticize those who use English translations to actually do some work. And with many people groups still waiting, I also hate to condemn any method that speeds up the process.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Jack K (Apr 29, 2017)

Edward said:


> It would probably be of more benefit to the people to teach them English, or Spanish, or French, and then give them a Bible in one of those languages. It's not like they have the vocabulary in their unwritten native language that will meet all of the needs for the translation.



To a missionary on the ground, the value of a native-language Bible is off-the-charts high. The alternatives are having the missionary or his interpreter compose his own translation on the spot when teaching, or (as you suggested) educating the hearers in English. But both of those solutions generally carry far greater risk of misunderstanding or misinterpretation than does a dedicated translation that a someone had the time to think about carefully.

When my Dad was a missionary to the Navajos, the most frustrating errors he encountered often came from people who read the Bible in English and, with their second-language English skills, misinterpreted what it was saying.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Edward (Apr 29, 2017)

Jack K said:


> Having seen some of that process, I wonder along with Jason about the wisdom of trying to complete a translation in a matter of months.



While computers have greatly sped up the process, I'm not sure I buy the 'few months' story. I'm not going to have a chance this Sunday to dig into it, but I'll see if I can corner some of the Wycliffe folks at church in a week or so and find out what the current turn around times are. It's one of those areas where I've heard the answer but don't trust my recollection. They still have the 3-20 year estimate for a New Testament on their website. https://wycliffeusa.wordpress.com/in-the-news/

I've known a fair number of Wycliffe folks over the years, and they have all been nice folks and hard working, but I certainly became less enthralled by the operation after I heard a presentation by some back in the late 1980s. Seems that they were living on a Georgia or South Carolina island, and they were working on translating the Bible into Gullah. They went on about how long they had spent learning the language before they could even start with the translation. They then made the mistake of playing a video of the native speakers. It was a mistake because my response was, "That sounds like Geechee to me, and I can understand about 90 percent of the conversation." The only response from them was something along the lines of Geechee not being considered a polite term for the language. I considered it then, and still do, to be marginal stewardship.


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 30, 2017)

Stope said:


> Now folks like Wycliffe associates, and others, full of good intentions, are willing to "risk" accuracy in exchange for turning out a translation in just a few months. They do this based upon variations of a model where, something like: A coordinator, with no Greek or mother tongue of receiving language, connects with a small team of people in the native land and speak Language of the coordinator (usually English), and then the team takes an English version, translates to native language, then its reverse translate by outside party from the mother tongue to English and then if the English is "good" then you know the other one is "good."



Where is the proof of this? Where may I read about this actually happening and not rely solely upon you for this to be true? For all I know you could just be spreading rumors.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## yeutter (Apr 30, 2017)

In Thailand, Laos, and Myanmar I am aware of people working on Bible translations in Black Lahu, Yellow Lahu [Lahoish], Lisu, and several other Loloish languages, and seven different Karen dialects/languages. Most of the people in the target groups for which the translations are being made are fluent and literate in either Thai, or Burmese, English, or an existing Karen translation. 
The approach I favor is to send ordained teaching presbyter Church planters to labor among these peoples. He would be in a position to discern where he should expend energy translating.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stope (May 1, 2017)

Jack K said:


> To a missionary on the ground, the value of a native-language Bible is off-the-charts high. The alternatives are having the missionary or his interpreter compose his own translation on the spot when teaching, or (as you suggested) educating the hearers in English. But both of those solutions generally carry far greater risk of misunderstanding or misinterpretation than does a dedicated translation that a someone had the time to think about carefully.
> 
> When my Dad was a missionary to the Navajos, the most frustrating errors he encountered often came from people who read the Bible in English and, with their second-language English skills, misinterpreted what it was saying.


This is really encouraging and a blessing. Thanks for sharing this


----------



## Stope (May 1, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> Where is the proof of this? Where may I read about this actually happening and not rely solely upon you for this to be true? For all I know you could just be spreading rumors.


Hehehehe. This is not a secret - this is reality. A simple Google search would show you the nature of the "translations". But from the horses mouth see here https://www.wycliffeassociates.org/what-we-do/translation-strategies

Further, Im not "starting" rumors, Im actually considering helping in this process and seeing what some of these folks think


----------



## Pergamum (May 1, 2017)

In your initial post you seemed to generalize ALL of Wycliffe's translations, not the MAST only. The MAST approach is only a new approach and not the usual Wycliffe route.

MAST has been criticized by many translators. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct...ast-bible-translation-hits-bump-wycliffe.html


> But the accuracy of MAST was recently called into question by a peer-review assessment team, which included members of the Seed Company, Word for the World, WBT Ethiopia, and WBT Africa. They observed a two-week MAST project in Ethiopia in August.



Here is a peer-reviewed assessment of this new strategy. https://map.bloomfire.com/posts/1053763-a-peer-reviewed-assessment-of-the-mast-methodology

MAST does risk accuracy. But not because it ignores the Greek and Hebrew, but because it is rushed. 

You appear to be clumping several issues together. If your OP is a general criticism of Wycliffe then you should have said so, but your OP appeared, instead, merely to be one specific criticism (that they use people who are not Greek and Hebrew scholars).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stope (May 1, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> In your initial post you seemed to generalize ALL of Wycliffe's translations, not the MAST only. The MAST approach is only a new approach and not the usual Wycliffe route.
> 
> MAST has been criticized by many translators. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct...ast-bible-translation-hits-bump-wycliffe.html
> 
> ...



My OP is about Wycliffe Associates (Not "Wycliffe" they are different). Indeed I was referencing the "MAST" approach, but thats all I know about what is Wycliffe Associates. 



Pergamum said:


> MAST does risk accuracy. But not because it ignores the Greek and Hebrew, but because it is rushed.


Really? All I know is they sent me an email asking if I would go, but from what they told me NOBODY reads Hebrew or Greek... They "translate" from an English version



Pergamum said:


> You appear to be clumping several issues together. If your OP is a general criticism of Wycliffe then you should have said so, but your OP appeared, instead, merely to be one specific criticism (that they use people who are not Greek and Hebrew scholars).


Im not sure what you are saying, and Im sure you dont know what Im saying, Let me try again so as to make it clear (that said, the other folks above seem to track with what Im asking):

In a perfect world all languages would have a Bible from original Greek and Hebrew, however, we dont have enough resources, so in an attempt to at least get some variation of a "translation" laymen, volunteers, non-Greek/Hebrew speakers are now "translating" from English to the language desired.

Just FYI, the context of me asking was simply that I am considering helping Wycliffe Associates, and just wanted to make sure its doing more good than harm.


----------



## JTB.SDG (May 2, 2017)

Stope said:


> My OP is about Wycliffe Associates (Not "Wycliffe" they are different). Indeed I was referencing the "MAST" approach, but thats all I know about what is Wycliffe Associates.
> 
> Really? All I know is they sent me an email asking if I would go, but from what they told me NOBODY reads Hebrew or Greek... They "translate" from an English version
> 
> ...



Brother, I hope you are considering going. It's not a laughing matter for sure. It's too easy to sit back on our recliner and demand that others pronounce shibboleth the right way. I have good friends here doing this on the very front lines of the mission field. "They have done what they could."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (May 2, 2017)

People without knowledge of Greek and Hebrew have often translated the Bible. It is not a "new approach" - but how it has often been done. Ideally it wouldn't be so, but there are enough checks to ensure a good degree of accuracy even without knowing Hebrew yourself. And who do you really know that is an expert in both, or even one?

While we should avoid helping apostasy or false religion, one does not need to agree 100% with a group to help them. You are there to serve, after all, not coming in as merely a judge.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (May 2, 2017)

Wycliffe Associates have shown themselves to have made a few very wise recent decisions, such as this 
http://www.christianitytoday.com/gl...-leaves-wga-bible-translation-son-of-god.html

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## yeutter (May 3, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Wycliffe Associates have shown themselves to have made a few very wise recent decisions, such as this
> http://www.christianitytoday.com/gl...-leaves-wga-bible-translation-son-of-god.html


I was not aware their was more then one Wycliffe parachurch organization doing translation work. Now I wonder which organization some of my friends in Asia are working for.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 3, 2017)

Not that relevant, but providentially last night my wife and I were guests at a _Wycliffe Associates _dinner. We enjoyed the gathering and the presentation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (May 4, 2017)

They do very good work.


----------



## Stope (May 4, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> A real disaster is never having the Word of God in your language.
> If you feel strongly about this topic, I can connect you with linguistic training and even buy you plane tickets out here to get started in rendering more accurate translations possible



I do indeed! Might you share?


----------



## Stope (May 4, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Not that relevant, but providentially last night my wife and I were guests at a _Wycliffe Associates _dinner. We enjoyed the gathering and the presentation.


Thats cool... Rev. Buchanan, what is your take on the MAST approach of "translations" and on WA as an org?


----------

