kata Drew

An Alaskan radio station is reporting on the dire reception of a new Tlingit (an indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest Coast of America) encyclopedia.  “The problem is: The language in the book is not recognizable by contemporary scholars, or Native Tlingit speakers.” All in all, the story is absolutely baffling and provides a very clear negative example for Bible translators.

What the author did wrong:

• She did not employ the already established Tlingit writing system, leaving her work illegible
• She used a non-conventional spelling of the language in the title
• She’s entirely unknown to the the people for whom she did the encyclopedia
• She remarks, “I think often I’m led spiritually, and I don’t make my decisions with the full knowledge of the situation.”
• To elders, who learned Tlingit at the knees of their parents and grandparents, her CD recordings are gibberish

Does the author then view her self-published work as a waste? She describes her motivation,

“To some degree I think I was trying to bring my mother and father back together through my Celtic heritage. My father had a little French, and my mother had a little Scottish. And I thought that when they lost their culture, they lost their reason for being together. And I think that deep in my heart I was looking for that family togetherness, and I wanted to find that through language.”

What?!

Read the full story (with audio).

(HT: Language Hat) New Tlingit encyclopedia baffling to scholars, speakers _ KCAW

If you’re not a regular listener of BBC Radio 4′s program(me) “In Our Time,” you may have missed the series of five episodes that just aired on the history of the writing and how it has shaped intellectual history. Of particular interest to my readers will be episode three, how the invention of writing influenced the spread of religion.

The five episodes cover:

1. How making signs on clay, wood or parchment enabled the development of human culture.
2. The impact of the invention of the book.
3. How the invention of writing influenced the spread of religion.
4. How the written word, originally used for accountancy, gave rise to human literature.
5. How the invention of writing made the scientific revolution of the Enlightenment possible.

Listen to the five parts before they’re gone. (The BBC doesn’t usually archive programs for long.)

From the Economist:

“The world’s most celebrated hyperpolyglot relied on the same tools given to first-year language-learners today. The conclusion? Hyperpolyglots may begin with talent, but they aren’t geniuses. They simply enjoy tasks that are drudgery to normal people. The talent and enjoyment drive a virtuous cycle that pushes them to feats others simply shake their heads at, admiration mixed with no small amount of incomprehension.”

Read on…

In her review of Translation, Resistance, Activism, a collection of essays on “resistant translation” edited by Maria Tymoczko, the reviewer highlights the chapter on Bible translation (emphasis mine):

Antonia Carcelen-Estrada in ‘Covert and overt ideologies in the translation of the Bible into Huao Terero’ (65–86) relates how the Bible came to be translated into Huao Terero, the language of the indigenous people of the Ecuadorian Amazon, called the Huaorani. Two threads run through this essay: one is the history of how the Huaorani came to be subjugated and exploited by outsiders, an endeavor led by missionaries set on translating the Bible into Huao Terero and converting the people to Christianity, and the other is the nature of the Bible translation that was carried out. The resistance in translation in this context has to do with how the Huaorani have managed to resist outsiders and their ways and beliefs, including Christianity, while seeming to comply.

This is an important perspective for Bible translators to consider, especially given the role positive “Stories of Impact” play in the “marketing” of Bible translation organizations like Wycliffe. However, the positive impact of Bible translation is not without its academic advocates, most notably Yale Divinity School’s Lamin Sanneh. He concludes in his article “Christian Missions and the Western Guilt Complex”

that Christian missions are better seen as a translation movement, with consequences for vernacular revitalization, religious change and social transformation than as a vehicle for Western cultural domination. Such an assurance should help alleviate some of the Western guilt complex about missions.

Read the rest of the review.

Don’t miss this very insightful post by Alan Jacobs (professor of English at Wheaton College) entitled Christianity and the Future of the Book. The similarity of the codex and ereaders, like the Kindle, might surprise you.

…for those who love the book and especially the Book, the Bible, the rise of electronic reading devices should be the least of our concerns. Electronic reading devices like the Kindle, and even tablets like the iPad, preserve many of the essential features of the codex; and in this, they are quite distinct from other “screens” on which we might read. To decry the move from the book to the screen is simply to employ categories too crude for the phenomena that are being described.

A codex, by the way, is “a book in the format used for modern books, with multiple quires or gatherings (sheets of paper or vellum in multiples of two which are folded and stitched through) typically bound together and given a cover” and looks like this (yep a book):

Moreover, Jacob knows well the connection between technology and Bible translation:

…Christians tend to be a proselytizing people, and the message that they bring will always be entangled with technologies of reading.

Read more…

(HT: First Thoughts)

I had the wonderful privilege of attending The 6th Biennial Bible Translation Conference over the last several days. The conference brought together linguists, translators and consultants from all over the world to discuss topics impacting the field today. Overall, I was tremendously blessed by the interactions, discussions, presentations, plenary sessions and speakers. It is truly an exciting time to be a part of what God is doing through Bible translation and I look forward to attending again in 2013, Lord willing.

I now want to offer some reflections on the conference from the perspective of one who is relatively new to the field and new to the discussions the field is having. You can grab PDFs of pre-conference paper drafts, bibliographies and abstracts in this public folder. Go quickly, I don’t know how long it’ll last.

Formal vs. functional

The discussion between formal and functional equivalence is one that professional Bible translators are still very interested in having. It’s not clear, however, whether the issue arises with actual, genuine consideration in mind or merely to serve as an opportunity to reinforce/promote one’s own thinking on the matter. There does seem to exist a certain dismissive attitude toward formal equivalence to the extent that one presenter went so far (in my mind at least) to equate formal equivalence with bibliolatry. Such uncharitable equations are neither helpful nor further the discussion.

Coming from a biblical studies and theological background, I have observed a tendency for those focused mainly on biblical studies and theology to lean toward formal equivalence while those with (minority language) translation field experience to strongly favor dynamic equivalence or what’s increasingly termed “meaning-based translation” (more on that). This bifurcation leaves two possibilities in my mind: (1) biblical studies is lagging way behind translation studies in adoption of dynamic equivalency or (2) a synthesis is in order. I find the latter option most likely.

“Meaning-based translation”

Increasingly, “meaning-based translation” is the phrase used to describe the Bible translation philosophy employed by many within Wycliffe and its partner organizations. I admit my ignorance of the genesis of the term, but I can’t help but wonder if it isn’t a strategic adoption which in a way sidesteps the formal vs. functional discussion. Does “meaning-based translation” proffer a tertium quid in name only? Is it implying that formal equivalency isn’t meaningful?

One presenter wisely noted that we must be careful in touting notions of accuracy, faithfulness, and meaningfulness as there are different degrees and different arenas of each. For example, in translating an idiom word-for-word a translator has captured the individual lexical meaning but missed the phrase-level meaning (the idiom). Is such a translation “accurate”? In a way…but we must be more specific: more accurate in what way?

The same presenter referenced the prefaces to both the ESV and the NLT wherein each make claims of accuracy. “Who’s right?” she quipped. “I think they both are, but in different ways.”

Age difference

The overwhelming majority of conference attendees were age 50+ white males, matching the description of a missionary linguist as “an ugly farmer.” I fully expected more GIAL students to be in attendance as the conference was hosted by the school, offered at a deep discount and right on campus. It would be wonderful to see more student interaction in the future.

Inbreeding

My feeling is that the Bible Translation Conference was not well-advertised (which isn’t to say it wasn’t well-attended. I think I heard that there were almost 200 attendees). There should have been ads in scholarly journals, ads on biblical studies blogs, and invitations sent to colleges and seminaries. My feeling is that there wasn’t any of this. If a conference is going to be truly challenging and beneficial, there must be a diverse mixture of interested attendees. Simply meeting with one’s work colleagues to confirm already established opinions isn’t a academic pursuit, it’s inbreeding. In the future, the conference would be greatly enriched by the presence of professionals and students from the fields of biblical studies, theology and non-SIL linguistics.

Lack of training in biblical studies and theology

The conference confirmed in part my desire to see a greater degree of training in biblical studies and theology for Bible translators. One attendee who works in OT translation projects was, as far as I could tell, unaware of textual criticism. Additionally, of the papers I listened to, only one explored the theological dimension of Bible translation and even that was somewhat in passing. There is much gold to be mined here and Bible translation will be greatly enriched when translators grow proportionally as theologians and linguists.

Challenge to stay current

A major challenge facing the above reflection about a need for greater training in biblical studies and theology is how exactly can translators working in remote locations stay abreast of current trends in those fields? This challenge matters because good translations depend on translators being well-informed. For example, one presenter explored the meaning of kataluma in Luke 2:7, Jesus’ birth narrative. Kataluma has traditionally been understood as “inn” while current scholarship (within at least the last 10 years) has found evidence suggesting that kataluma is better understood as “guest room.” (Read more about that here.) To my surprise the presenter was met with a great degree of incredulity in the question and answer time. Being familiar with the discussion before the presentation, the new scholarship was a closed-case for me. Others, however, weren’t ready to trade tradition for “scholarly conjecture.” The presenter was met with appreciation by one lady one said she had just recently been working through the translation of kataluma in her project and they were having trouble coming up with a good word for “inn.”

Fortunately, digital technology is making it easier to stay informed through blogs, ebooks, and mp3 and video lectures, if translators want to and make the time.

Funding will always be an issue

Bible translation is an expensive endeavor. May God provide!

Commenting on the function of poetic texts Genesis 49, Numbers 24, and Deuteronomy 32 in the Pentateuch, John Sailhamer in The Meaning of the Pentateuch likens them to “a Hollywood musical.”

The Pentateuch somewhat resembles a Hollywood musical. Its story is both interrupted and developed by the songs (poems). Also like a musical, the songs (poems) are not randomly spliced into the story. The songs (poems) develop and carry the central theme of the story. They are the primary means for developing what the narratives are about. A careful attention to the details of the songs (poems) clarifies the message of the Pentateuch.

Have you gathered from Sailhamer that poetic texts aren’t simply rhetorical flourishes? Good.

If you’re curious what that “message of the Pentateuch” is, you’ll definitely want to check out this fine (though oft repetitive) work.

In his review of Miroslav Volf’s Allah: A Christian Response in the most recent issue of the journal Themelios, Imad Shehadeh (Jordan Evangelical Theological Seminary, Amman, Jordan) perceives “a serious misunderstanding of God’s OT command to obliterate entire nations. It is very different than the qur’anic Jihad.”

How then is Biblical conquest different from jihad? Shehadeh notes five ways:

The biblical conquest is marked by the following:

1. It is limited to one time, not all times.
2. It is limited to one land, not all lands. It judges sin to fulfill prophecy, not to adhere to a religion.
3. It shows God’s holiness, not his power. Its goal is to bless the whole earth, not subdue it. It is God fighting for his people, not the people fighting for God.
4. It is according to God’s trustworthy nature, not according to a capricious nature.
5. It prefigures God finally absorbing the deserved judgment and wrath on all nations in Christ’s death on the cross. Judgment deserved became judgment absorbed.

Seasoned linguist and Bible translator David Frank recently blogged about various Bible translation metaphors over on the Better Bibles Blog. He concludes by saying,

When it comes to Bible translation, my guiding metaphor is that of the incarnation: The Word became flesh. I see the Word becoming flesh and dwelling among us in a lot of different shades of flesh and a lot of different sounding languages, to speak to, and act on behalf of, a lot of different people.

There is, however, a critique to be offered concerning incarnation as a metaphor for Bible translation and ministry in general. While incarnation is the pattern adopted by God the Son in redemption, is it necessarily a pattern to emulate in translation or ministry? Is the Son’s incarnation descriptive or prescriptive?

J. Todd Billings in a lecture entitled “Ministry in Union with Christ: A Constructive Critique of Incarnational Ministry” has proposed that “the language of incarnation might be helpfully replaced with ‘the more biblically faithful and theologically dynamic language of ministry as participation in Christ.’” Billings’ concern is that incarnational ministry “tends to conflate the unique incarnation with our process of learning a culture.”

“Ultimately, our own lives are not the good news,” concluded Billings. “In the participation ministry model, we bear witness to Jesus Christ, who is the good news.”

Is “participation in Christ” as useful as a “guiding metaphor” as incarnation? What would it mean for Bible translation to participate in Christ rather than seek to incarnate him anew in “a lot of different sounding languages”? What is the best metaphor for Bible translation?

The latest edition of The World in Words podcast features the legacy of the Bible in translation. Here’s a direct link to the MP3 of the episode (and here’s the podcast’s RSS feed if you’d like to subscribe).

The first half highlights the lasting impact of the King James Version while the second introduces erstwhile Christian missionary and translator Daniel Everett who walked away not only from Bible translation and missions, but also from Christianity and regrettably, his wife.

Recent technological advances are speeding up the process of Bible translation, not without controversy. Through it all, Bible translation and linguistic research have marched hand in hand, sometimes producing unintended results. In 1977, Christian missionary Daniel Everett went to Brazil with the intention of bringing the Bible to the Pirahã people of the Amazonian basin. He didn’t manage to convert anyone– except himself. He lost his faith, and became an expert in the Pirahã language. He theorized that Pirahã has no recursion, or ability to embed phrases within sentences, as in relative clauses. This was a direct rebuke to Noam Chomsky’s theory that all languages are recursive (which is a cornerstone of the idea that all languages share a “universal grammar”). Some linguists have taken issue with Everett’s findings. Read more.

Give the episode a listen.