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!

12 responses to “Reflections on Bible Translation Conference 2011”

  1. Diane Lovell Avatar

    Very good read – thanks for this. I’ve often found it bizarre that many Bible translators I’ve met haven’t even studied Greek or Hebrew or if they had they don’t use it anymore in their work.

    1. drew Avatar

      Thanks for reading and leaving a comment, Diane. What you point out is due in part to the way many Bible translation projects operate, with emphasis on equipping mother tongue translators (locals) to do the translation in conjunction with trained translators. There are several reasons for this which I won’t take time to get into now, but we should note that translations go through a series of checks done by consultants trained in biblical languages.

      1. Diane Lovell Avatar

        Drew, I’m one of those trained consultants and I work in Zambia with The Seed Company. But to be quite frank (as Australians tend to be), I haven’t found many such consultants with quality theological degrees in both Greek and Hebrew.

      2. Diane Lovell Avatar

        Ok, I retract my last statement (feel free to delete if you’d like). What I meant to say is that I am genuinely surprised each time I met someone who is actively involved in Bible translation with some level of heavy responsibility and yet they don’t know any Greek or Hebrew.

      3. drew Avatar

        Glad to meet your acquaintance, Diane! I didn’t realize I was speaking to someone within the family. I share your surprise. May we all press on for greater use of biblical languages.

  2. Joe Avatar

    This is great, Drew, thanks for letting us eavesdrop on the conference. Having a theological background myself, and the associated bent toward formal equivalence translations, I honestly thought that translators were on the same page and just made concessions to functional equivalence as a marketing scheme. Can you suggest some reading on the arguments for functional equivalence? Better yet, you should blog on the differences, and your proposed synthesis.

    1. drew Avatar

      Joe, I’m always grateful for interaction with you on any topic. Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment.

      For many (minority language) Bible translators functional equivalence is seen as the necessary translation philosophy given (1) the linguistic status of the host (target) language and (2) the needs of the host culture. Consider what (minority language) translators are up against: the host language is previously unwritten, there is no indigenous literary tradition, pastors and lay people have little to no access to Bible study materials and literacy and education levels may be especially low. At this point, when translators translate say the Gospel of Luke into this language they’re going for the biggest bang for the buck in the text and paratext (explanatory notes) because the Scripture text produced will likely be the first and only literature in that language.

      Certainly many Bible translations are motivated by marketing, but that mostly applies to cultures and languages that have a choice of Bible to read (e.g., English); not to language communities who are about to receive the Bible for the first time.

      For further reading, you should start with Eugene Nida and Charles Taber’s seminal work The Theory and Practice Translation.

      I would love to be able to propose a synthesis, but this is an issue that for me at least requires ongoing consideration. Maybe in the future!

      1. Joe Avatar

        Thanks, Drew!

        Of course functional equivalence makes sense for minority translations! (Feeling a little embarrassed that I’m too ethno-centric to have picked up on that distinction before you pointed it out). Anyway, I am interested in learning about different theories for translation into English, but not quite enough to dive into an entire book (especially one that cost $95.00 on Amazon!) Do you know of any online essays or blog posts that would get me started in the right direction? Related, is there is difference between functional and “dynamic” equivalence?

      2. drew Avatar

        As far as I know functional and dynamic are synonymous, although I believe Nida later shied away from “dynamic.”

        I don’t know of any links right off the bat for a case for functional equivalence, but I’ll pass along anything I find. You might have a little look around the Better Bibles Blog: http://betterbibles.com.

  3. Phil Hopper Avatar
    Phil Hopper

    In regard to the “Formal” vs. “Functional” debate, I recently heard (and fully believe) that many of the pastors are asking for more literal translations. If they are being taught, and preaching, the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible, it is natural to desire a translation that is as literal as it can be.

    1. drew Avatar

      Thanks for stopping by, Phil. You bring up a very good point: what kind of translation is the language community asking for? We’ll be the wiser (and more accurately reflect the design for the Church) when ask such questions.

  4. Foibled Avatar
    Foibled

    In like your point about Inbreeding. Let me suggest that the inbreeding of the conference is a reflection of a widespread and permeating tendency in SIL to make decisions and have discussions in-house. Let me further suggest that the current controversy over the translation of divine familial terms can also be understood as a negative effect of SIL’s inward-looking decision-making processes.

CommentsOnToast

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from MaustsOnToast

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading