Scripture Engagement

I was recently asked what the main translation theories are at the moment. These are the ones mainly discussed in departments of translation studies in universities around the world: The Code Model. This is the first modern theory of translation, developed by Eugene Nida in the 1960s. It focuses on the meaning of the translation, and suggests translations should have 'dynamic equivalence', that is, the same meaning as the source text. It wants translations to be accurate, clear and natural, often with a focus on naturalness. Skopos Theory. This was developed Hans J. Vermeer and Christine Nord has written a lot on this. This emphasises the purpose of the translation, putting the audience more in the driving seat than the Code Model. With Skopos Theory, the expected change in the audience is more important than fidelity to the source text. Translations do something, they have an affect, and not only on the translator, but on the target audience. An obvious example would be the tr...

What do translation advisors need to know about Scripture engagement (SE), and why? Let's look at the 'why' first: Translation advisors (TAs) are often involved in day-to-day exegesis. They help mother-tongue translators (MTTs) prepare drafts. The MTTs they work with might not know Hebrew or Greek. The TAs then take part in the team check of that draft, which involves other MTTs in the project as well as the TA. Sometimes they are also involved in the coordination of the translation programme. They are very busy people. So why do they need to know about SE? Because: The translation is ultimately for an audience that has felt needs that are not being addressed by the translation programme. Analysing and meeting (or helping to meet) the felt needs of the audience should be the first priority of any mission worker, including TAs. Only about 30% of completed translations are well used. The initial set up of the programme needs to take SE into consideration (it's no good wai...

At a forthcoming workshop, I have the privilege of offering a face-to-face three-day training track about Scripture Engagement (SE), teaching some principles and working together on real life issues you may face in your project or region. There will also be a mini SE training track on SE research. In some Bible translation circles it has been taken for granted that Bible translation on its own, or Bible translation plus literacy, will solve all of a community's Scripture access problems. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case. There are many factors, including illiteracy, multilingualism, fear of persecution by the majority group, lack of knowledge of the background to the Bible, and problems with distribution (or the Bible being distributed in an unhelpful media or format). Specialists in Scripture Engagement help those involved in the wider Bible translation movement such as exegetes and programme managers explore some of the different things that help or hinder people...

I was in an interesting discussion full of anthropologists the other day. They were discussing syncretism. Most of them were of the view that outsiders cannot decide which practices are syncretistic and which are not. It has to be a decision made by local believers. This is because only local people can create indigenous theologies, that is, interpret Scripture according to the local worldview(s).  Not only that, some practices need to be tolerated in the short term, as we trust that new believers will gradually mature, and realise that those practices need to be weaned out of their lives. This can take time, perhaps years. Outsiders can, however, help local believers through the process of deciding for themselves which practices need to be rejected, which can be accepted, and which need to be modified according to (local formed) principles from Scripture. For example, ancestor practices, which my PhD thesis was on, are often continued by people after they have come to faith. They...

A community's worldview is a description of its perspectives on the world (the spectacles through which it views the world), and its underlying beliefs and assumptions behind its cultural practices.^ These are often called presuppositions, as they are held, but rarely stated. One simply way of comparing worldviews of different groups is to ask some basic questions, such as: Who am I? Where am I (what is the world like)? What is the problem? What is the solution? For instance, a secular-materialistic worldview would look something like this: I am the random product of a genetic process that began with the formation of basic forms of life such as amoebas, and continued until human beings came into being via the process called 'evolution'. I am in the world that was formed by the big bang. This possibly occurred as the result of a massive singularity, though there are several other current theories about this. Scientists can trace the big bang back to the first few nanosecond...

 In Luke 10 Jesus tells the story of the good Samaritan. The usual (and correct) interpretation of this is to look after others, whoever they are, and take care of their physical needs. But what about their spiritual needs? What if they have suffered trauma, or are struggling with addiction? So, it is broader than physical needs, clearly. Also, in the original story, Samaritans and Judeans (or Galileans) were separate groups of people. There was a tendency to mistrust one another, therefore. The Samaritans were foreigners, and had been for almost eight centuries (the people group came into being after the conquest of the Northern kingdom). So, from a missional perspective, what can we learn from this story? We need to treat those from other nations as we would our nearest and dearest. This impacts several areas of life: Immigrants. We cannot simply follow the current trend to want to preserve our country for our own people (which, in any case, is hard to define ethnically). Rather...