Skip to main content

Acceptable

We have a lot of teaching in our churches these days about how we are accepted. That's great.



In Bible translation we used to talk about accurate, clear and natural translations. More recently we have started adding a fourth criteria for a good translation: acceptable. What does that mean? It means a translation that is acceptable to the audience it was intended for. Now that raises a lot of questions - what if we have two audiences, a primary and a secondary audience? How do we work out what these audiences are like? What does that mean in practice? Let's take each in turn:

  1. Primary and secondary audiences are important to define. The primary audience is the main audience you're translating for. The secondary is one that might have some influence. For instance if you are working in an area where most people are Muslims, you might have the majority Muslims as your primary audience, and believers in Isa al Masih (Jesus the Messiah) who gather in small groups as your secondary audience. 
  2. To work out what the audiences are like we need to study their worldview. This is a step we often skip but it is worth filling out a form like this one: worldview form before we start translation. For mother tongue translators it is often enough simply to state which audience they are translating for, and minute (record) that decision in writing in the project brief.
  3. In practice when we are choosing Key Terms we will be thinking of their appropriateness for the primary and secondary audiences. In the example above, where the primary audience is Muslim, we don't completely neglect the secondary audience, as they need to accept the translation too, at least as one they would give to their friends and neighbours. It also affects lots of other things - the style (more formally equivalent or more meaning-based) and register (high or low) of the translation - the media that is used to distribute it (oral, audio, video, print...) and the packaging used for that distribution, when necessary. It will also affect which portions of Scripture you translate first, and distribute first, and what they are called ('Torah' or 'Pentateuch'? 'Zebbur' or 'Psalms'?).
So there is a lot to think about in terms of making a translation acceptable. Broadly speaking that whole area is called 'Scripture Engagement' and has been studied for some decades now. Hopefully translation work will be more effective as a result! We pray that may be the case...

Project brief: a document used to define the audiences and state what they are like, as well as discuss who the primary stakeholders in the project are, and what the goal of the project is.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Flow Chart for Bible Translation (a Relevance Theory Approach)

One of the current theories behind modern translation work is Relevance Theory. [1] Here is a flow chart that explains the process often used to produce a draft when using such an approach: *Make sure your translation committee makes the decision as to what kind of translation they want. A domesticated translation is one that submits to dominant values in the target language [2] whereas a foreignized translation is one that is happy to import foreign terms and ideas from Hebrew, Greek, or the language of wider communication such as the Greek term baptizo . The chart looks something like this: Text                                   Communicated Ideas                  Context A sower went out to sow  A farmer went out to sow grain   People scattered/threw seed etc. The text has very little information, but behind i...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Plea Regarding Footnotes in Bible Translation

Recently I was giving input to a team who had worked on Psalms. I noticed that in several places they had included footnotes referring to the New Testament use of those Psalms. One example was a footnote in Ps 34:20 'not one of [his bones] will be broken' that referred to John 19:32, 33, 36 where this prophecy is fulfilled. Now, obviously this is a useful link for readers, but it is better to put it in John's gospel referring back to Psalms. Why? Because the New Testament is (to some extent) a commentary on the Hebrew Bible, whereas the reverse is not true (the Hebrew Bible never refers to the New Testament). There are often two possible ways of reading a Psalm: In its original context, and  As interpreted by the New Testament writers. This is quite important, as the Hebrew Bible belongs to two faith communities, the Jews and the Christians. (Muslims too, to some extent, though they refer to the Torah and the Psalms only). If we translate the Bible in such a way that it onl...
Post a Comment
Read more

Integral Mission vs. Holistic Mission - What's the Difference?

 A lot of people are talking about integral mission these days, whereas the idea of holistic mission seems to have fallen by the wayside. What's the difference? Holistic mission is mission to the whole person, taking into account their physical as well as spiritual needs. Evangelism is combined with social action. Unfortunately, this term has been used for some years now, and much mission that was labelled 'holistic' was mainly social action. Integral mission has more focus on communities and their felt needs. What issues of poverty and (lack of) justice are there? How can a given community begin to address these issues? What input do they need from outsiders as they do so? How can they define kingdom goals that will bring them out of their physical and spiritual poverty? Lausanne defines it here . The fact is that the neediest communities are often ones that lack the Bible, and lack a clear orthography (alphabet corresponding to the phonemic system of the language, and tha...
Post a Comment
Read more