Language Matters

The language we use to refer to projects matters. It's well known that referring to a project as 'my project' is not a good idea, for instance. Or 'my language' meaning the language you are learning and working on. Equally problematic is talking about Bible translation as if it is the be-all-and-end-all. For instance, "So and so is just doing storying, but his friend so and so is doing proper Bible translation!" This does not communicate what we want it to communicate. It communicates that Bible translation is the real job, what actually matters, and storying is in some way inferior. Whereas in fact storying, or whatever, might be the most appropriate strategy for the audience in question. And it might lead to a Bible translation programme of some sort.

Also, we often refer to New Testaments as Bibles. Strange. Why do we do that? Because that was the traditional goal of many Bible translation programmes. They were working on a 'full New Testament'. After the NT was dedicated those 'Bibles' will have been distributed amongst the people (queue pictures of people in grass skirts outside grass huts), and the 'translator' (the expat working on the project, with 'input' from local people) will have left on a small plane, along with all their worldly goods, or most of them. I've even heard people talk about the NT as 'the full counsel of God'. Well, sorry, but it isn't. Our Jewish friends would disagree, even the Messianic ones (perhaps especially them), and our Muslim friends too, even believers from that background.

Please let's be careful about the language we use and the pictures we show, and what they communicate.

Comments

One Person's Contextualisation is Another Person's Syncretism

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...

Scripture Engagement for Translation Advisors

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...

The Problems and Pitfalls of Proof-Texting

Why is it wrong to proof-text when making an argument? Proof-texting is when someone simply quotes a verse from the Bible, out of context, to make a point. This can be in a book, a conversation, an essay, or a sermon, to give some examples. I just did a quick read of some other blogs on this topic, and none of them wowed me, so I thought I'd write my own. Then I had an even better idea: why not get you to tell me why proof-texting is problematic? In other words, I want to crowd-source the problem, and get lots of input. Since it is my suggestion, and I already did some research, let me get the ball rolling. Proof-texting is problematic because: It ignores the original context of the verse. There are actually two types of context: The literary context of the verse, that is, the verse is situated in a passage (that might be making an entirely different point) of Scripture that has a certain genre. For instance, the book of Acts is narrative, which means it is descriptive of what hap...

Scripture Engagement

Search This Blog