Skip to main content

The Importance of Accessing the Bible in a Language You Know Well

Despite what I posted earlier about people having several mother tongues, it's still a fundamental belief of ours that people need to access Scripture in a language they know well, that they are fluent in. Today I was asked in an email for articles that back this up. In fact, here is the question:

'I’m writing a paper based on my research about the impact of reading the Bible in English versus mother tongue, and wondered if you have articles to hand or Wycliffe/SLI (sic.) statements of values which might outline why we believe that having the Bible in one’s heart language/mother tongue is important (even if the English translation is available).'

The question was written by a PhD student. By SLI she means SIL, I think. Wycliffe is short for Wycliffe Bible Translators. TBH I was slightly confused by the question. Why 'English'. Did she mean 'the Language of Wider Communication' (Spanish, French, Russian, Classical Arabic... )?

Here is my reply:

This is the best one: https://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/26_2_PDFs/85-88_Brown_et_al.pdf

And the eight conditions, conditions 1 and 2 are relevant too: https://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/26_2_PDFs/89-98_Eight%20Conditions.pdf (actually, read all of them).

You said 'reading'. Freudian slip? So read this one about orality: http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/21_3_PDFs/122_Brown.pdf.

There are many more. See Bibliographies of the above for a start.
Oh, I just thought, Lamin Sanneh's article on the translatability of Scripture, which talks about the incarnational form of God's Word. You can read about that here:

Sanneh, Lamin (1989) Translating the Message: The Missionary Impact on Culture. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

So, in summary, there are many good articles talking about the need to have the Bible in a) a language we know well (one of our mother tongues) b) in forms that are accessible to us, which may well be orally rather than in written form. Often, these days, in WBT/SIL we encourage both print and non-print publishing to take place.
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

Asset Based Bible Translation (ABBT)

Many of you will have heard of asset-based community development (ABCD). How can Bible translation programmes be asset based, rather than deficit based? The best way to look at this is a comparison table: Deficit based Asset based Driven by outsiders Driven by the community Outside funding Community funded Done to meet a need Done to help the community grow Quality control done by a consultant Community checked and approved Control from outside-in Lead by stepping back Products not accepted? Products are accepted Little engagement Engagement with products Scientific Organic Not sustainable Sustainable Of course many translation programmes these days are neither one nor t'other, they are somewhere between these two extremes. Nevertheless, this illustrates a point, and shows that the current ...
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