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

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
3 comments
Read more