Skip to main content

Why Our Goal Isn't Producing New Testaments & Bibles

In SIL you would have thought our ultimate goal is to produce New Testaments and Bibles (not necessarily in that order), but that is not so. If the outcome you write up in your plan is 'members of the language communities are actively involved in producing appropriate high quality Scriptures and Scripture products and increasingly own the process of making them available', as it is in one SIL group, then although that may look good to funders and supporting churches, it isn't necessarily what's needed. The end (ultimate goal) of translation is transformed communities/lives, therefore we need to merge Scripture engagement and translation into one outcome, which would be something like:

'Through engagement with available and accessible Scripture products and Scripture-based products, communities are internalising the good news and demonstrating it in their daily lives.'

The actual work of Bible translation leads to that outcome. Therefore translation teams and Scripture engagement workers need to work closely together and make sure they are reaching the same goal. If we separate the work too much into silos or departments we end up with translation work that doesn't achieve the ultimate goal of transformed lives. Books sit on shelves. Audio recordings get filed on hard drives. Nobody is reading/listening/engaging with them. That's not what we want! Yet it happens, as teams are busy and tend to focus on 'getting the job done', without spending time thinking through what the job actually is.

By 'communities' we talking about people groups, or gatherings of believers, depending on the context. In some communities only a minority of the group are believers, so the latter (gatherings of believers) would be in focus, perhaps. Though not necessarily! Often the believers in these gatherings primarily want products they can use for outreach. So then the 'community' we are talking about is the wider, non-believing* community. That really does bring in the need for Scripture engagement!

*Non-believing in Jesus as Messiah, that is. They might believe he is a prophet, or something else.
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

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

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