Paradigms A and B in Bible Translation

In Bible translation these days we often talk about paradigms A and B. These are as follows:

Paradigm A

The translators and exegetical advisors all work on one language. The exegetical advisors learn this language and give both exegetical and translation input, as well as some training and tech support (of e.g. Paratext). The translators don't have to be Christian believers. Often the translators are from another major religion, or are a mixture of believers in Jesus from that background and those who follow the majority religion. The project is owned by a mixture of partners.

Paradigm B

A group of related languages (all part of the same language family) are organised into a cluster. One exegetical advisor gives exegetical and translation input to all these projects, as well as providing some training, and tech support (of Paratext, etc.). They never learn to speak the languages, but work mainly through the LWC. They do, however, study the linguistic features of the languages. The translators are all Christian believers. The project is owned mainly by local believers, but non-local partners help serve the needs of the project.

The Need

We are being encouraged to move from Paradigm A to B, though there are many parts of the world where paradigm A is still very much needed. Please let me know (via dawut7g@gmail.com) if you are in a project that is still paradigm A! That's so our recruiters will know what the remaining needs are.

LWC: language of wider communication (lingua franca)

Paratext: a computer program used for exegesis, drafting, checking and desktop publication

Comments

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...

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...

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