Advocating for a Merged Approach to Bible Translation

Extracted text from Advocating_for_a_Merged_Approach_Paradigm_to_Bible_Translation__submitted_version_.pdf:

BT 2015: Dallas, TX, Oct. 16-20, 2015

Advocating for a Merged Approach to Bible Translation

Advocating for a Merged Approach to Bible Translation Dr. Sean Allison Canada Institute of Linguistics and SIL Cameroon Introduction Within the modern missions movement, the traditional approach to Bible translation involved an expatriate missionary who learned the language in which she intended to carry out translation work with the help of language helpers.1 The approach evolved such that the expatriate translator worked alongside a mother tongue translator toward the same end. The approach continued to evolve to where the mother tongue translator was the primary translator for a given project, with expatriate input at the exegetical or consultant level. Recent proposals, like Wycliffe USAs Emerging Model, now called the Common Framework, and Wycliffe Associates Mobilized Assistance Supporting Translation have followed this evolution to the logical conclusion of further reducing the role of expatriates in certain facets of the Bible translation process. This paper advocates for an approach which focuses on assigning people to roles within the Bible translation task based on Gods calling and His gifting in their lives instead of on their ethnic (that is, expatriate or national) identity. This would mean that any role in the Bible translation task would be open to be filled by anyone with the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes, regardless of their ethnicity. This merged approach, combining expatriate and national translators together, is particularly strategic given the socio-cultural contexts in which many of the remaining Bible translation projects will be done. It also has implications for the kind of message Bible translation organizations can use as they recruit from the whole body of Christ to take part in all levels of the Bible translation process. Three clarifications are in order. First, on what I mean by expatriate, relatedly, on what I mean by national, and finally, on what I mean by translator. I adopt Oxford Dictionarys definition of expatriate as a person who lives outside their native country in the sense that I assume no connotation of the term whereby an expatriate is a person coming from the Western world. For national I adopt Ralph Winters position articulated at the Lausanne 1974 Congress for World Evangelization wherein a nation is not a political nation per se but a people group identified by its language and culture. As such, an expatriate translator could be someone from the same political country but whose language and culture is distinct from that of the language she is called to work in as it could also be someone coming from the Western world. Finally, I adopt Oxford Dictionarys definition of translator as a person who translates from one language into another. I dont reserve the term translator for the one or ones who produce the first draft of a text, recognizing that the translation of a

1

I would like to thank a number of people for providing input for this paper. First and foremost, thanks to my CanIL colleague, Larry Hayashi, whose paper presented at CanILs Award Ceremony in the spring 2015 was the impetus behind this paper. Ive benefited from discussions (face-to-face or email) with other CanIL colleagues as well; in particular, Danny Foster, Dave Jeffery, Bill Gardner, Steve Nicolle, and Doug Trick. While in Chad in the summer of 2015, I received valuable input from Larry Burke and Andy Warren-Rothlin. Andy, in particular, helped me understand the perspective from the other side of the fence. I would also like to warmly thank recruiters from different mission agencies for the helpful input. Their input is presented anonymously. Finally, thank you to the participants who attended the session at the Bible Translation 2015 conference for their valuable input.

1 S. D. Allison

BT 2015: Dallas, TX, Oct. 16-20, 2015

Advocating for a Merged Approach to Bible Translation

text is a process, involving a number of steps to which both expatriates and nationals alike have a potential contribution to make. Bible translation in the context of a cross-cultural, cross-linguistic mission The message of the Christian gospel was initially only available to one cultural context the Jewish context of New Testament times. However, Gods intent at making it cross-cultural was clear when Jesus let his Jewish disciples know that they would testify about his acts and his person locally (in Jerusalem), nationally (in Judea), in cross border contexts (Samaria), and in cross-cultural and cross-linguistic contexts (to the end of the earth) (Acts 1:8). God understood the implications of preaching the Christian gospel in a cross-linguistic context, and we read of how he kick-started that process by enabling Jesus Galilean disciples to speak in other tongues such that people from every nation under heaven were able to hear about the mighty works of God in their own native languages (Acts 2:4-11). This is the first recorded instance of a cross-linguistic expression of the gospel message; the translation of the gospel message by people whose native tongue was other than the language they were speaking. Though admittedly exceptional in character, this gives Biblical precedence for the role of an expatriate Bible translator. Brief history of the Bible translation movement2 In the third century BC with the Jews of Alexandria no longer speaking Hebrew, what became known as the Old Testament in the Christian context was translated into Greek, known as the Septuagint. By the second century AD with the spread of the Christian faith through the Roman Empire, a Latin version of the Bible was needed. Various versions were produced until the definitive Latin version the Vulgate was completed by Jerome in the fourth century. Jeromes intent was to allow ordinary Christians of the empire to read the word of God, since 'ignorance of the scriptures is ignorance of Christ'. Moving forward, Bible translation prior to the Reformation was often motivated by the desire of Christian rulers to convert pagan people groups in Europe. In the sixteenth century, with the rise of Protestantism, we see a Bible translation into French in 1530 by Jacques Lefvre d'taples, into German by Martin Luther in 1534, and the Tyndale-Coverdale translation into English in 1535. Up to this point in history, it is probable, though not certain, that those carrying out the translations were mother tongue speakers of the languages into which they did translation work. Moving into the nineteenth century, 400 translations of the Bible into various languages, in whole or in part, were published. These include the work of William Carey, father of modern Protestant missions, who is credited with translating the whole Bible into 6 languages, and portions into 29 others. In the twentieth century, following the lead of Cameron Townsend, Bible translation into minority languages intensified. In the 19th and 20th century Bible translations were most often done by expatriate translators working with mother tongue language helpers. 2

The information in this section is drawn from (i) Silzer, Peter. 2005. An Overview of Bible Translation through History. Biola University, (ii) a blog on the Wycliffe USA website by Bill Gardner and Richard Gretsky (http://blog.wycliffe.org/2015/01/28/bible-translation-through-the-ages/), as well as (iii) http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac66, and (iv) http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1992/issue36/3602.html.

2 S. D. Allison

BT 2015: Dallas, TX, Oct. 16-20, 2015

Advocating for a Merged Approach to Bible Translation

Finally, now in the twenty first century, for a number of Bible translation organizations weve been progressively moving away from expatriate translators back to mother tongue translators. My position, which Ill address more fully later on, is to advocate for a merged approach, where national and expatriate translators work together in the global Bible translation movement. Making assumptions explicit At this point Id like to consider the following question: Does God still call expatriates to do Bible translation? As you may have noticed, the question is loaded. The presence of the adverb still results in an interpretation which assumes that God did, at some point in the past, call expatriates to do Bible translation. Is that assumption correct? If the assumption is wrong, that is, if God didnt call expatriates to do Bible translation in the past, then were left to ask why people like William Carey and Cameron Townsend felt as though they were called to do Bible translation for Bengali, Oriya, Assamese, Arabic, Hindi, Sanskrit, and Kaqchikel. That would also leave us with the question as to why Townsend and others after him have formed Bible translation organizations with the goal of recruiting expatriates to carry out Bible translation in languages around the world. Not wanting or able to delve into the psychological state of those expatriates who felt in the past that God had called them to do Bible translation, I will assume that the assumption is correct: God did in the past call expatriates to do Bible translation. That takes us back to the original question. Does God still call expatriates to do Bible translation? Lets assume for the moment that he doesnt. If that is the case, then when recruiters for Bible translation organizations and instructors at Bible translation training institutions (like CanIL, GIAL, SIL at UND, BIOLA, and others) meet up with young people who have felt called to do Bible translation, our role would be to kindly and gently let them know that God has not in fact called them to do Bible translation. He may have called them to be exegetes or consultants, but not Bible translators. Consider these comments from recruiters for Bible translation organizations when asked to share their organizations position in the scenario of a recruit who tells them she feels called to do Bible translation: Since we arent mother-tongue speakers, we will not be doing Bible translation but be helping them [i.e., the mother-tongue translators] exegete. This statement would seem to preclude a role for expatriate Bible translators. We might try to explain to [her] what real translation is. Presumably that would mean that expatriate translators like William Carey and Cameron Townsend werent doing real translation. [Being an exegete] is all we have to offer and frankly its what almost every Bible translation [organization] is doing. We would encourage [her] to go look if she is set on being a translator. [For] someone like this, there is a major red flag when they say things like God called them to do [a specific task within Bible translation]. We probably wouldnt accept anyone we thought wasnt flexible.

3 S. D. Allison

BT 2015: Dallas, TX, Oct. 16-20, 2015

Advocating for a Merged Approach to Bible Translation

I think most people once they realize how effective they can be as an exegete will realize they can be happy as an exegete/consultant. if [your calling] doesnt fit the strategy and youre not willing to [follow that strategy] then the [Bible translation organization] doesnt want you. I get this comment ("God called me to do Bible translation (not facilitate, consult, etc.") from potential [Bible translation organization] members all the time. One result of our [missions strategy] as pretty much the only way that [our Bible translation organization] operates is that lots of people go to [other Bible translation organizations]. A common concern I hear from students [in training] is that they don't feel qualified to be a consultant and don't see themselves working at that "higher" level.3 So God may have called them to facilitate Bible translation by providing exegetical input to national translators, or he may have called them to serve as translation consultants for those projects which deem that process to be necessary, but he hasnt actually called them to do Bible translation. This information might disillusion some, but others will adjust what they felt was their calling from God to the present reality in which God doesnt call expatriates to do Bible translation. As suggested by these quotes, other potential recruits will likely seek out other Bible translation organizations which still see a role for expatriate Bible translators despite the fact that, on this assumption, God doesnt call expatriates to do Bible translation. Now lets consider the other option, that God does, in fact, call expatriates to do Bible translation right along with national translators. From this perspective, expatriates who have been called to do Bible translation havent been spiritually misled. They arent suffering from some narcissistic tendency where they need to view themselves as the focal point of the Bible translation enterprise. They arent simply chasing after a myth perpetuated by Bible translation organizations in order to recruit expatriates to the facilitation of Bible translation by national translators. On this assumption, these people wouldnt need to be counselled away from that calling by recruiters and Bible translation training organizations. They wouldnt need to be steered toward ancillary4 roles within the global Bible translation movement. They could pursue their calling as God enables, working closely alongside national translators whenever and wherever possible. My assumptions then are that God did call expatriates to do Bible translation in (at least) the (modern) past, and God continues to call expatriates to do Bible translation. Do we need expatriate Bible translators? Even if we adopt the assumption that God still calls expatriates to do Bible translation or at least allow that others might be inclined to think so, we could ask ourselves the very practical question of whether we actually need expatriate Bible translators in the present global context. Arent there enough potential, if not actual, national workers in the various countries around the world such that we dont need to invest the time required for expatriates (i) to learn to live cross-culturally, (ii) to learn, in some cases, a national language, and (iii) to learn a language in need of Bible translation? In our desire to 3

Personal communications via email with long term recruiters for Bible translation organizations. Communication dates: July 6-7, 2015. 4 providing necessary support to the primary activities or operation of an organization, institution, industry, or system Oxford Dictionaries online (accessed Sept. 27, 2015)

4 S. D. Allison

BT 2015: Dallas, TX, Oct. 16-20, 2015

Advocating for a Merged Approach to Bible Translation

begin all needed Bible translation projects by 2025, arent we wasting valuable time in such endeavors? In our goal to accelerate the rate at which Bible translations are completed, wouldnt these be appropriate corners to cut? As we seek, in some cases, to complete New Testament translations in months, if not weeks, there can perforce be no role for an expatriate translator in such a context, as there would be no time to learn the language and culture adequately in order to be able to make a contribution to the process. With those issues raised, Id like to consider the socio-cultural contexts of the remaining Bible translation needs. Socio-cultural context of remaining Bible translation needs Wycliffe Global Alliance gives the number of remaining languages with a likely need of Bible translation at a little over 1800. A representative of one mission agency I was in contact with in preparation for this paper estimated that that number would be fairly evenly divided between churched and church-less contexts, based on a cross section of data from the Ethnologue and the Joshua project.5 By a churched context, I mean that an indigenous Christian church already exists in the language group. A church-less context would be one in which no indigenous church exists, which may also mean, though not necessarily so, that there are few or no Christians within those people groups. The proposal that the remaining Bible translation needs are relatively evenly split between churched and church-less contexts may be debatable, but Ill make that basic assumption. Given these two very different socio-cultural contexts in which the remaining Bible translation projects would be carried out, it would be of considerable value to those of us involved in the global Bible translation movement to determine if the models currently being proposed would be appropriate for these two distinct groups. I will make use of these two broad categories churched and church-less in the discussion that follows, although there are most certainly types of churched contexts and types of church-less contexts, with a probable cline from one end of the spectrum to the other. The sub-types of both contexts would need to be taken into consideration in determining the appropriate Bible translation model to be used. Proposed approaches for meeting the remaining Bible translation needs Two currently proposed models that I will discuss in this context are (i) Wycliffe Associates Mobilized Assistance Supporting Translation program, acronymed as MAST, and (ii) Wycliffe Bible Translators Emerging Model, which has now become the Common Framework. I would like to briefly present each of these, then evaluate their appropriateness for half of the remaining Bible translation needs; that is, for the church-less context. Spoiler alert here my argument will be that these two models are not, as they are currently proposed, appropriate for potentially half of the remaining Bible translation needs, which will lead me to advocate for a merged approach to Bible translation. Wycliffe Associates MAST program My description of Wycliffe Associates MAST program is based on the article by Dan Kramer entitled M.A.S.T. Mobilized Assistance Supporting Translation: Brain-based Bible Translation Methodology. This program is also advocated for by the Canadian organization OneBook. My description of MAST will highlight certain aspects of the program relative to their appropriateness to the church-less context. Kramer (p.9,10) provides the following 12 step program for the MAST methodology process: 1. Worship, Prayer and focus time 2. Reading of text 5

Personal communication. Communication dates: July 6-10, 2015.

5 S. D. Allison

BT 2015: Dallas, TX, Oct. 16-20, 2015 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Advocating for a Merged Approach to Bible Translation

Discussion of text (outlines, exegetical review, key word exposure) Blind Drafting/Chunking of text Individual Critique Peer Review Church Review Keyword Check Consultant Check Community Check (editing steps throughout) Back Translation as desired/where needed

The program has three primary models. For sake of brevity Ill focus on the first model discussed the two week model. The issues raised with respect to this model would apply to the other models as well. Kramer (p.12) indicates that if there is a church that can mobilize 26 members of one language, MAST process can take on a New Testament translation in two weeks with all of the same above steps. A number of people have noted and commented on the two week time frame for the completion of the New Testament. In the context of considering the model for the church-less context, I would like to highlight the phrase if there is a church Lets consider this model for a bit. The New Testament contains about 7957 verses. With 26 translators each taking an equal share, each translator is responsible for about 306 verses. If we assume the translators works 8 hours a day for 6 days a week for the two week period, then each translator would be expected to translate slightly under 3.2 verses per hour whether or not she actually breaks the work up in that manner or not. Its not clear from the Kramers presentation of the model how exegesis would be handled. Would each of the 26 translators have an assigned exegete who would provide the necessary exegetical input for the verses to be translated each hour? Would a handful of exegetes make the rounds each hour? It is likely that the work during the two week time frame would focus primarily on the first six steps of the program, that is: (1) Worship, Prayer and focus time, (2) Reading of text, (3) Discussion of text (outlines, exegetical review, key word exposure), (4) Blind Drafting/Chunking of text, (5) Individual Critique, and possibly (6) Peer Review. It is not likely that step 7 (Church Review), step 8 (Key word check) step 9 (Consultant Checking), and step 10 (Community Checking) could all be carried out as well in the two week time frame despite Kramers claim that MAST process can take on a New Testament translation in two weeks with all of the same above steps. Having given a brief overview of the model, lets consider its appropriateness to a church-less Bible translation project. For instance, Step 1 in the MAST program involves Worship and Prayer. This could be potentially difficult if not impossible if the MTT isnt a Christian. Step 7, Church Review, would of course be a logical impossibility in a church-less context. Also, in this same context, is it reasonable to expect to find 26 mother tongue speakers of the language with both the competence and willingness to be involved in a Bible translation project? OneBook, a Canadian partner of Wycliffe Associates asked itself the question Can the MAST methodology be used in the context of unreached people groups? It doesnt appear then that MAST, as currently conceived, would be a workable model for the churchless context. But, given that the MAST model is proposing to complete New Translations within the churched context at a fortnight pace, half of the remaining Bible translation needs could potentially be met fairly quickly. This then would leave us to focus on the Bible translation needs in the church-less context.

6 S. D. Allison

BT 2015: Dallas, TX, Oct. 16-20, 2015

Advocating for a Merged Approach to Bible Translation

Having discussed the MAST model, lets now examine Wycliffe USAs Common Framework. Wycliffe USAs Common Framework (formerly Emerging Model) Wycliffe USAs Common Framework was, until recently, known as the Emerging Model. I draw my information about this model from the slides of a power point presentation entitled See, I am doing a new thing, updated August, 2015, a document entitled Wycliffe USA Common Framework Overview September, 2015, and a document entitled A common framework for Bible translation (Executive Summary and Fundamental Principles), dated June 2015. This model advocates that the whole church take the whole gospel to the whole world (ppt, p.3). It comes out of a trial and error effort by the Seed Company to develop a new model for Bible translation. The Seed Company has chosen not to keep the model to themselves in order to gain a competitive advantage, but, instead, to share it open-handedly so that other communities can benefit as well (ppt, p.7). The model distinguishes three essential partners in Bible translation called the Resource partners, the Impact partners, and the Technical partners. The Resource partners bring financial, human, and prayer resources into the project. Much of the time the resource partner is crossing geographic and cultural boundaries to participate. The Impact partner is the most local expression of the Church in a given people group. The Technical partners are those who bring the technical expertise around linguistics, exegesis, and translation into the project. The varying degrees of influence of each of these partners over the others results in different models of Bible translation. When the Technical partners hold the place of power and prominence, this would result in more of a traditional Bible translation model. Traditional in the sense that it is mainly the Technical partners the missionaries on the field in this case that relate directly with the Impact partners, while the Resource partners have less direct influence. When the Resource partners are in a position of power and control, the resultant model is a donordriven model. This would be the case when the Resource partner requires the Impact partners to implement a certain model or approach in order to receive the funding they need to carry out their translation training. This would also be the case when the Impact partners and Technical partners are required to follow a translation output timeline established by the Resource partner in order to continue receiving funding from the Resource partner regardless of the consequences to the quality of the translation produced. The Emerging model (or Common Framework), places the three partners in an almost-even power continuum. Within this model, the project is developed collaboratively between the three partners, but preference in decision-making is given to the Impact partner. Within this model, the choice of which Scriptures to translate first are defined by the Impact partner as the model is designed to pay attention to the movement in the hearts and minds of the local indigenous partners. Having given a brief overview of this model, lets consider its possible appropriateness to a church-less Bible translation project. 7 S. D. Allison

BT 2015: Dallas, TX, Oct. 16-20, 2015

Advocating for a Merged Approach to Bible Translation

Remember that in the Common Framework, the Impact partner is the most local expression of the Church in a given people group. In cases where the Church is not yet present, the Impact partner would be the most local expression of the Church that is influencing that people group. However, what if there is no local expression of the Church that is influencing a given people group, as would be quite possible in church-less contexts around the world? What if the most local expression of the church influencing the people group came from outside the people group, perhaps within the same political country, but maybe even from outside those political boundaries? That is, what if the most local expression of the church influencing the people group was expatriate (in the sense that Im using it in this paper)? Presumably, in such cases, as stated by the model, the preference in decision-making would be given to those coming from outside the people group as they are the most local expression of the Church influencing the people group in question. Recognizing this possibility that the most local expression of the Church in church-less contexts may not in fact be very local leads me to propose an extension of the Common framework for the uncommon church-less context what I am calling the Merged Approach Paradigm or MAP, where expatriate and national translators work together in the global Bible translation movement. In this approach, as stated at the outset, people would be assigned to roles within the Bible translation task based on Gods calling and His gifting in their lives. Can peoples sense of Gods calling in their lives serve as an organizational strategy? Even if we adopt the assumption or at least allow for the possibility that God still calls expatriates to do Bible translation and if we accept that many of the remaining Bible translation needs are in contexts where it may not be possible to rely solely on mother-tongue translators, we could ask ourselves another practical question of whether Bible translation organizations could develop and sustain a strategy which depended at least in part on peoples sense of Gods calling on their lives. As one personal communication put it, an organizations strategy cannot be based on peoples subjective assessment of what God is calling them to do. And, it is difficult to use peoples subjective sense of what they think God has called them to do as an organizational strategy or a strategy between organizations. This would be in contrast to the recruitment statement made a number of years ago by one mission agency that said [our Bible translation organization] is a bridge to enable you to do what God is calling you to do. Is such an organizational strategy pass? It would appear not. A recruiter for one mission noted that first and foremost, we want to be Kingdom recruiters who help individuals find a place in God's Kingdom where their gifts, passions and sense of calling (their GPS if you will) can be utilized for the glory of God. Or again, our whole basis for recruitment is administered with the notion that people should serve God in a missions agency which is going the same direction God is leading them. And finally, our organization doesn't believe our missionaries exist to serve the organization. Rather, we believe the organization exists to help missionaries accomplish the ministry God has put before them as it relates to our global mission. It is indeed possible then to have an organizational strategy which is built up around peoples sense of Gods calling in their lives, such that expatriates called to do Bible translation could do so within such a framework. For those that feel God has called them to do Bible translation, it may be that recruiters from different mission agencies and instructors from different Bible translation training organizations should direct such people to Bible translation organizations whose organizational strategy takes into consideration a persons GPS (gifts, passions and sense of calling). 8 S. D. Allison

BT 2015: Dallas, TX, Oct. 16-20, 2015

Advocating for a Merged Approach to Bible Translation

Isnt it unethical to translate the Bible into a language which is not your own? But, even if we accept that God may still call expatriates to do Bible translation, and if we accept that church-less contexts may require the involvement of expatriate translators, and if we concede that at least some Bible translation organizations are able to operate with an organizational strategy that is open to peoples sense of Gods calling on their lives, we could raise the moral question of whether it is ethical for an expatriate to translate into a language which is not her own. That is, is it morally questionable to export the scriptures from ones own culture into another culture? I believe this critique comes as a result of adopting the worlds view of what is ethical and moral, and not Gods view. We saw at the beginning of my paper that God recognized that the transmission of the gospel would be a cross-cultural and cross-linguistic task. From its Jewish roots, the gospel has been translated both in word and deed cross-culturally throughout its history, whether by nationals or expatriates. How is the merged approach different from the traditional model? In the traditional approach, the expatriate translator worked with mother tongue language helpers to produce a Bible translation. The merged approach would allow for a variety of models. I noted earlier that there are most certainly types of churched contexts and types of church-less contexts, with a probable cline from one end of the spectrum to the other. I also indicated that the sub-types of both contexts would need to be taken into consideration in determining the appropriate Bible translation model to be used. With the merged approach, in a churched context toward the pole of the cline, there would likely be little need for the input of expatriate translators. In a church-less context at the opposing pole of the cline, the role of an expatriate translator would likely be crucial to the Bible translation process. In the cline between the two poles the role and the degree of involvement of expatriate translators and national translators would vary depending on a variety of factors.6 Conclusion Gravelle, referring to Johnson (2010) Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation, comments that change happens when you take a configuration and rearrange it in new ways most new ideas are not the result of something coming from nothing. It has more to do with aggregating proven things and rearranging them in new ways for greater effects. The history of Bible translation began with mother tongue translators, then shifted to expatriate translators, and has been moving back to mother tongue translators. My proposal is to aggregate the two, with expatriate and mother tongue translators working together to make Gods Word available to those in need of it. The purpose of this paper has been to advocate for an approach to Bible translation which focuses on assigning people to roles within the Bible translation task based on Gods calling and His gifting in their lives instead of on their ethnic identity. In this approach, roles in the Bible translation task would be open to be filled by anyone with the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes, regardless of their ethnicity. As such, we could just as well see someone from a sub-Saharan African country serve as a Bible translator in the Indian sub-continent, as a Pakistani in a Middle Eastern context, as a Syrian in a Southeast Asian context, as a Thai in a Melanesian context, as a Fijian in a North American First Nations context, as a Canadian in a north African context. Such a view has implications for the kind of message Bible translation organizations can use in recruitment. Those who feel called by God to do Bible 6

Cf. Cahill & Neeley (2011) on the contributions that expatriate translators (referred to as other tongue translators (OTTs) in that paper) can make to Bible translation teams.

9 S. D. Allison

BT 2015: Dallas, TX, Oct. 16-20, 2015

Advocating for a Merged Approach to Bible Translation

translation and those who feel called to contribute to Bible translation in a more general way would be equally welcomed by recruiters as each has a role to play in the global Bible translation movement. If MAST is an appropriate model for the churched context, we also need a MAP for the church-less context. The Common Framework should be extended to allow for what may seem now like an uncommon context the church-less context but which may soon become the focus of our Bible translation efforts. My proposal is that the Emerging model needs to incorporate a merged approach, the application of which would result in the whole body of Christ, expatriates and nationals alike, working together and taking part in all levels of the Bible translation process.

10 S. D. Allison

BT 2015: Dallas, TX, Oct. 16-20, 2015 Bibliography of references consulted

Advocating for a Merged Approach to Bible Translation

Beine, David. 2015. A Continuing Role for Western Bible Translators? Paper presented at the Bible Translation 2015 Conference, Oct 16-20, 2015, Dallas, TX. Cahill, Michael & Linda Neeley. 2011. What Other Tongue Translators Can Contribute to Bible Translation Teams. Paper presented at the Bible Translation 2011 Conference, Dallas, TX. Gardner, Bill & Richard Gretsky. 2015. Bible translation through the ages. Available from: http://blog.wycliffe.org/2015/01/28/bible-translation-through-the-ages/ [15 October 2015] Gravelle, Gilles. nd. Rearrangements: New Ways of Doing Old Things. In Translation Consultancy: Ways Forward. unpublished manuscript. Hayashi, Larry. 2015. Untitled paper presented at Canada Institute of Linguistics Award Ceremony, Spring 2015. Jones, Larry. nd. Consultant qualifications. In Translation Consultancy: Ways Forward. unpublished manuscript. Kramer, Dan. 2015. M.A.S.T. Mobilized Assistance Supporting Translation: Brain-based Bible Translation Methodology. unpublished manuscript. OneBook. 2015. Massive changes in the Bible translation movement: Innovative responses to the exponential growth of the Church of the Global South & East. unpublished manuscript. Silzer, Peter. 2005. An Overview of Bible Translation through History. Biola University. Maxey, James & Bryan Harmelink & Larry Jones & Vroni Krger & Barry Funnell & Gilles Gravelle. nd. Translation Consultancy: A way forward. unpublished manuscript of the Translation Development Group of the Forum of Bible Agencies International. Wycliffe Canada. 2015. Wycliffe Canada Statement on Mobilized Assistance Supporting Translation (MAST). unpublished manuscript. Wycliffe USA. 2015. Emerging Model Basics. unpublished manuscript. Wycliffe USA. 2015. Common Framework Overview. unpublished manuscript. Wycliffe USA. 2015. Common Framework for Bible Translation FAQ. unpublished manuscript. Wycliffe USA. 2015. A Common Framework for Bible Translation (Executive Summary and Fundamental Principles). unpublished manuscript. Wycliffe USA. 2015. See I am doing a new thing. unpublished manuscript.

11 S. D. Allison