Pushing the boundaries

We are just now in the last stages of typesetting the Konjo and Makasar New Testaments, which implies thirty
years of translation under adverse conditions and the present task of audio recording and eventual printing. I
thought I should summarize a bit of our experiences, especially if it might be useful to translators of Muslim
target languages.

My good friend Ellis Deibler and I often locked horns, as he and Martha were two of three translation consultants
that served our project. In the end I decided to break with his insistence that implied information be included in
the text, “or how else would the reader read with understanding on a par with that of the original recipients?”
We knew that Muslim objections to Christian Scriptures included that we had corrupted the text over the
centuries, if not from the beginning. I wanted to deflect that criticism in the Konjo case. Here is what we did:
We followed a “formal equivalence” or essentially literal approach to translation of the Konjo New Testament
(KJNT), knowing that anything looser would surely draw fire. (Apologies to Nida and Deibler, among others.) We
turned to footnotes to assure the highest level of comprehension on the part of Konjo readers. Every time there
was an issue of implied information, we footnoted that for the reader. Further, every time the essentially literal
approach might leave the reader sputtering, we footnoted a freer rendering of the text. Every time where the
Konjo language itself demanded a freer rendering in the text (for various reasons), we footnoted a literal
rendering of the Greek.

Whereas our approach might present problems to newer readers (what are footnotes anyway?), an earlier
version audio recording showed that the reader was held nearly spellbound listening to the text (while following
along the highlighted verses). We assumed that interested readers would expend the effort to use the system
provided.

All in all our KJNT translation has 13,000 footnotes, roughly divided between cross references and content issues.
Such footnotes (separated for display into the two kinds) takes up roughly 30% of the page, on average. (Our
single column KJNT comprises 975 pages of text.) Of content footnotes, we have roughly three kinds: iamintu,
“that is,” explanation of implied information and less clear essentially literal issues; basa riolo, ”original
language,” anticipating critics and their potential charges; iareka, “or,” explaining social and geographic dialect
matters, alternate understandings of the text, among others.

At no place did we include a single footnote regarding text critical issues. The motivation for that includes the
fact that Muslim critics seem invariably drawn to such information as proof of their charges of a corrupted text.
In fact the underlying Greek text used was the Byzantine Textform, acknowledged in the introduction of the
KJNT. This is a highly defensible choice; see my “Layman’s Guide,” a modest explanation for the layman of ideas
related to determining the text of the Greek New Testament. (Also, “Greek text for cousins.”) Fortunately for
Konjo and Makasar readers, a very readable Byzantine-based Indonesian translation of the New Testament has
recently become available (Albata).

I determined that if I couldn’t understand the Greek text at some point, it would be useless to translate it for the
Konjo. Years of exegesis later, I am happy to report that I have found satisfactory understandings of all
“noncompliant” New Testament passages, including some especially difficult ones like 1Corinthians 11.2-16,
14.34-35 and 15.29. In the first passage cited, we footnoted the traditional understanding, our longest footnote.
We have been told that we have produced a study Bible for the Konjo, most of whom are unbelievers and
illiterate in their native language. To the contrary, we include no maps, glossary (see rather our footnotes),
concordance, or explanatory discussions. We provide a footnoted model for those that might be looking for
better understanding, but in such a way that the footnoting may be ignored or skipped over without confusion to
the reader. The use of footnotes is explained in the introduction to the KJNT.

We had the expert typesetting services of Rex Johnson from SIL’s typesetting pool. Though many ho-hum
problems were met and conquered during the eighteen months of our interaction, I would like to mention three
here that were basic and almost proved too much.

First, there was the issue of hanging indents in our cross reference and content footnotes. It seemed that
hanging indents were essential to lessen the confusion status among Konjo readers regarding footnotes. Without
them, the presentation of information was potentially overwhelming to the new reader. Thankfully, Rex found
ways to give the Konjo readers satisfaction when Publishing Assistant and In-Design weren’t very helpful.
Second, the matter of indentation of usually Old Testament poetic quotes. If there was any difficulty here for us,
it was terminological. The issue was whether the indentation schema could show the proper display without
regard to verse numbers. Rex gave us satisfaction here too.

Finally, the matter of “long” footnotes. We had seventeen long footnotes that wouldn’t fit the typesetting, for
the software wasn’t able to carry such footnotes on to the next page (a real deficiency!). But we couldn’t sacrifice
those footnotes, for they carried vital information for the interested reader. Finally, Rex handled each of them by
getting the line carrying the caller of the relevant footnote near to the top of the page (using kerning among
other steps), resulting in room for the longer footnotes to be reproduced in full. Our longest footnote was thirty
lines and now stands correctly in the text for Konjo readers.

We were advised not to be so obstinate in having typesetting needs that didn’t easily give way to the capabilities
of existing software. Knowing that it wasn’t our personal demands but the good of the Konjo readers, we were a
bit on the side of obstinate, perhaps, but are happy that our typesetter was well experienced and given insight to
follow through to produce a layout of the KJNT that became the basis for audio recording.

Apparently most New Testaments are printed and the audio recording done on the resultant output. We chose
rather to audio record on a penultimate version of the KJNT, our typesetter agreeing that any discrepancies
found comparing the recording with the PDF that were written text errors (and not recording errors) he would fix
in a final PDF to be submitted to the printer.

Not only has this process resulted in a few cases where the text was simply wrongly read and thus recorded, but
there are other cases where the written text was deficient in a letter or syllable in ways that became apparent
only when the text was read aloud. We are thankful for the some 100 corrections to the written text this process
has uncovered, as well as corrections to the recorded text that somehow just missed what the written text
correctly stated.

Working with a target audience that was not at all cooperative in the general sense both because of their
majority religion status, on the one hand, and because of their being a heavily occult group, on the other, has
resulted in a thirty-year adventure of experiencing the overruling hand of God. It is his Word after all that we are
on assignment to translate. But that is another story.

To God be the glory.
Timothy Friberg
December 2022