Bible Translation that Orients to helpful Theological Education
Some people might ask what is the word for God in language X. We are inclined to give an affirmative answer. In the end, the correct answer of course is that such a word does not exist.[1] Instead, there may be a word the impact of which overlaps with the impact of the English term God. (Which we take as having an overlap with the impact of the term Yahweh found in the Bible and in Christian tradition.)
The understanding that there is a term for God in, say, African language Bibles, underscores the notion that African theology can simply be taught using English. Extending from God, to Spirit to Holy to well every other term, then English is taken as being a means for saying what one could say in an African language using alternative phonetics and grammatical rules. This license for English becomes an orientation to use of it as LOI (Language of Instruction) in theological education, globally.
The basis on which we translate, may be that our translation must (if at all possible) provoke an understanding that is doctrinally correct. That which is doctrinally correct, is that which we know to be correct. Here we seem to have become god on Gods behalf.
I guess we are back to the question of whether the Bible is the truth, or whether it points us to the truth. It seems to be important to distinguish these two.
Taking geography as a metaphor, that which is required to point someone to truth, depends on where they are initially standing in relation to truth. London is reached differently from Dover than it is from Glasgow. So presumably Yahweh is reached differently from Zululand than from Malaysia. Thus Zulu people need to understand the Bible differently than do the Malay.
The emboldening of English-language theology for the Majority World arises from the above-mentioned confusion that can assume other languages to have parallel categories to those in English. Surely, at the end of the day, this is what discourages the use of indigenous languages in the formation of theology, which practice turns Majority World theologies into a mockery of imitation of English.
We must stop saying that the Xth languages term for God is Y.
English-language theological educations currently massively dominating Africa is preventing Christian truth from striking home. It is certainly preventing transformation of contexts (including indigenous linguistic contexts) in line with classical Christian teaching. In many African contexts known to me to formally provide theological education using other than English, is illegal. It is time to act. Action should begin with us. For example:
- Bible translators from the West must avoid rooting themselves in a European-language worshipping community during their service in the Majority World. (I once met an employee of SIL in Nairobi. I was horrified to discover that he attends an English medium church. He did not seem to recognise such as an issue at all.)
- Translating endless Bibles will become a mockery if we do not do all we can to insist that those translated Bibles, and languages, should be used to engage theological education. Only thus can theological education begin to plug in to what God is seeking to do with every Christian community. God surely realises that people learn the new in the light of the old. He also realises that to know God is a journey, where the direction in which one is at any point needing to face, depends as much on where people are coming from as it does their destination.
- The illegality of the use of non-European languages in formal education, should have serious Christian educators engage their craft in informal rather than formal sectors in the Majority World.
[1] It will certainly not exist amongst a not-Christian or pre-Christian people. Even should a people be Christianized, or be on their way to being Christianized, however, the semantic or pragmatic content of a term that is used to translate the English God is not going to be identical to that of the English term God.
1 comment
Sign in to join the conversation.
Thanks for your thoughts Aaron. Yes, I seem to have tried to raise a barrage of issues … your reflections are helping me to go further …
Truth, or pointing to truth … without exploring all the theoretical background to this, yes, I am leaning towards ‘pointing to’ truth.
Yes, local believers can be better positioned to teach and preach. (In another sense, no-one is ‘well positioned’ to fill these roles – they must be God-inspired roles, and God is inclined to use ‘weak’ vessels. Those ‘weak vessels’ could be foreign missionaries, provided they are ready to acknowledge their weakness, but not thereby give up!) Perhaps also, translators ‘failing’ in these roles will be educational to them, and to the broader BT movement – i.e., it might feed back into the BT process itself. Like: what is the nature of the advantage enjoyed by local believers, and by implication where are the ‘faults’ of foreign translators in their teaching and preaching, and should these advantages / faults be taken into account in the translation process?
Of course what I am reacting against: while some busily translate Bibles, formal theological education is increasingly in English, and as I mention, it can be illegal for it not to be … and while all this is happening, do we just say and do nothing?
I wonder what the wider reaction is to BT workers worshipping in churches that use indigenous tongues? I do not mean that ‘international churches’ shouldn’t use English so much, as that internationals (of the BT ilk) ought to seek out churches that do use the vernacular. Again – I think (on the basis of personal experience) that doing so could result in important challenges to the status quo, including of translation. Yes – re. how to ‘re-express’ Gospel truths in other languages, we need to make a comparison between our efforts and those of local people. A related thing that comes to mind is emotional engagement. (For ‘emotion’, I think read ‘spirit/ghost’. Yes or no? Quite a point in itself?)
While unfamiliar with Cameroonian context … I think preaching / teaching the Bible has challenges today that weren’t there for early translators. Those challenges arise from the existence of local conventions in the doing of these things. The ‘first’ missionaries’ doing ‘as per at home’ would have laid the foundation, but (certainly in circles known to me) local people have augmented such foundation. For example, using a raised voice, use of the eyes, content oriented to prosperity, interjecting halleluiah’s, sometimes jumping, increasing speed, active against spirits (use of language that is specifically oriented to removal of untoward spirits), etc.
Yes, a foreigner’s using an indigenous language to (routinely) teach / preach could surely be an important legitimisation of such practice.
Re. translation of God … I suggest that many translations into African languages have a ‘prosperity’ character that the English God doesn’t have (as native English speakers acquire their ‘prosperity’ from the other side of their dualistic system, i.e., by working on the ‘physical world’). So, one cannot translate ‘God’ just like that. If we take the prosperity gospel, many would suggest that this should be ‘taught against’. On the other hand, if we (‘we’) are to understand this, perhaps ‘we’ should also participate rather than condemn this, which will at least help us realise how are translations are being understood (or misunderstood) locally. After all – perhaps prosperity Gospel is a kind of ‘necessity’? (https://youtu.be/0EOVD0qWSYU )