I am glad to see Dr. Dave Eberhard and his team have begun to research the challenges in providing local language Bibles in places where churches had been using Bibles in the LWC (language of wider communication). This research follows in a long tradition of minority language Scripture Engagement (SE) research. Like many of the other research projects, they studied a fraction of the range of situations in the world, in this case one small nation and a part of another larger one, and they limited themselvesby using only one theoretical lens to analyze Scripture Engagement and neglecting other aspects of this complex topic. Their research did contribute to our understanding, though, and I would like to see it entered as the 48th research project in the database for such research, the Scripture Engagement Research Compendium (CERC).
Unfortunately, the team seems to have become convinced they have discovered a universal sociolinguistic law, that anywhere in the world, if people are already using a Bible version in the LWC, a minority language Bible translation will not be used in church. In this interview, the impression is given that their research results are new and alarming; actually, they are neither. It was obvious by the 1990s that Christians will have come to trust the Bible they already use, even if they can’t understand it. That is one of several different issues that will need work for many language groups to begin using local language scriptures. That observation was based on hundreds of projects that I knew about, but still, it was anecdotal information only. Eberhard, et al have raised a question worth deeper research. Fortunately, additional research has now been done, and the results are encouraging.
I can now safely say that deeper studies of a more representative corpus have shown that, though Bibles in the LWC can be an obstacle, this issue can be and frequently has been overcome by the judicial selections of activities in the normal range of Scripture Engagement work. My colleague, Tim Hatcher, who has now replaced me at Dallas International University, did his own PhD on Scripture engagement and has been teaching this subject for 17 years. Recently, Hatcher undertook a careful meta-study of the projects in the CERC. That study was published in the Journal of Language, Culture, and Religion. It can be found here.
Hatcher found 73 cases where a minority language had been done in an area accustomed to the LWC scriptures and for which the quality of information was high enough to properly answer whether local language Bibles were actually used in church. Of these 73, in 58 the local language was used in public reading in church, in 2 it was used in other ways but not in church, and in 13 only the LWC Bible was used. That is an encouraging record, but it also shows that LWC usage needs to be carefully considered and dealt with as part of the translation process. Hatcher provides considerable detail about the methodology and quality of each study and about the reasons for their inclusion. I commend it to anyone who wants to learn more about this topic.
This controversy has reminded me that Scripture engagement has never been about one academic field. Understanding a project requires anthropology, ehtnotheology (especially theolinguistics), linguistics, and marketing, along with sociolinguistics and other disciplines. What Eberhard and his team observed in Brazil, Sulawesi, and Vanuatu can only be understood by using several different lenses. I have guesses about each group of projects, but not enough data to say more here.
Wayne Dye, PhD
Professor Emeritus
Dallas International University
In the interview... Dr. Eberhard hints at what I consider essential part of this issue. Where there is a lectionary in place in the local language, the local scripture in that language tends to be used more often. He even suggests that this is significant and worthy to be investigated.
Now, while there is something to the lectionary specifically, I think it isn't the formalized order of ceremony that goes with it, but more the comprehension that local words written down promoting ideas and concepts that are here-and-now tend to help the overall comprehension of local language written words that are about so easy-to-grasp ideas. That is, the Bible is a hard read. You need easier reading material in a local language to provide the skill set to be able to read the Bible.
When you plunk a Bible (12th grade or post graduate level, or even a 7th-10th grade level) down into a culture where the only other local language written communication is by text messaging... that's a huge ask to expect readers that have a reading level of "I'll be there in 20 minutes" or "can you help me pay rent this month?" to leap into concepts like post-millenialism. Not to say they can't grasp the more complex topics, but when the only written and verbal communication about those Ideas are in a wider language, it's that wider language that is learned and understood... and there's a missing link between the idea that is expressed in the business language, and the local words that appear in print. Does that mean the local language is not needed or wanted? I think it's obvious that anyone and everyone learns more completely and quickly in their native language, and will choose to do so if it's viable.
So, Eberhard suggested that since readers can't make this leap from texting to complex biblical vocabulary, and the top of the mountain Bible is left untouched, that this means there's no reason to "continue translating." I heard the translator begging the opposite: "we need a path up the mountain of Bible." And I think this is required in all languages. Teams should "continue translating." The Bible translation process shouldn't come to a halt with the completion of the Bible, but should be more of a graduation and releasing the translator to continue doing those pathway works. Teams should be selecting translators and apprenticing them into lifetimes producing written works in that minority language... New works in the language if possible, but translations of works at a minimum.
I'd like to suggest reviewing the works of Andrew Murray to anyone who's been asked by local language experts to "continue translating." While I'm not personally "reformed", I find Murray's works specifically suited for translation because the words I see in English have already been translated... and that process removed a lot of the untranslatable allegory and metaphors, leaving basic universal concepts about the Bible and Christianity. Some ideas are specifically focused... but most of what he wrote is core Christianity. But beyond his words specifically, the whole genres that he was successful in publishing are targets for these "lets continue translating" folks... Devotional works, and strictly exegetical works.
10 years ago, I thought it was a good plan to transform Murray's works into USFM, because the translators are familiar with the interface, and could just keep working. These days, USFM is not as clearly what it was a decade ago... the plain text hides under layers of hidden tags and extra information, so maybe there needs to be a simpler tagging method for non-scripture, like markdown.
Maybe I misstated the point I hoped to make: a path to literacy at a post high school level in the local language is the point, not loading a language with a single view of Bible theology. While Eberhard noted a liturgical work, I heard "reading a book of any type: reading anything in language helps promote reading the Bible."
If a local language reader can't make sense of the text for complex questions, they seek elsewhere: out of language, which in western context we hope means back to Greek, but in reality means they look toward the business language or regional language. And every step away from heart language leaves room for gap interpolation. And if the local language doesn't have answers often enough, then they learn to skip that step.
But this is all conjecture, and personal observation, and I'm way out of my lane, and my depth. I'm just a publishing technician that heard Eberhard mention (any, but specifically liturgical) additional literature available is a noticed difference observed in areas of use vs. non-use, and left it as a point of further study, and I hope it does get studied.
_________________
Continued explanation below, but this reads back toward "doctrinally loading"... I'm doing my best to explain it's asset management, but fear I'm just undoing any "not theology" that I opened this comment to say. What's left below is what didn't get cut out, but still doesn't fit "not theology."
_________________
There's the reality that as a translation completes, a person or team has spent years learning skills who can fill some of the path, and personally I see "translate more" fit closer to the Bible than grade school primers, but I hope to NOT load the path to one theology, just provide the bricks or stepping stones so the Bible isn't some magic scroll that only the priests read, but becomes approachable by all readers.
In our organisation, translators spent the last few months here in the states as the project finished up, and all of the translators we hosted while I was with the organization expressed that same hope to "translate more" as they looked to the future. The hope is the Bible wins, not one theology or another. I see those skilled translators as an opportunity to help the Bible gain a foothold. Giving them "more to translate" seems like an obvious way to help ensure the Bible or Testament they worked toward gains that foothold.
3 comments
Sign in to join the conversation.
I am glad to see Dr. Dave Eberhard and his team have begun to research the challenges in providing local language Bibles in places where churches had been using Bibles in the LWC (language of wider communication). This research follows in a long tradition of minority language Scripture Engagement (SE) research. Like many of the other research projects, they studied a fraction of the range of situations in the world, in this case one small nation and a part of another larger one, and they limited themselvesby using only one theoretical lens to analyze Scripture Engagement and neglecting other aspects of this complex topic. Their research did contribute to our understanding, though, and I would like to see it entered as the 48th research project in the database for such research, the Scripture Engagement Research Compendium (CERC).
Unfortunately, the team seems to have become convinced they have discovered a universal sociolinguistic law, that anywhere in the world, if people are already using a Bible version in the LWC, a minority language Bible translation will not be used in church. In this interview, the impression is given that their research results are new and alarming; actually, they are neither. It was obvious by the 1990s that Christians will have come to trust the Bible they already use, even if they can’t understand it. That is one of several different issues that will need work for many language groups to begin using local language scriptures. That observation was based on hundreds of projects that I knew about, but still, it was anecdotal information only. Eberhard, et al have raised a question worth deeper research. Fortunately, additional research has now been done, and the results are encouraging.
I can now safely say that deeper studies of a more representative corpus have shown that, though Bibles in the LWC can be an obstacle, this issue can be and frequently has been overcome by the judicial selections of activities in the normal range of Scripture Engagement work. My colleague, Tim Hatcher, who has now replaced me at Dallas International University, did his own PhD on Scripture engagement and has been teaching this subject for 17 years. Recently, Hatcher undertook a careful meta-study of the projects in the CERC. That study was published in the Journal of Language, Culture, and Religion. It can be found here.
Hatcher found 73 cases where a minority language had been done in an area accustomed to the LWC scriptures and for which the quality of information was high enough to properly answer whether local language Bibles were actually used in church. Of these 73, in 58 the local language was used in public reading in church, in 2 it was used in other ways but not in church, and in 13 only the LWC Bible was used. That is an encouraging record, but it also shows that LWC usage needs to be carefully considered and dealt with as part of the translation process. Hatcher provides considerable detail about the methodology and quality of each study and about the reasons for their inclusion. I commend it to anyone who wants to learn more about this topic.
This controversy has reminded me that Scripture engagement has never been about one academic field. Understanding a project requires anthropology, ehtnotheology (especially theolinguistics), linguistics, and marketing, along with sociolinguistics and other disciplines. What Eberhard and his team observed in Brazil, Sulawesi, and Vanuatu can only be understood by using several different lenses. I have guesses about each group of projects, but not enough data to say more here.
Wayne Dye, PhD
Professor Emeritus
Dallas International University
In the interview... Dr. Eberhard hints at what I consider essential part of this issue. Where there is a lectionary in place in the local language, the local scripture in that language tends to be used more often. He even suggests that this is significant and worthy to be investigated.
Now, while there is something to the lectionary specifically, I think it isn't the formalized order of ceremony that goes with it, but more the comprehension that local words written down promoting ideas and concepts that are here-and-now tend to help the overall comprehension of local language written words that are about so easy-to-grasp ideas. That is, the Bible is a hard read. You need easier reading material in a local language to provide the skill set to be able to read the Bible.
When you plunk a Bible (12th grade or post graduate level, or even a 7th-10th grade level) down into a culture where the only other local language written communication is by text messaging... that's a huge ask to expect readers that have a reading level of "I'll be there in 20 minutes" or "can you help me pay rent this month?" to leap into concepts like post-millenialism. Not to say they can't grasp the more complex topics, but when the only written and verbal communication about those Ideas are in a wider language, it's that wider language that is learned and understood... and there's a missing link between the idea that is expressed in the business language, and the local words that appear in print. Does that mean the local language is not needed or wanted? I think it's obvious that anyone and everyone learns more completely and quickly in their native language, and will choose to do so if it's viable.
So, Eberhard suggested that since readers can't make this leap from texting to complex biblical vocabulary, and the top of the mountain Bible is left untouched, that this means there's no reason to "continue translating." I heard the translator begging the opposite: "we need a path up the mountain of Bible." And I think this is required in all languages. Teams should "continue translating." The Bible translation process shouldn't come to a halt with the completion of the Bible, but should be more of a graduation and releasing the translator to continue doing those pathway works. Teams should be selecting translators and apprenticing them into lifetimes producing written works in that minority language... New works in the language if possible, but translations of works at a minimum.
I'd like to suggest reviewing the works of Andrew Murray to anyone who's been asked by local language experts to "continue translating." While I'm not personally "reformed", I find Murray's works specifically suited for translation because the words I see in English have already been translated... and that process removed a lot of the untranslatable allegory and metaphors, leaving basic universal concepts about the Bible and Christianity. Some ideas are specifically focused... but most of what he wrote is core Christianity. But beyond his words specifically, the whole genres that he was successful in publishing are targets for these "lets continue translating" folks... Devotional works, and strictly exegetical works.
10 years ago, I thought it was a good plan to transform Murray's works into USFM, because the translators are familiar with the interface, and could just keep working. These days, USFM is not as clearly what it was a decade ago... the plain text hides under layers of hidden tags and extra information, so maybe there needs to be a simpler tagging method for non-scripture, like markdown.
Maybe I misstated the point I hoped to make: a path to literacy at a post high school level in the local language is the point, not loading a language with a single view of Bible theology. While Eberhard noted a liturgical work, I heard "reading a book of any type: reading anything in language helps promote reading the Bible."
If a local language reader can't make sense of the text for complex questions, they seek elsewhere: out of language, which in western context we hope means back to Greek, but in reality means they look toward the business language or regional language. And every step away from heart language leaves room for gap interpolation. And if the local language doesn't have answers often enough, then they learn to skip that step.
But this is all conjecture, and personal observation, and I'm way out of my lane, and my depth. I'm just a publishing technician that heard Eberhard mention (any, but specifically liturgical) additional literature available is a noticed difference observed in areas of use vs. non-use, and left it as a point of further study, and I hope it does get studied.
_________________
Continued explanation below, but this reads back toward "doctrinally loading"... I'm doing my best to explain it's asset management, but fear I'm just undoing any "not theology" that I opened this comment to say. What's left below is what didn't get cut out, but still doesn't fit "not theology."
_________________
There's the reality that as a translation completes, a person or team has spent years learning skills who can fill some of the path, and personally I see "translate more" fit closer to the Bible than grade school primers, but I hope to NOT load the path to one theology, just provide the bricks or stepping stones so the Bible isn't some magic scroll that only the priests read, but becomes approachable by all readers.
In our organisation, translators spent the last few months here in the states as the project finished up, and all of the translators we hosted while I was with the organization expressed that same hope to "translate more" as they looked to the future. The hope is the Bible wins, not one theology or another. I see those skilled translators as an opportunity to help the Bible gain a foothold. Giving them "more to translate" seems like an obvious way to help ensure the Bible or Testament they worked toward gains that foothold.