Qualifications for Bible Translators?

Thanks, He is blessing. I have financial backing and a printing ministry all lined up to bring out a pilot version Gospel of John sometime late this year. It will have copious footnotes on salvation. The pilot version is being revised in our committee, which meets every Friday afternoon.

 

I think the cultural aspect has been greatly underestimated in the literature on translating and in the various controversies. Just one example (and PLEASE don't make this a versions thread): the word "mansion" in America means a large, fancy dwelling, but in England it means an apartment. The Japanese language transliterates the British word, so a "manshon" here is a nice apartment.

 

I think the cultural aspect has been greatly underestimated in the literature on translating and in the various controversies. Just one example (and PLEASE don't make this a versions thread): the word "mansion" in America means a large, fancy dwelling, but in England it means an apartment. The Japanese language transliterates the British word, so a "manshon" here is a nice apartment. </font>[/QUOTE]I meant to say here, "PLEASE don't anyone make this a versions thread." I really didn't expect Rhet to do so--he's a gentleman!

 

Forgive me, I felt that simply being fluent in the receptor language was a given.

Example: Lets say there is no translation into Auca. I set out to make one, but I speak English (which has a translation from the Greek/Hebrew) but I do not read either Greek or Hebrew. Lets also assume that there arent many others willing to learn Auca for this purpose.

I would say that my fluency in Auca qualifies me, even though I may not be an expert in linguistics nor understand the biblical languages. A bad translation of the bible is better than none, and surely someone will come behind me and build upon my work.

I hope this better explains my intent. </font>[/QUOTE]Okay, DD, so you have a minimum of 2 qualifications for a tribal language translator: willingness, and fluency in the receptor language.

I have to believe, though, that a gift for languages, if not formal training, is necessary. (I interpret the "gift of tongues" in Cor. as language ability given by God.) If you read Eugene Nida's works, you get a lot of illustrations about how it is necessary to invent new terms in so-called "primitive" languages, such as airplane being "giant bird that carries people," etc. This is, in fact, the genesis of his dynamic equivalence method. (What did he rename that as??) It was originally for tribal languages, and not for "modern" languages at all!

 

Good points, DD. But I have to say the gift (and calling) must be there before learning the language, at a minimum.

I greatly admire those who attempt a tribal language, since they have no dictionaries, grammars or other books, language schools or trained teachers. It is an incredibly difficult task to learn a language from scratch, invent a written language, write your own grammar and dictionaries and then translate a NT with no previous translations to refer to.

 

Would you define fluency as something less than the gift of tongues?

BTW, The Bible defines tongues as you do in the instances of I Cor 12-14, but if fluency in other tongues isn't a gift from God, then what is it? </font>[/QUOTE]IMO, fluency is a function of lots of hard study and practice. It is not a gift. God gives the gift of ability, but it must be developed.

There are missionaries who wish they had my fluency in Japanese, but don't seem to realize that I studied full time (35-40 hours a week) for two solid years. I commuted to the language school by train, two hours one way, studying on the way. (The stories I can tell about Japanese rush hour! ) I would then take three hours of classes, commute home and study for hours more. Then I would go on visitation or tract distribution and try out what I had learned. The second year I was interim pastor of a branch work, and got to try my Japanese even more!

Then, even after I graduated and started church-planting, I would spend hours studying the language every week, especially the Chinese characters.

Believe you me, you don't get fluent in a second language, especially one not in the Indo-european family, without hard, hard work!

P. S. Even the Pentecostals and Charismatics have to study hard at language school!

 

Very good point. An honest translator refrains from interpreting the text if at all possible. For example, the translator should seek to retain the ambiguity of the original. If the writer of Scripture was ambiguous in a passage, it was for a purpose: a pun, an effort to cause the reader to think, etc.

 

It's both. If you don't have that gift, no amount of study will make you fluent.

When I used to race professionally, there were some people, no matter how much they practiced, ever were very good. Others, were good, with only minimal practice. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, I disagree here. On occasion a very hard worker with meager talants can become quite fluent in a foreign language.

I worked with a man years ago who went to Japanese language school for three years instead of the usual two. When I asked him why, he said, "Because I needed it, John." There were some lapses in his grammar, and he forever mis-pronounced some words, but all in all he was quite fluent. He headed the Bible Institute I taught in, and he taught the main theological classes.

On the other hand, I've known some with great gifts who never got the language well because they didn't work hard enough at it.

 

I agree with this to a certain extent. For example, someone who is tone-deaf will have a very hard time with Chinese.