So You Want to Be a Bible Translator!

[John of Japan]

Must translators, those that interpret the intended meaning of scripture, be imbued with the stain of Gnostic knowledge, acquired in human academia, to be considered authentic?

So you're saying that being educated in the original languages of Scripture is Gnosticism, right? So, never ever learn Greek or Hebrew, right?

 

[John of Japan]

I believe that education in the original languages of the Word of God is essential for a Bible translator. There are translators who do without this, as I've pointed out. You can translate from the English (or whatever your heart language is), but that is called a double translation, and doesn't not produce the best target text. If the translator works from the English, he or she should certainly learn to access the original languages through software and interlinear versions such as 27818 has recommended

Unfortunately, there are plenty of translators out there who do not do this. As I've said previously, many (I don't know how many) Wycliffe translators work from an English text. I believe training should be provided for them.

Bible Baptist Translators Institute (BBTI at Baptist Bible Translators Institute, Bowie Texas - Baptist Bible Translators Institute, Bowie Texas) only has one semester of Greek and no Hebrew, and I think that's a mistake. FirstBible (3-Year Degree Plan), on the other hand, has a great Hebrew and Greek curriculum. Our own program also has plenty of Greek and Hebrew (Baptist Theological Seminary - Doctrinal Precision. Revival Vision.).

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I believe that education in the original languages of the Word of God is essential for a Bible translator. There are translators who do without this, as I've pointed out. You can translate from the English (or whatever your heart language is), but that is called a double translation, and doesn't not produce the best target text. If the translator works from the English, he or she should certainly learn to access the original languages through software and interlinear versions such as 27818 has recommended

Unfortunately, there are plenty of translators out there who do not do this. As I've said previously, many (I don't know how many) Wycliffe translators work from an English text. I believe training should be provided for them.

Bible Baptist Translators Institute (BBTI at Baptist Bible Translators Institute, Bowie Texas - Baptist Bible Translators Institute, Bowie Texas) only has one semester of Greek and no Hebrew, and I think that's a mistake. FirstBible (3-Year Degree Plan), on the other hand, has a great Hebrew and Greek curriculum. Our own program also has plenty of Greek and Hebrew (Baptist Theological Seminary - Doctrinal Precision. Revival Vision.).

Are there any options set up that would provide for additional support efficiently? For example, partially trained translators needing help with a particular passage being able to call upon an expert, something analogous to computer users calling up IT support.

 

[John of Japan]

Are there any options set up that would provide for additional support efficiently? For example, partially trained translators needing help with a particular passage being able to call upon an expert, something analogous to computer users calling up IT support.

That's where translation consultants come in. One such mission board I'm familiar with is Bibles International: Bibles International - the Bible Society of Baptist Mid-Missions

The translation consultant is an expert in the original languages of the Bible, and travels worldwide to help translation teams with their difficult passages. One I know with BI was in our chapel service recently, and I think he told us he had assisted on 47 Bible translation efforts!

One of our graduates works in Africa and oversees an African team there (Kenya, I believe), teaching them Hebrew and Greek, and consulting on difficulties when they need him. I feel this is the ideal translation effort: nationals doing the work with the missionary helping.

 

[Conan]

My view is a little different. My position is that a translator should simply choose the source text (TR, Byzantine, UBS, depending on the skopos, meaning translation goals), and there is no need to engage in textual criticism.

The typical translator may have read a lot on textual criticism, but will still not be capable of making text critical decisions, which is a very specialized process.

I would partly agree.

If the Byzantine Text is used there is perhaps no need to use Textual Criticism.

If the TR then perhaps a little is need.

If Nestle Aland UBS then textual criticism would be needed it seems. To improve the Text.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

That's where translation consultants come in. One such mission board I'm familiar with is Bibles International: Bibles International - the Bible Society of Baptist Mid-Missions

The translation consultant is an expert in the original languages of the Bible, and travels worldwide to help translation teams with their difficult passages. One I know with BI was in our chapel service recently, and I think he told us he had assisted on 47 Bible translation efforts!

One of our graduates works in Africa and oversees an African team there (Kenya, I believe), teaching them Hebrew and Greek, and consulting on difficulties when they need him. I feel this is the ideal translation effort: nationals doing the work with the missionary helping.

That makes sense, sounds very good.

I understand that it wouldn't apply everywhere, but given modern technology, it would seem that the effort could be expanded further by accessing experts remotely, ones who cannot travel for whatever reason, but who could greatly aid the cause, even if only part-time.

 

[Van]

So you're saying that being educated in the original languages of Scripture is Gnosticism, right? So, never ever learn Greek or Hebrew, right?

I asked a question, but got no answer. Instead this poster put words in my mouth, then ridiculed them.

Here, again, is my question:

Must translators, those that interpret the intended meaning of scripture, be imbued with the stain of Gnostic knowledge, acquired in human academia, to be considered authentic?​

 

[JesusFan]

I keep thinking this would be a fun topic, so here we go. This will be about how to become a Bible translator, assuming you either want to be one or you would just like to discuss the matter.

First of all, I can't abide wannabes. A wannabe is someone who aspires to a task or profession, but just doesn't have what it takes to make it. Back when I taught Kung Fu in college, two boys came to a class I was teaching, and said they were followers of Bruce Lee and his method, Jeet Kune Do (pr. jeet coon dough). They wanted to spar me and show off their "Jeet Coon Knee Do." They had been training on their own, I suppose with one of Lee's books.

I corrected their pronunciation, and squared off with one of them. At one point I threw a round house kick at his head, stopping before I connected, of course, since this was non-contact sparring. He said, "What was that??!?" Really? Every beginner in my class knew that technique, yet they claimed to be expert in JKD and didn't know it. They were wannabes, not real martial artists.

So, what is the absolute minimum of skill and/or knowledge one needs to be a Bible translator? Anyone?

Fluent in biblcal Greek and hebrew, well versed in original language tools and texts, and skilled in the grammar of their own language being translated into!

 

[Deacon]

I asked a question, but got no answer. Instead this poster put words in my mouth, then ridiculed them.

Here, again, is my question:

Must translators, those that interpret the intended meaning of scripture, be imbued with the stain of Gnostic knowledge, acquired in human academia, to be considered authentic?​

Simple answer is, no.
The probable reason for no responses is that the question is chock full of misguiding assumptions, the greatest being the strong implication that “human academia” is equivalent to “gnostic knowledge”.

Rob

 

[Van]

Simple answer is, no.
The probable reason for no responses is that the question is chock full of misguiding assumptions, the greatest being the strong implication that “human academia” is equivalent to “gnostic knowledge”.

Rob

Thanks Rob for speaking "boldly, plainly and openly!"
The simple and only and obvious answer is indeed NO!

 

[John of Japan]

I asked a question, but got no answer. Instead this poster put words in my mouth, then ridiculed them.

Here, again, is my question:

Must translators, those that interpret the intended meaning of scripture, be imbued with the stain of Gnostic knowledge, acquired in human academia, to be considered authentic?​

So what do you mean by "Gnostic?" And by "academia" do you mean Christian colleges and seminaries? (That is usually where translators get their Hebrew and Greek.)

These are serious questions. I've asked something similar of you before....

 

[John of Japan]

This morning during the service I was having my muttonchops put on in preparation for my part as a "Charity Solicitor" in our church version of "A Christmas Carol" (Dickens) when I received notice that Pastor wanted my on the platform right away. With only one muttonchop placed I hurried into the auditorium.

There I was presented with the first copy of our Japanese Lifeline NT printing. Then a Japanese couple in the church we are friends with was called up to receive their own copies from me. Very moving moment, the culmination of many, many years of labor. I'm attaching photos.

 

[Marooncat79]

Is John on the left or right?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Is John on the left or right?

Right.

 

[John of Japan]

Right.

Yep.

 

[Van]

So what do you mean by "Gnostic?" And by "academia" do you mean Christian colleges and seminaries? (That is usually where translators get their Hebrew and Greek.)

These are serious questions. I've asked something similar of you before....

The rule about do unto others as you would want them to do unto you should be applicable. When I ask JOJ questions, does he answer openly, plainly and boldly, or does he deflect?

But I must hand it to JOJ for asking what I meant, rather than inferring a bogus view and consigning it to me.

Here is my question, unanswered by JOJ:

Must translators, those that interpret the intended meaning of scripture, be imbued with the stain of Gnostic knowledge, acquired in human academia, to be considered authentic?​

1) I defined "translators" as anyone who seeks to discern the intended meaning of scripture, thus from whatever language they can use into the language of their own understanding.
2) Can these views, derived from say Discipleship and Leadership Training by local church staff, be considered as authentic (valid) interpretations of scripture, or must a person hold certification from those claiming special knowledge is required.
3) As I posted before, "The simple and only and obvious answer is indeed NO!"

 

[John of Japan]

The rule about do unto others as you would want them to do unto you should be applicable. When I ask JOJ questions, does he answer openly, plainly and boldly, or does he deflect?

I often ignore your questions because I have you on "Ignore" and only occasionally look in on you. I find you to be often caustic and insulting, and I get tired of it.

But I must hand it to JOJ for asking what I meant, rather than inferring a bogus view and consigning it to me.

And you still have not answered what I asked. Gnosticism in history is a religion that believed all things physical were evil, and that Christ Himself was only an "emanation" from God. You, however, have used the term a number of times without defining it, and once again you do not define it.

I'll ask you plainly, then: do you believe in the historical meaning of Gnosticism, or some meaning of your own?

Here is my question, unanswered by JOJ:

Must translators, those that interpret the intended meaning of scripture, be imbued with the stain of Gnostic knowledge, acquired in human academia, to be considered authentic?​

And here I asked you if you meant Bible colleges and seminaries, where the Hebrew and Greek languages of the Bible are taught. You have not answered.

​

1) I defined "translators" as anyone who seeks to discern the intended meaning of scripture, thus from whatever language they can use into the language of their own understanding.

This is a definition of "interpreter," not "translator." You are entirely welcome, even urged to interpret the Bible. Just don't call it translation, because it is not.

2) Can these views, derived from say Discipleship and Leadership Training by local church staff, be considered as authentic (valid) interpretations of scripture, or must a person hold certification from those claiming special knowledge is required.

"Special knowledge" of the Bible and its truths are needed to teach Sunday School and discipleship. Greek and Hebrew are not needed for that, but are very important for Bible translators.

3) As I posted before, "The simple and only and obvious answer is indeed NO!"

And again I'll ask: what do you mean by Gnostic? By "academia"?

 

[Van]

SNIP

Once again JOJ posts reasons for not answering a question, but feels he can ask his questions. I kid you not.

Here is my question, unanswered by JOJ:
Must translators, those that interpret the intended meaning of scripture, be imbued with the stain of Gnostic knowledge, acquired in human academia, to be considered authentic?
1) I defined "translators" as anyone who seeks to discern the intended meaning of scripture, thus from whatever language they can use into the language of their own understanding.
2) Can these views, derived from say Discipleship and Leadership Training by local church staff, be considered as authentic (valid) interpretations of scripture, or must a person hold certification from those claiming special knowledge is required.
3) As I posted before, "The simple and only and obvious answer is indeed NO!"​

 

[John of Japan]

Once again JOJ posts reasons for not answering a question, but feels he can ask his questions. I kid you not.

How am I supposed to answer your questions when you won't even define your terms!!!!
​

Here is my question, unanswered by JOJ:
Must translators, those that interpret the intended meaning of scripture, be imbued with the stain of Gnostic knowledge, acquired in human academia, to be considered authentic?

For crying out loud, DEFINE GNOSTIC!!!
For any normal definition of Gnostic, no, of course not. But then you seem to have some other definition.

1) I defined "translators" as anyone who seeks to discern the intended meaning of scripture, thus from whatever language they can use into the language of their own understanding.

And no one here agrees with you. Name one single translation scholar who agrees with you--just one.

2) Can these views, derived from say Discipleship and Leadership Training by local church staff, be considered as authentic (valid) interpretations of scripture, or must a person hold certification from those claiming special knowledge is required.

What "special knowledge"? Greek and Hebrew? You never say. So how am I supposed to interact with you, answering your questions, when all you give me is ambiguity??
​

 

[John of Japan]

Here's a definition of translation by Anthony Pym, a noted translation studies scholar, from his document, "Translation research terms: a tentative glossary for moments of perplexity and dispute."

"Translation: Word that can refer either to the product, process or entire institution of translators’ activities. When used with an article ('a translation', 'the translation of this text') it refers to the product, and is a more accessible term than 'target text'. The corresponding adjective would then be 'translational'. When used without the article, it usually refers to the social institution (for which the same adjective could be used). Reference to the process is more elegantly made by the term 'translating'." (pp. 93-94). (Source: https://www.intercultural.urv.cat/media/upload/domain_317/arxius/TP3/pym.pdf)

As you should see, this does not make room for Van's definition, nor does any other definition of translation I've seen. I'd like for Van to produce a definition from a scholar that actually sounds like his.