Featured The Need for New Translations

I contend that there is no need whatsoever for any new translations or reference Bibles in the English language whatsoever. Even in the past couple of decades there has been a huge proliferation in English Bible translations. If you can't find a reference Bible of some kind in your favorite version, you are just not looking! (By contrast, there are several main translations in Japanese, but only one reference Bible--done by the JWs!!). Yes, I've read through the NIV, ESV, HCSB, etc., and often think, "Enough, already!"

So, where in the world is the greatest need for Bible translation? I'll list these in the order of importance I give them.

1. The languages of tribal people groups in South America, Indonesia (including the province of Papua, or New Guinea), and the Philippines.

2. The languages of unreached people groups in India. I know of a school there at the MA level especially for national translators.

3. The languages of unreached people groups of Asia (for example, the Pamiri, who live in the mountains across several countries).

4. The languages of people groups in Africa with no written language and therefore no Bible. One of my students has already started such an effort on a survey trip. Our initial goal is an oral translation, which is very doable with modern technology--it seems like everyone in Africa has a smart phone which could play the version to them!

5. The languages of people groups with only an inadequate or inaccurate translation, such as the Fulani of Africa.

Some of the people groups listed here, especially in Africa and probably in India, have a lingua franca (common language) or trade language that they communicate with other people groups in, such as pidgin, English, or French. However, shouldn't every people group have a Bible in their "heart language"?

So, with all of these languages in the world with not a single verse in their heart language, why in the world should English get a new translation every year?

 

A clue to this situation is that most scholars of the Biblical languages are not invested in worldwide missions. So when they are asked to participate in an English translation effort, they readily agree, having Anglo-centric blinders on.

There are exceptions. Dr. Glenn Kerr, who posted on the other thread, is one. My son, Dr. Paul Himes, is another. Dr. David Alan Black of Southeastern BTS, travels all the time to minister in mission fields, but I'm not aware if he consults on translations.

 

But evangelism alone is not enough. The Great Commission in Matthew mandates Bible translation, or there is no way to obey, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded them."

One missiologist has written, “Without Scriptures in the mother tongue, churches are not able to sustain spiritual depth into succeeding generations. They have difficulty answering false teaching, waging spiritual warfare and avoiding syncretism. Many in or around the church fail to recognize that the Christian God is the universal God to whom all must answer.”[1]



[1] Barbara F. Grimes, “From Every Language,” in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, 4th ed., ed. by Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthrone (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2009), 566-567.

 

Some missionaries do translate themselves, but their work goes unappreciated without national helpers or co-translators. One example of this was Robert Morrison, who did the first Chinese Bible--on his own, unfortunately. Even his son wrote that it was "scarcely ever read" (A. J. Broomhall, “Hudson Taylor and China’s Open Century,” Vol. 1, Barbarians At the Gates), 278.

There are also missionary translations done from an English translation (KJV, Living Bible [there's a Japanese LB], etc.). But this is only a last resort. Ideally speaking, the nationals should know Greek and Hebrew, but that often is not the case. At that point either the missionary on the field trained in the original languages and/or a translation consultant are necessary.

As for a missionary not knowing the target (receptor) language, shame on him! (Ahem. I have a pet peeve about linguistically lazy missionaries. ) Seriously, the translator should be equipped by God with an aptitude for languages, or he'll not be able to do the job.

 

This is often true. But I have heard that the Lockman Foundation (NASB) uses their profits for missionary translation. However, they are very strict about copyright, and this sometimes hinders the work on the field. The Lockman Foundation sued TEAM and their Japanese translators for the version done over their, and forced TEAM to pay Lockman for the copyright to their own work.

 

How desperate is the need for missionary translation work? “About half the known languages of the world have vanished in the last five hundred years” (Daniel Nettle and Suzanne Romaine, Vanishing Voices (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 2.