Let the Words Be Written: The Lasting Influence of Eugene A. Nida (Biblical Scholarship in North America) (Biblical Scholarship in North America)

LET THE WORDS BE WRITTEN Biblical Scholarship in North America General Acquisitions Editors Dennis T. Olson, Old Test...

Author: Philip C. Stine

109 downloads 784 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

LET THE WORDS BE WRITTEN

Biblical Scholarship in North America

General Acquisitions Editors Dennis T. Olson, Old Testament/Hebrew Bible Sharon H. Ringe, New Testament

Number 21

LET THE WORDS BE WRITTEN The Lasting Influence of Eugene A. Nida


by Philip C. Stine

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2004


Copyright © 2004 by The American Bible Society

This edition published under license from the Society of Biblical Literature by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission should be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Office, Society of Biblical Literature, 825 Houston Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329 USA. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Stine, Philip C., 1943– Let the words be written : the lasting influence of Eugene A. Nida / by Philip C. Stine. p. cm. — (Biblical scholarship in North America ; no. 21) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 90-04-13093-4 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Nida, Eugene Albert, 1914– 2. Bible—Translating—History—20th century. 3. American Bible Society—History—20th century. I. Title. II. Series. BS450.S75 2004b 220.5'092—dc22 2004019327

ISSN 0277-0474

Printed in The Netherlands on acid-free paper.

CONTENTS

Photographs....................................................................................................vi Preface ..........................................................................................................vii Abbreviations..................................................................................................xi

1.

Introduction ..............................................................................................1

2.

Bible Translation before Nida................................................................11

3.

A New Approach....................................................................................27

4.

Implications of Dynamic Equivalence ..................................................57

5.

Spreading the Word................................................................................69

6.

Taking the Bible Seriously ..................................................................105

7.

New Relationships, More Access, Future Directions ........................119

8.

Nida the Man and the Scholar............................................................139

9.

Other Voices, Other Words ................................................................153

Postscript......................................................................................................179

Appendix: First-Time Translations into New Languages ..........................182 Bibliography ................................................................................................183 Index of People and Subjects ....................................................................189

PHOTOGRAPHS

The Rev. Eugene A. Nida (1943) ..................................................................9 Eugene and Althea Nida (circa 1965) ..........................................................33 Dr. Nida with Khoisan speakers in Africa ..................................................53 Althea Nida teaching typing to “indigenous helpers” in Africa ................63 Dr. Nida in offices at the American Bible Society (circa 1975) ................75 Dr. Nida teaching translators ........................................................................76 Dr. Nida and the UBS Greek New Testament team ................................114 Photographs taken by Dr. Nida during his travels ..........................141, 142 Eugene Nida and Johannes Louw, authors of The GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (1988) ..................................................................150 Dr. Nida with ABS General Secretary, the Rev. Laton Holmgren ............177 Dr. Eugene A. Nida (circa 2000) ................................................................180

vi

PREFACE

It is entirely appropriate for the American Bible Society (ABS) to partner with the Society of Biblical Literature to publish this book about Eugene A. Nida. After all, Nida led a revolution in the ABS translation program that did more to further the organization’s purpose and mission than any other development in the past century. Millions of people speaking hundreds of languages have access to the Bible in an unprecedented way thanks to Nida’s work. It is also appropriate in light of the ABS decision to name the scholarly unit of their organization the Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship (NIBS) in honor of Dr. Nida’s pioneering work in the development of translation studies. This book envisions at least two groups of readers. Bible translators, missiologists, church historians, some biblical scholars, and a general public interested in the Bible form one group. How Nida influenced the Bibles they read and how his work has impacted the direction of the church and of world Christianity tell a fascinating story. When the history of the church in the twentieth century is written, Nida’s name and the work of the Bible Societies will figure prominently. A second group comprises scholars and students from the fields of translation studies, cross-cultural and cultural studies, linguistics, and communication sciences. Before Nida there were many excellent translators, and several scholars had begun to look to linguistics as a tool for describing some features of translation, but no one had really developed a systematic approach to translation. Nida’s approach had an underlying theory based on several disciplines. It also showed a very practical way to tackle the work. It set current scholars in translation studies on their path, opening the way for more work, even though much of that work has now taken quite different directions from Nida’s. Writing a book for both groups seemed at times impossible. I eventually realized that translation scholars could not properly understand or assess Nida’s work without understanding his commitment to the Bible, the university studies that informed his whole theory, and the praxis that so shaped all his subsequent writings. Similarly, Bible translators need to be aware that translation studies has taken a number of new directions, many vii

viii

Let the Words Be Written

of which are relevant to the future of Bible translation. So although some chapters will appeal to one group more than another, both groups will find material of interest in the whole story. I should mention what this book is not. It is not a biography in the sense of giving all the facts and details of Nida’s life, although I have provided those that seemed relevant to the story. I hope that Nida himself will offer more of that information in his memoirs. After all, he belongs to those remarkable people most of us rarely if ever meet, and a detailed book about him would be well worth reading. Rather, this book relates the story of a revolution in translation that Nida and his colleagues in the ABS and the United Bible Societies (UBS) brought about. It attempts, too, to assess the revolution’s theory and approach as well as its impact on the churches. Throughout this project David Burke and Robert Hodgson of ABS’s Nida Institute gave me wonderful support and encouragement. They also offered helpful criticism of the first drafts, as did other Nida Institute staff: Joseph Crockett, Mary Cordato, and Dorette Saunders. Maria Deptula and Jacquelyn Sapiie helped me find materials from the ABS archives and library, and Karen Munson sorted through much of that material to find relevant data. I would also mention Andrew Seltz who traveled with me to videotape a number of the interviews I conducted. I am grateful to a number of Nida’s former colleagues who provided much of the background for the book. I interviewed Euan Fry, Danny Arichea, Norm Mundhenk, Barclay Newman, Robert Bratcher, Heber Peacock, and Charles Taber. Johannes Louw, Jacob Loewen, and William Reyburn answered questions by e-mail or audiotape. Laton Holmgren, although not in good health, graciously shared information with me in four long telephone conversations. Edesio Sanchez filled me in on some developments in Spanish Bible translation that Nida worked on or inspired. Nicky Applegate of the British and Foreign Bible Society fielded several of my queries and obtained the correct information for me. Several academics consented to be interviewed. Darrell Whiteman and Lamin Sanneh reflected at length on Nida’s contribution to the churches, and the material they shared with me helped shape my assessment of his contribution. James Sanders gave me the real story on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, and Bruce Metzger did the same for the Greek New Testament. Walter Abbott shared a personal perspective on the working relationship between the ABS and the Roman Catholic Church. I also found extensive information on this relationship among the holdings of the ABS library and archives. Freddy Boswell and George Cowan of the Summer Institute of Linguistics International helped ensure the correctness of data relating to

Preface

ix

the early days of that organization. Don Deer obtained the facts about the Baptist work in the Congo. Mona Baker and Joy Sisley steered me to some current material in translation studies, and the latter then helped tutor me in the issues. I am grateful to both of them for this. Naturally, whatever I misunderstood is my own failing. Finally, I want to thank my wife, Veda Wilson, for her support. In particular, she read all the early drafts and critiqued them most constructively.

ABBREVIATIONS

ABS ASV BFBS BHS BT CEV ChrCent Colloq CurBS EMEAD FC GNB GNT GNT HOTTP Int KJV LSA LB LBT LXX NASB NBS NBSS NEB NIV NLT NT OT PA QR REB RSV SBL

American Bible Society American Standard Version British and Foreign Bible Society Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia The Bible Translator Contemporary English Version Christian Century Colloquium Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Europe Middle East Region Area Board Français Courant Good News Bible (see also Today’s English Version) Good News Translation (UBS) Greek New Testament Hebrew Old Testament Text Project Interpretation King James Version Linguistic Society of America Living Bible Lutheran Bible Translators Septuagint New American Standard Bible Netherlands Bible Society National Bible Society of Scotland New English Bible New International Version New Living Translation New Testament Old Testament Practical Anthropology Quarterly Review Revised English Bible Revised Standard Version Society of Biblical Literature xi

xii SBLWAW SIL TAPOT TASOT TEV TTW UBS UCLA USQR VP VPEE

Let the Words Be Written Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World Summer Institute of Linguistics The Theory and Practice of Translation Toward a Science of Translating Today’s English Version (see also Good News Bible) Triennial Translation Workshop United Bible Societies University of California, Los Angeles Union Seminary Quarterly Review Versión Popular (La) Biblia de Estudia (VP Study Bible)

1. INTRODUCTION

The Deputé and the Bible Society consultant had traveled all night to reach the ceremony. The flight the day before had been cancelled, so they were forced to drive up to Korhogo in northern Ivory Coast from Abidjan in the south, the Deputé in his chauffeur-driven car, and the consultant in a long-distance taxi, a Peugeot 504 station wagon, crammed with twelve other people. The hot sahelian sun turned the meeting hall into an oven. The consultant sweated profusely as he wondered how uncomfortable people must be in their long, flowing robes. But by mid-morning there was already a large crowd eager to claim the too-few seats. Protestants and Roman Catholics, Muslims and practitioners of traditional religion—all had come for one thing, the launching of the New Testament in Cebaara,1 their language. The Deputé, himself a Muslim, articulated the feeling of the crowd: “This is a great day for all the Cebaara people,” he told his rapt audience. “Having these Scriptures in our language is important for the moral, ethical, and religious life of our people. Now we all can read the Gospel in our own language.” Prior to the publication of this Cebaara New Testament, a team of expatriate missionaries with the help of African informants had prepared a draft translation. This draft translation was never published because the translators and the church realized that it sounded quite unnatural. The exegetical work, however, proved excellent and aided the translators of the “new” translation. Eager to know the real impact of the new translation, the Bible Society consultant spoke with a member of the review committee. “How is this translation, really?” he asked. “Will the people be able to read and understand it?”

1. Pronounced “Che-BAR-a.” It is the language of one of the groups of people known as the Senoufo.

1

2


The man, his face disfigured by the leprosy that had once afflicted him, turned to the consultant. One could not always determine his expression. “The first translation, we called that one the ‘you could say that’ translation. But this one. . . ” and here his smile was clear and radiant as he tapped on a copy of the book, “this translation, this is the way we would say it. Yes, people are able to read and understand it.” The consultant thought about what that day represented. Having the Scriptures for the first time in this language meant for the Cebaara people a tangible manifestation of God’s word. What a profound impact that would have on the lives of the people! Even the Muslim parliament member recognized that. How had all this come about? The Christians represented a minority in this Muslim community, and few of them had much formal education. Yet, they had been able to take ancient documents from another culture, texts that dealt with theological concepts quite foreign to Cebaara speakers, and render them clearly and comprehensibly. The consultant had spent many days going through their translation, and knew that it was an accurate reflection of the best and most appropriate understanding of the original texts. The Cebaara New Testament, however, was not an isolated example. In hundreds of languages around the world, the same thing was happening. Translators with amazingly diverse backgrounds and education were accurately translating the Bible into language their readers could easily understand. In fact, in the last fifty years of the twentieth century, millions of people across the globe gained access to the Christian Scriptures (see Appendix). The impact of this development on the lives of these people and on the growth of the church is hard to measure and it will probably be several years before Bible Societies and churches can properly analyze its effect. It all happened because of a revolution that completely changed the way Bible translation was carried out. New ways of translating were taught; new methods of training and assisting translators were developed; translators had access to better resources; new alliances teamed up translators from different churches and denominations; and updated scholarly work provided translators with the best texts in the original languages. To tell the story of this revolution in Bible translation is to tell the story of Eugene A. Nida of the American Bible Society (ABS). Nida developed a theory, pedagogy, and practice of translation that put the focus on making the Bible clear and understandable. His theoretical approach drew on several disciplines. Yet, translators with even modest degrees of linguistic sophistication could easily learn it. Prior to this revolution, the world of Bible translation looked very different. Chapter 2 will describe the main features of this world before Nida. Chapters 3 and 4 set out the new approach and some of its implications.

Introduction

3

Nida worked tirelessly, traveling for many years all over the world to “sell” his approach to thousands of people who attended his dynamic presentations and workshops. To bolster support for his theory, he developed a team of consultants who could train translators to use the method. He created a series of very practical handbooks for translators that helped them understand the original texts and find ways to communicate that meaning clearly in whatever language they were working. Nida realized that a translation only had theological and exegetical integrity to the extent that it drew on the best possible Greek and Hebrew texts. So he formed a committee of scholars and initiated and led a major project that published a guide to 5,000 of the most difficult passages in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. This project, known as the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, gave scholars a new starting point for understanding the Old Testament text, and assured translators who were not themselves experts in the Hebrew text that their translations rested on sound analyses of the text. Nida also formed a committee that led a project to prepare a new critical edition of the Greek text of the New Testament. This critical edition included editors’ footnotes that systematically evaluated textual variants and showed translators that a word or passage might have a certain, a probable, or just a possible claim to be an original reading. The critical text, known as the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, serves today as a standard edition, and is used by scholars around the world. The critical methods and principles developed by the committee remain foundational for all New Testament textual work. These two projects are described in chapter 6. Nida recruited some of the finest scholars in the world for these projects. Europeans and Americans, Protestants and Roman Catholics came to work together on the committees. Only an organization such as the ABS, and later the United Bible Societies (to which the ABS belonged as a founding member), had the scholarly and interconfessional profile to attract these experts. Both organizations also had the technical and financial resources to give them the support they needed. But it was Nida’s expertise and facilitation skills that brought them together in such a fruitful collaboration. Today, translators with little or no training in Hebrew or Greek textual studies can work in the knowledge that their project is based on sound textual decisions. Both projects received such high acclaim that scholars outside the field of Bible translation use them as starting points for their own work. Nida also developed a new type of lexicon based on semantic domains. This lexicon helped translators by analyzing the Greek words, not in terms of glosses or dictionary definitions, but in the context of related semantic expressions. Not only has this lexicon turned into an essential tool for translators, but it also broke new ground in the field of lexicography. Chapter 8 will tell this scholarly side of Nida’s story.

4


Together with his Bible Society colleagues, Nida launched Practical Anthropology, a journal to help missionaries understand the cultural aspects of their work and how to communicate effectively across cultures. They also founded The Bible Translator, a journal dealing specifically with problems in Bible translation. Chapter 5 describes the origins and impact of these two publications. Strong support from Bible Societies made Nida’s success possible. The ABS underwrote Nida financially even before he joined the ABS staff, thus ensuring that he could teach translators at the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL). Over the years, ABS gave unstinting support whenever he presented project ideas, for example, the proposal to prepare a new critical edition of the Greek New Testament. In 1946, when the worldwide umbrella organization called the United Bible Societies (UBS) was formed, it embraced Nida as well. He had been present at the organizing meeting, and thus he helped create and develop the UBS, and was in turn supported by them in developing a multinational team of translation consultants. The willingness of the UBS and the ABS to serve all the churches led to a new era for interconfessional work in Bible translation. Nida again played a key role in developing the guidelines for this cooperation. In many interconfessional workshops and projects, he commanded so much respect on both sides that his presence kept the work moving forward. The results of this interconfessional work go far beyond the 650 translations of the Bible or New Testaments into different languages that Roman Catholics and Protestants have prepared or are working on. The very existence of these Scriptures and the work that created them belong to the major catalytic factors driving the development of world Christianity in this century. Chapter 7 narrates this important story. Of course, Nida did not work alone. Very early in his career he recruited biblical scholars and linguists to help him. He sought out people of the highest caliber, people who could themselves advance the theory and practice of translation and who could maintain the high standards he felt were necessary for the integrity of the ABS (and later UBS) translation programs. Nida also needed skilled people to give him helpful feedback on his own writing and teaching. These consultants extended Nida’s outreach as they gave close help to hundreds of translators in their own language areas. But conversely, his colleagues could not have achieved what they did without his guidance, support, and leadership. He shaped their basic approach and understanding of translation, encouraged and stimulated their research, ensured their financial support, and instilled in them his own unrelenting passion for the work. Many factors led to the growth of Bible translation work. In part, the modern missionary movement fueled this growth. A notable contribution,

Introduction

5

however, stems from W. Cameron Townsend, a truly significant figure in the twentieth-century church. Townsend founded the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), an organization that undertook translation work in hundreds of languages where no portion of the Bible existed. His work also forms an important chapter in the story of how millions of people gained access to the Bible. Some of this SIL story is recounted in chapters 2 and 3. Early on, Nida himself joined the SIL and remained a member for many years. But the developments in the theory and practice of translation that so radically changed the field came from Nida and essentially date from the time he joined the ABS. As William A. Smalley noted, “The promotion of professional expertise, the development of translation theory and of translation procedures based on such theory, began when Eugene A. Nida joined the American Bible Society staff in 1943” (Smalley 1991: 28). Nida’s contribution to Bible translation is the topic of chapter 3. But his contributions did not stop with Bible translation. He also influenced the whole field of modern translation studies, as will be shown in chapter 9. And as chapter 4 indicates, his work had profound implications for the church as well as for the Bible Societies. The intellectual currents that shaped his contributions and a portrait of Nida as a person and scholar are found in chapter 8. Before Nida, most scholars writing about translation applied a particular linguistic approach to the topic, taking translation to be a type of applied linguistics. Scholars such as John R. Firth or John C. Catford discussed the theoretical possibilities for translation or gave descriptions of types of translations (Baker forthcoming). But Nida’s concern centered on a systematic approach to translation. He saw in linguistics the necessary tools of analysis, and he drew on what at that time was a new science to develop an overall approach to translation that had solid theoretical underpinnings yet was entirely practical. He wanted field translators to be able to follow the approach step by step. The approach proved broad enough to influence scholarly work dealing with literary translation as well. Despite the many developments that have taken place in translation studies in recent years, linguistic approaches remain the most productive, and for this reason most university level translation studies courses still refer to Nida. According to Nida’s approach, a good translation sounds natural. Training translators in Nida’s methods, therefore, involved training them in the discourse and literary features of their own native languages. Consequently, these translators often became writers and translators of other materials, in addition to the Bible. Bible translations based on Nida’s approach influenced the development of written literature in those languages. For example, a Bible translator whose native tongue was the Seereer language in Senegal translated the

6


poetry of Léopold Sedar Senghor, the President of Senegal, from French into Seereer, the native language of the President. Senghor wrote an introduction to the book and met with the translator. “You know,” he said, “your translation is the way I would have expressed things had I written in Seereer. How did you know how to do that?” (Waly Faye personal communication). Seereer had previously had no written tradition. Now, through the translation of the Bible, the door opened for a new tradition of written literature. Understandable translations of the Bible inevitably influenced the theology of the churches using that language. When a church had access to the Scriptures in its own mother tongue, an indigenous Christianity developed that did not look like something imposed by another culture. Bishop Danny C. Arichea Jr. of the Methodist Church in the Philippines, for example, describes the way that a common language translation in Ilocano led to a growth in the number of Bible study groups throughout the Methodist Church. This growth strengthened the church because the study groups developed a new and indigenous understanding of God’s role in their lives and culture (Arichea interview). Extensive descriptions of these theological and missiological aspects of Nida’s translation revolution make up chapters 2 and 4. Nida’s theory called for translations in the closest natural equivalent, and this meant that only native speakers of a language could prepare good translations. Before Nida, and with only a few outstanding exceptions, expatriate missionaries had prepared most translations into non-European languages. Valuable as these translations were, they often proved difficult for average people to read easily. What’s more, the indigenous churches often viewed them as something from “outside.” But as more and more churches used Nida’s approach to translation, they produced a growing number of indigenous theologies that became, not a colonial imposition, but a strong factor in the development of an indigenous church and theology. The liberation and emancipation politics in Africa, Latin America, and Asia owe much to these translations. Dr. Rudi Zimmer of the Brazil Bible Society observed this in Brazil. The common language Bible in Brazilian Portuguese appeared in 1988. Since then, throughout the 1990s, the growth of the Protestant churches in Brazil has been dramatic. Millions of people have been evangelized, and a major factor has been the availability of this translation in clear and understandable language. These new Christians are not found so much in the older, more traditional churches established by European and North American missionaries, but in totally new and indigenous churches (Zimmer personal communication). Before Nida, the pattern for Bible translation put the final control of content in the hands of distant organizations. Manuscripts from Africa or

Introduction

7

Asia traveled to London or New York where examiners raised questions about the content of the translations themselves. But when teams of local translation consultants worked with the translators on site, control remained in the hands of the teams and translators. This development not only resulted in better translations, but it emphasized the local church ownership of these translations. The Cebaara New Testament was indeed one of the products of a profound revolution. Yet, neither Nida nor the Bible Societies set out to be revolutionary. They aimed simply at giving all people everywhere access to the Bible. They were convinced that the Scriptures were essential to the life of the church in any culture. They believed that it was through the Bible that God’s call to transformation was most clearly heard. The Bible, they believed, offered a fundamental tool for making disciples, for developing an understanding of God and God’s will for all humankind, and for establishing a basis for theological and ethical development. Although Nida worked primarily at a scholarly level and impacted several academic disciplines, neither he nor his work can be understood apart from this faith-led motivation. But to make the Bible truly accessible, Nida had to address several problems. He had to find a good approach to translation; he had to develop a way of disseminating that approach; he had to prepare people to understand and receive the approach; and he had to provide them with the tools for preparing and using a translation. It was the cumulative effect of these many steps that resulted in such remarkable changes. In 1978, the editors of Christian Herald wrote, “[Nida] has done more than any other one person to provide people with Scripture they can read in their own language. As a translation technician he has been instrumental in swelling the ranks of Bible readers around the world literally by the millions” (Christian Herald 1978: 42). W. C. van Unnik, a biblical scholar, echoes this: Many Christians all over the world, now and in the future, owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Dr. Nida. They will not know it, because his name is not on the title page or in the colophon of the Bible translation they have in hand. But his spirit has helped and guided the minds and hands of those who labored to make the Bible available to each man in his own tongue in the present generation. (van Unnik 1974: 169)

Even one of Nida’s recent critics, Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, wrote, “If you read a Bible translated in the last half-century, you probably read a Bible influenced by Nida” (Van Leeuwen 2001: 29). Could anyone else have brought about all these changes? Probably not, for no one in his time had the combination of skills and talent that

8


covered the wide range of issues that were crucial to such revolutionary developments. There was no one who was both an inspirational leader and a superb organizer. There were others who saw the need to do meaningful translations, for example, J. B. Phillips whose translation of the New Testament was in clear, colloquial language. However, Phillips was not concerned with developing a theory or a model that could be of help to other translators. And this lack proved a handicap even to him when he attempted, and then abandoned, translation of the Old Testament. Nida, in contrast, developed an approach that translators in any language could, and did, learn and follow. Other Bible translators focused on linguistic analysis. Kenneth Pike of SIL and the University of Michigan, for example, developed invaluable tools for field linguists to use in analyzing the phonology and grammar of language. But despite the fact that almost his entire career was spent working with Bible translators,2 he never developed an approach to translation itself. That came from Nida. Nida’s unique intellectual gifts and interests were in a very real sense the right combination to make the necessary theoretical breakthrough. He had graduated from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) in 1936 summa cum laude, with a membership in the Phi Beta Kappa,3 earning one of the highest ratings in the university’s history. He majored in Greek with a minor in Latin. Later, when he began to work in Bible translation, he pursued a master of arts degree in Greek New Testament from the University of Southern California. While at UCLA he discovered the new field of linguistics, the academic discipline concerned with the study of language and languages. He pursued linguistic studies at the University of Michigan where he received his doctorate in 1943. Every summer from 1937 to 1953, Nida taught SIL students who were working in a wide variety of languages. Already thoroughly grounded in the source language of the New Testament, he became familiar with the structure of many other languages and with the tools of linguistic analysis. Since language provides the raw material of translation, Nida found in linguistics a systematic approach to translation (Baker, forthcoming). His encyclopedic understanding of language and communication was matched by his ability to draw on information from different fields and disciplines and to organize that information in new and creative ways. Never confined to working within one discipline, Nida’s genius combined data from several disciplines into a new cohesive theory. Translation scholars

2. Even during his years as a professor of linguistics at the University of Michigan, Pike remained with SIL and spent his summers teaching in those institutes. 3. Admittance to this American fraternity is reserved for those who graduate from their universities with outstanding academic records.

Introduction

9

The Rev. Eugene A. Nida, Secretary for Versions at the American Bible Society. This photograph was taken just three years after Nida joined the American Bible Society in 1943. Besides establishing the Society’s translations department and overseeing numerous translation efforts around the world, Nida was a prolific writer who published over 200 articles, reviews, monographs, technical aids, and books in his several areas of expertise. © American Bible Society.

10


outside of Bible translation have equally benefited from Nida’s scholarship. And many in the field of Bible translation who are critical of his approach acknowledge with gratitude that Nida set in motion the developments that led to the creation of their discipline and to the directions it has taken. Chapter 9 will look more carefully at this. One prominent translation scholar, José Lambert from the Catholic University in Louvain, Belgium, asserted, Eugene Nida is undoubtedly one of the exceptional monuments of translation culture. . . . He can be envisaged as one of the pioneers of translation studies as an academic discipline. He had the merit to link his activities in theory and research with a particular position within linguistics, where he also established his own profile. . . . He has taken a strong position also within linguistics and the history of language in favor of a socio-cultural oriented view on language at a moment when linguistics tended to reduce language to technocratic rules. (Lambert, prepared remarks to Translation and Similarity Conference, New York, 31 May– 1 June 2001)

Nida’s theory and approach, valuable as they were, would not have won so many advocates if Nida had not dedicated himself to disseminating them through years of travel and teaching. Further, his amazing ability to inspire others promoted the approach around the world. Doubters and skeptics turned into believers when Nida worked with them. This inspiration came in part from the very convincing facts he presented in lectures and consultations, and in part from the energy and dynamism of his presentations and discussions. His oratorical skills already showed in his high school days when he led his debate team to the southern California championship and was named the outstanding debater (North 1974: vii). Anyone who has attended one of Nida’s lectures will vouch for the excitement he engenders in his audience. All these factors were required to bring about the revolutionary developments in the field of Bible translation. If any of them had been missing, the changes might not have taken place, or the developments would have been longer in coming. What is extraordinary is that they all came together in one person.

2. BIBLE TRANSLATION BEFORE NIDA

To understand the developments that took place in the field of Bible translation, we must look at the history of the discipline. We also need to consider the standing of Bible translation at the time when Nida joined the American Bible Society (ABS) and initiated numerous steps that would lead to the professionalization of the field. Why the Church Translated the Bible The Holy Scriptures have always played a vital role in the life, ministry, and activities of the church.1 First-century A.D. apostles and modern church leaders alike have relied on the Bible as an essential tool of evangelism and outreach, and as a source of spiritual nourishment and direction. The discipling and catechetical ministries of the church also presuppose the Scriptures. As Christians throughout the ages have struggled to understand what Christianity means for them in their time and place, they have continued to hear God’s voice in the words of the Bible. Robin Scroggs of Union Theological Seminary in New York says that the New Testament is the foundational document of the church, by which he means that it has “set the basic agenda for, and defined what Christianity means as a historical reality ” (Scroggs 1995: 23; emphasis original). Christians may disagree with what they read in the New Testament, Scroggs says, but they cannot avoid coming to terms with it without forfeiting their right to call themselves “Christian.” Jesus himself cited the Hebrew Scriptures regularly in his preaching and teaching, as did Paul and the other apostles. These writings helped them understand God and also served to validate their own ministries. The Hebrew Scriptures, which Christians call the Old Testament, had a Greek translation already in the third century B.C. This translation, called the Septuagint (represented by the letters LXX), constituted the Bible of

1. Parts of this section were previously published in Stine 2000: 57–65.

11

12


first-century Christians. As these Christians spread the good news throughout the world, they also spread the message of the Gospels and the Epistles, writings that eventually formed the basis of the New Testament. These New Testament writings were also written in Greek, the common language in the eastern Mediterranean area. Spreading rapidly in the first centuries of the Christian era, the church prepared translations of the Scriptures to reflect the major languages and regions into which it was expanding. By the fifth century A.D. there existed several translations in Latin, the language of the Romans, but also other translations in the Syriac language of Mesopotamia, in the Coptic language of Egypt, and the Ethiopic language of the area south of Egypt. In the fourth century, Ulfilas prepared a translation in the Gothic language of the Danube area. By the seventh century, missionaries completed a translation in Chinese, by the ninth century one in Arabic, and by the fourteenth century a Persian translation. The so-called “modern missionary movement” of the last two hundred years brought about an explosion in church growth in all parts of the world, and with it the translation of at least some part of the Bible in more than two thousand languages. Whereas in the first eighteen centuries an average of 1.92 new translations were added during each century, 448 were added in the nineteenth century, and in the twentieth century through 1990 the growth rate registered an average of 152 new languages per decade (Smalley 1991: 33–35). The Appendix (p. 182) shows this dramatic growth. Why did Bible translation work go hand in hand with the expansion of the church? Why did not new believers use the Scriptures in Greek, for example? Or, as Christians in America have sometimes asked, “Why not just teach all the African Christians French or English? Wouldn’t that be cheaper than translating and then printing the Bible in hundreds of languages?” The answers to these questions are not simple. Two practical realities suggest obvious barriers. Adults often have difficulty learning a new language, especially one that differs markedly from their own mother tongue. And even if they could learn some major language well enough to handle a simple narrative, could they easily understand the complexities of the Epistle to the Hebrews? A second problem involves the cost of teaching millions of people a new language. The human, material, and financial resources required reach far beyond the ability of most churches. Translation work, though time-consuming, costs significantly less.

2. This figure is slightly misleading since there were some centuries when no translation appeared.

Bible Translation before Nida

13

Several years ago, Bwamu-speaking church leaders from Burkina Faso in West Africa were faced with a problem. They had always used the Bible in Bambara, a major trade language of the area. New believers had to learn to read the Bambara Bible before they could be baptized. “But now,” the leaders explained, “we have had unexpected growth. Hundreds of people are coming into the church, and we can’t keep up with teaching them all Bambara. We need to translate the Bible into our language.” Of course, another obvious problem recognizes that just because believers might have some motivation to learn a new language—indeed, there are many examples of this—a nonbeliever would not necessarily be so inclined. It is much more difficult to use the Bible as a tool of evangelism and outreach if it is not in the language of the people the Christians are trying to reach. As humans we all can express our deepest emotions and thoughts most easily and most comfortably in our “heart language.” The principal motivation for translation remains the need to worship God and read the Bible in a native language. Lamin Sanneh points out that in Africa, for example, Christianity has grown rapidly in those areas where the church has used a vernacular language. Conversely, growth has slowed down in areas where the church has depended on trade or colonial languages. He suggests that only rarely, if ever, does a church thrive if the believers do not use their native language in worship (Sanneh 1987: 333). Calvin Shenk offers remarkable evidence of this in his 1993 study of the churches in North Africa, Nubia, Egypt, and Ethiopia. The ancient Christian communities in each of these areas played important roles in early church history, but Christianity died out in North Africa and Nubia while surviving and enduring in Egypt and Ethopia. All of these churches shared similar histories, including a sustained encounter with Islam. However, they differ on one key point: the matter of Bible translation. In North Africa, Shenk notes, Christians read a Latin Bible (Shenk 1993: 133, 134). He quotes Sanneh: “Without the Bible in Punic or Berber, the indigenous population was excluded from any meaningful role in Christian faith; the local population experienced alienation and saw the church as an instrument of foreign domination” (Sanneh 1989:69, cited in Shenk 1993: 134). However, the Egyptian church translated the Bible into Coptic and the Ethopian church did the same into Geez, providing the basis for continued survival and growth of the churches there (Shenk 1993: 148, 149). Believers must also have the Scriptures in a vernacular if they are to be effective in reaching others. Heber Peacock, a former Bible Society colleague of Nida’s who worked extensively in Africa, said, “In today’s world, without the opening up of all these various languages to the Scriptures, what hope is there for evangelization? What hope is there for the proclamation of the good news? The translation projects have been and are

14


absolutely central to any missionary movement” (Heber Peacock, interview with author, 11 Oct. 2000). But there remains a theological reason for translation that is even more profound. Sanneh points out that Christianity is unique among world religions in believing that God’s word can and should be communicated in all languages and cultures. From the beginning of the church, new believers did not have to learn the languages of Jesus (whether Aramaic, Hebrew, or possibly a local dialect of Greek). New Testament authors wrote in Koine Greek, the common, trade version of the Hellenistic Greek that Alexander the Great (356–323 B.C.) had introduced to the eastern Mediterranean world. Thus even the Gospels, the original Scriptures of the Christian church, translated Jesus’ preaching and teaching. Apart from isolated fragments (e.g., Mark 15:34), there was no systematic attempt to preserve the words of Jesus in the language(s) in which he spoke (Lamin Sanneh, interview with author, 28 Sept. 2000). James Barr points out that for the teaching of Jesus as a whole “we do not have the ‘original’ at all, and from a very early time we never did” (Barr 1994: 278). Sanneh states that Christianity is essentially a translated religion. But if Christianity is a translated religion, then by implication, it must be translatable. In a real sense this fact gives impetus to the missionary nature of the church (Sanneh, interview with author, 28 Sept. 2000). Christians do not turn to Bethlehem or Jerusalem for spiritual guidance. They do not have to learn new terms for spiritual and theological concepts. Instead, vernacular translations of the Bible have adopted indigenous terms, concepts, and customs. God speaks to all in their language and culture. Christianity is not something foreign but it is profoundly a part of the culture and life of all peoples everywhere. In a very real sense, whenever the Bible is translated into a new language, the incarnation takes place in that culture and in the lives of those people (Sanneh 1990: 3). In this matter of translation, Christianity differs from Judaism. To quote James Barr, “after some wanderings in the wilderness of Greek it [Judaism] returned very firmly to the Hebrew” (Barr 1994: 278). Christianity’s approach to translation also stands in marked contrast to that of Islam. Converts to Islam, whatever their culture or language, must learn to read and recite the Qur’an in Arabic, even if they do not understand what they are learning. The entire theological vocabulary, including the divine name, is in a foreign language. A faithful believer is required at least once in his or her lifetime, if at all possible, to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca, the spiritual birthplace of the religion. For Muslims, failure to learn the prayers and vocabulary properly can have dire religious consequences. A number of years ago in Mali, a young man, a former Muslim, recounted his conversion to Christianity. He had been selected to undertake university studies in Russia, and on one leg of


15

the trip to Moscow he found himself sitting with two native Arabic speakers. Eager to impress them with his devotion, he recited for them prayers he had learned in the Qur’anic schools. Totally unable to understand his Arabic, the two native speakers told him that he was pronouncing the words of the prayers and Scriptures incorrectly. The student arrived in Moscow with his faith shattered, for he had always been taught that Allah would hear him only if the pronunciation were correct. All the prayers he had recited over the years had therefore been in vain! No new Christian believer faces such a conflict. The pattern from the beginning of the church has been to use the language of the people, extensively in worship and frequently in the Scriptures. Bible Translation and the Theology of the Churches In describing the history of Bible translation, we could take a seemingly logical approach and document how translation generally followed the introduction of Christianity into a language and culture. But Sanneh suggests considering the reverse: reviewing how the translation of the Bible in the last 200 years paved the way for a tremendous expansion of Christianity (Lamin Sanneh, interview with author, 28 Sept. 2000). Sanneh’s approach commends itself for several reasons. First, there is the conviction of the early church that the Scriptures could express God’s word and counsels in everyday speech. Using ordinary language, the Koine Greek clearly signaled that all people, not just a trained elite, should understand the message. Translating that Koine Greek into the vernaculars of the new believers was a logical next step. Second, as Sanneh suggests, using the language of the people, “also signals a profound engagement with indigenous culture, indigenous language, and indigenous ethical and religious terms.” Meaning then becomes a function of what the people themselves understand, not only what the missionaries brought with them. Third, the use of indigenous names for God, a church practice from the beginning, proved highly significant. Where the church retained and used indigenous names for God, the church spread. But where the church did not employ indigenous names, its growth slowed. Fourth, by using the vernacular for worship and the Bible, Christianity made itself accessible, not only to men, but to women, not only to adults, but to children as well. Because of this, many cultures transformed themselves from within as they established new behavioral patterns. In addition, in many parts of the world, the missionaries and others who carried out Bible translation also developed a writing system, compiled dictionaries, wrote grammars, analyzed the discourse structure of the language, and recorded many of the intimate facts of the culture and language. As a result, native speakers of the language often acquired a new interest in their own language, in recording their history, and in developing

16


a written literature. Sanneh describes how in India the Tamil, Bengali, and Telegu Bibles led directly to the emancipation of these languages from the domination of Sanskrit literature (Lamin Sanneh, interview with author, 28 Sept. 2000). African languages that had no written literary tradition, once they were supplied with an alphabet, a written grammar and dictionary, and eventually with Scriptures, could seize public attention because of their Bible translation. An example is the Luganda translation in Uganda prepared by George Pilkington, an English missionary. In its first year of publication, with the help of more than 2,000 colporteurs, 400 of whom were women, more than 1,100 Bibles were sold. The colporteurs also sold 4,000 New Testaments, 13,500 individual Gospels, and 40,000 literacy readers. Theodore Roosevelt visited the country in 1910 and wrote how astounded he was at the incredible Pentecost of Christianity and the prominent role women had taken in the Christian movement (Sanneh 1987: 332). Although many missionaries who prepared translations did not see the implications of their work, others sometimes did. Bill Mitchell gives an example from Ecuador where missionaries undertook translation of the New Testament into Chimborazo with the intention, at least in part, to “dissociate the gospel from the oppression carried out through history by the whites.” The growth of evangelical [Protestant] churches in this area was partly due to the strong feeling of “Quichua for the Quichuas,” that is, a new sense of ethnic identity in the face of dominant racism (Mitchell 1987: 129). Thus, the translation of the Bible into a vernacular language leads directly to the development of an indigenous church with its own sense of identity, values, and theology. Convinced that everyone should understand the Scriptures, the church defines itself as populist, not elitist. The Scriptures and the church are accessible to all. It is no wonder then that in such languages the church flourishes. Perhaps the best-known and most striking description of this cause and effect is David Barrett’s study of more than six thousand indigenous churches in Africa (Barrett 1968). The facts were absolutely clear: where there was a Bible in the vernacular, there was an overwhelming probability that one or more indigenous churches would arise. Where there was only a New Testament, the probability was lower. The lowest probability occurred in areas where there were no Scriptures in the vernacular. Indeed, the Bible Societies are the heroes of these indigenous churches. Throughout the nineteenth century and up to the 1970s, translators almost always came from the ranks of expatriate missionaries who had learned a vernacular language after arriving in the field. Although the missionary-translators often used native speakers as informants, essentially the missionary-translator prepared the translation. Many had excellent


17

classical education from European or American universities, including the study of Greek and Hebrew. They often undertook detailed studies of the languages and cultures in which they were working; they developed writing systems for those languages that lacked a literary tradition, and initiated literacy programs. The missionaries often transcribed the folklore and history of a group and they wrote grammars and compiled dictionaries. In the latter part of the twentieth century, as the fields of anthropology and, later, linguistics developed, it became almost fashionable for western scholars to criticize these missionaries for having destroyed or altered the cultures of the people. But in fact, as Sanneh has demonstrated, the reverse was true. The work of missionaries stimulated an indigenous literature and a renewed interest by people in their own culture and language. Rather than becoming westerners, they often developed a sense of pride in their own identity (Sanneh 1987: 331–34). A poignant testimony to this new cultural pride came from an elderly Dogon man in Mali. The Dogon people belong to some of the most investigated groups in West Africa, perhaps because of the beautiful masks and carvings that are a part of their traditional religion, and perhaps because they live in villages built in and on rocky cliffs, all of which seems exotic to westerners. On one occasion, the elderly man was talking with a famous French anthropologist, Marcel Griaule, in the latter’s house. Griaule had studied the Dogon people from 1931 to 1946 and had published numerous books and articles on their religion and worldview. “Haven’t these missionaries destroyed your religion?” Griaule asked pointedly. “Oh,” the old man replied, “they haven’t changed our religion nearly as much as you have. Look at that mask on your wall. That is what has destroyed our religion.” The old man’s point was that the anthropologist, by turning a Dogon ritual mask into a wall decoration, had done more to show that the mask and ritual had no power than the missionaries had ever done with their preaching (pers. comm. from John McKinney, a veteran missionary with the Christian and Missionary Alliance among the Dogon). Had missionaries not translated the Bible, they might have retained their position as the experts in the new religion. But by emphasizing that the Bible had to be translated into the language of the people, the missionaries gave the new churches the power to develop their own understanding of Christianity. It made Christianity indigenous, not foreign. And by natural extension, it led to questioning all forms of foreign domination, whether cultural, political, or religious (Sanneh 1987: 331–34). So although the modern missionary movement was often said to go hand in hand with colonialism, it is equally true that by translating the Bible, the missionaries planted the seeds that would eventually bring about the demise of colonialism.

18


The Modern Missionary Movement and the Origin of the Bible Societies What is generally called the modern missionary movement emerged in the latter part of the eighteenth century as an outgrowth of the Enlightenment. This European philosophical movement, trusting in the power of human reason, generated revolutionary innovations in political, religious, and educational doctrines. There was great concern with political equality and social injustice, for example, but with the conviction that reason and science could and would solve all problems. Religion, with a focus on a personal faith in a spiritual deity, found itself under attack from this thinking. But many believers responded to this attack by coupling their firm inner faith with a new concern for the world. William Carey, for example, put voice to this when he published a manifesto in 1792 entitled An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens. Action followed. The Baptist Missionary Society began its work in England that same year, the London Missionary Society in 1794, and in subsequent years, other mission organizations on both sides of the Atlantic. Thousands of North Americans and Europeans found themselves laboring in Africa, South and Central America, South and Southeast Asia, East Asia, and the Pacific. They preached, taught, healed, and built—and they translated the Bible. By the end of the twentieth century, the geographical center of the church lay no longer in Western Europe or North America. What’s more, the face of the church no longer looked all white since the greatest growth and vitality was in the indigenous churches of Africa, Latin America, and East Asia. At this time, Bible translation could not have had a significant impact were it not for two factors: the invention in the West of the printing press and the launching of the Bible Society movement. Printing by movable type had already appeared in China sometime in the eleventh century, but it was Gutenberg’s invention in 1450 that aided the widespread dispersion of the Bibles translated in Europe and helped the arduous work of the missionaries of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The Bible Society movement grew out of the modern missionary movement. These Bible Societies became invaluable partners to the churches and missions as they took on the role of publishing and distributing new Bible translations. The Canstein Bible Institution, founded in Halle, Germany, in 1710, was the first Bible Society, and it continued to publish Bibles and New Testaments in Germany for almost a century. But the global outreach of the Bible Society movement really began with the organization of the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) in 1804. Although a local issue (the difficulty in obtaining Bibles in Wales) initially inspired the founders of the


19

BFBS, it was, in fact, a global cause that truly animated them: spreading Christianity throughout the world. As one of the founders, the Reverend Joseph Hughes, is reported to have said, “And if for Wales, why not for the kingdom; why not for the whole world?” (BFBS archives, report of planning meeting of 7 December 1802). Consequently, from the moment of its founding, the BFBS published and distributed Bibles, both new and existing translations, in many languages. The Society bore the cost of publishing and distributing the Scriptures in many languages, and of selling them at highly subsidized prices so that everyone could afford them. The founders aimed to serve the churches and to ensure that all people had access to the Bibles they published. Further, they did not want the BFBS to advocate any single confessional or dogmatic position. As a consequence, the BFBS reserved the right to publish the Bible without notes. As the board stated in their founding document, their mission was “to encourage the widest circulation of Holy Scriptures without note and comment” (founding document, 1804).3 Smalley emphasizes two points. On the one hand the BFBS served the missions and churches by providing Scriptures. On the other hand, it is equally true that without mission organizations the BFBS might well have put its resources into Bibles in English and other European languages (Smalley 1991: 27). Mutual need tightly intertwined these two movements. Other Bible Societies soon emerged, although many of those in Europe initially branched out from the BFBS. The National Bible Society of Scotland (NBSS), for example, began its work in 1861, after uniting other Societies and auxiliaries that had split from the BFBS. Those Societies that followed the lead of the BFBS in reaching out beyond their own borders included the Netherlands Bible Society (NBS), founded in 1814, and the American Bible Society (ABS), chartered in 1816. Like the National Bible Society of Scotland, the ABS brought together a number of smaller, local Bible Societies. Throughout most of the nineteenth century, however, the BFBS took the lead in Bible publishing and international distribution. The Netherlands Bible Society carried responsibility for its former colonies, especially Indonesia, while the American Bible Society distributed Bibles to Latin America, Liberia, and elsewhere at the bidding of American missionaries. Bible Society Manuscript Examination During this period, translators sent their manuscripts to one of the Bible Societies for printing and distribution to the area where the language

3. See chapter 4 for a more detailed discussion of the “no note and comment” issue.

20


was spoken. This process, necessitating Bible depots throughout the world, led in the 1960s to the transformation of most of these depots or offices into autonomous, independent Bible Societies in their own right. Although early nineteenth century Bible Society personnel in New York, Amsterdam, or London could not formally check the content of these translations, they cared deeply about the quality of the work and wanted to ensure that the translations exhibited no theological bias. In 1826, the BFBS initiated an examination of all its “foreign versions.” An embarrassing discovery at two of its branches (the Strasbourg and Lausanne Bible Societies, where there turned up a Bible with an “infidel” preface4 and one with notes, respectively) prompted this system of checks and balances. The committee (board) realized that the BFBS needed to exercise tighter control over versions they published or financed. Consequently, in 1828, the committee members decided that one individual should oversee all the versions. In 1830, the committee appointed William Greenfield as first Superintendent of the Translating and Editing Department. His responsibilities included the editing of all non-English translations published or financed by the BFBS, responsibility for their accuracy, and ensuring that they conformed to the rules that the Society established. This staff position remained until the 1970s, although the title was changed in 1945 to Secretary for Translations (BFBS minutes of General Purposes). In 1877, R.B. Girdlestone, who held the post of Superintendent at that time, established some suggestions for translators, editors, and revisers. Over the years these pointers developed into a longer document for checking the completeness of the manuscripts. The document also addressed a number of questions on translation issues such as consistency in handling key theological terms and names. These guidelines covered practical issues, many of which are still appropriate today. For example, on the matter of organizing a translation and a consultative committee, the guidelines stated that the BFBS would not publish a translation that stemmed from the work of a single translator. Today, the United Bible Societies still strongly recommends that two to three translators work together, and urges churches and fellowships with different language groups to use representatives of each group to serve on translation and review committees. The UBS insists on a rigorous review process regardless of how many translators are involved. The BFBS guidelines also insisted that while a translation needed to make the original texts understandable, it should preserve the historical nature of the Bible: a Bible translation should not sound as if its events

4. The author was never able to find out what the “infidel” preface was.


21

occurred recently and locally. This guideline remains an excellent caution. These guidelines authorized translations that arranged material in paragraphs so that verse and chapter divisions would not interrupt and obscure the meaning of a passage. Chapter numbers appeared in the margins; verse numbers in the body of the paragraph. But other advice would not fare as well today. The BFBS placed a premium on consistency in rendering key theological, spiritual, psychological, and ecclesiastical terms. And it maintained a staff of biblical experts to whom the translators could write with specific exegetical questions. The BFBS accepted translation notes where readers would not understand the original text, for example, in the case of proper nouns or names whose meaning was important. It also allowed for generic titles, as in Jordan (River). At the same time, it insisted that the form of the original took precedence over meaning. Thus, following the tradition of the Authorized Version (King James Version) Bible, added words had to be printed in italics. One consequence of this “form over meaning” approach is that many readers have mistakenly thought that the italics indicated the importance of these words. By the early 1900s, the BFBS, NBS, and ABS had developed departments for examining manuscripts, or at least designated staff to handle this responsibility. Staff carefully reviewed each submitted manuscript, subjecting it to queries based on the principles in the guidelines. Even though these examiners did not speak any of the languages being checked, they were remarkably adept at finding verses or sentences that were omitted and even at raising questions about key terms of the Bible. However, in this system of manuscript checking, the principle of form over meaning remained operative. If an original text had a passive verb form, the manuscript examiners looked for a passive verb in the translation—even when the vernacular language itself did not have a passive voice! If the original text had a proper noun, they looked for it in the translation—even if the vernacular might have more naturally used a pronoun. And, of course, they did not understand nor address issues relating to the discourse structure of the target language.5 The Summer Institute of Linguistics Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, European and American missionaries, colonial officers, traders, and scholars encountered languages, cultures, and religions in Africa, Asia, and Latin America that were vastly different from their own. They undertook with great zeal

5. “Discourse structure” relates to the ways a language constructs a text.

22


the study of these peoples and their languages. The disciplines of anthropology and, later, linguistics grew out of these experiences. Some of these missionaries and scholars made monumental contributions to our knowledge and understanding of culture and language. But most missionaries and translators did not have the training or sensitivity to cultural issues to be optimally effective in their work, and it became apparent that they needed more systematic training in language and culture. William Cameron Townsend, an American missionary, took this need for training very seriously. In 1917, he began working as a missionary in Guatemala, Mexico, and Peru. In Guatemala, while with the Central American Mission, he worked as a Bible distributor. But the Bibles he had were in Spanish, and he soon discovered that most people in the country belonged to minority ethnic groups with their own languages. They could neither speak nor read Spanish easily. On one occasion a Guatemalan Indian asked Townsend if he had any Bibles in Cakchiquel, a native Guatemalan language. Townsend did not, and the man challenged him by asking how could Townsend’s God be so wonderful if he didn’t speak Cakchiquel! Townsend subsequently studied the language and later began a Cakchiquel translation of the New Testament (Freddy Boswell of SIL, pers. comm.). Trying to learn Cakchiquel on his own and without helps of any kind, Townsend soon saw the need to use local resources where available and to develop systematic training for other translators. A few universities offered courses in phonetics, and he determined to introduce that kind of expertise to missionaries (George Cowan of SIL, pers. comm.). In 1934, Townsend resigned from the Central American Mission to organize a summer training camp for new missionaries. Specializing in linguistics and Bible translation, this new school was financed in part by the Pioneer Missionary Agency in Philadelphia. Townsend hoped that the graduates would work as Bible translators under the aegis of missions and organizations, including the American Bible Society. In a letter to the Reverend R. R. Gregory of the ABS, dated 12 July 1935, Townsend stated clearly he did not want to form a new organization, and hoped that the graduates could possibly work under the auspices of the American Bible Society (Steven 1999: 29). However, as the school grew and began to send people into Mexico and other areas to do linguistic analysis and translation, it proved necessary to incorporate separately. In 1942 the scientific side of the organization took the name the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL); its missionary arm incorporated formally as the Wycliffe Bible Translators (Steven 1999: 151). SIL propelled Bible translating to the forefront of its mission, with a primary focus on the translation of the New Testament. Its staff of over six thousand women and men currently work in translation and literacy in


23

more than twelve hundred languages and have translated the New Testament into more than five hundred languages. SIL has also given basic training in linguistics and translation to hundreds of missionaries and translators from around the world. Contrasts between the Bible Societies and the Summer Institute of Linguistics Both the SIL and the Bible Societies have played major roles in the expansion of Bible translation work. However, the organizations differ in some key points. SIL has been, and remains, primarily an evangelical organization. Its members are specifically concerned that the Bible lead to a person’s salvation. They generally have upheld that a person does not come to salvation as easily through the Old Testament as through the New Testament and, as a result, the overwhelming majority of the work they have done is in New Testament translation. In the past few years, however, SIL has turned increasingly to Old Testament translation as well. Further, it has specifically undertaken work only in languages that did not have Scriptures. Many of these languages were spoken in places that did not have established churches, so that often SIL produced translations in areas where previously there was no church. For their part, the Bible Societies focused on translating the entire Bible. This focus stems in part from a broader theological understanding that sees the entire Bible as speaking God’s word to people and cultures. Many cultures, for example, in Africa and Latin America, as well as in Muslim dominated areas, find significant resonance with the Old Testament message. Bill Mitchell predicted that the addition of the Old Testament to the Scripture used in the Andes would enhance the feeling of independence of the churches, and would lead to the development of an indigenous theology that united the people’s own view of the world around them with the creation story in Genesis. “[T]heir point of departure will be a theology of creation with an emphasis on dignity, personhood, the rights of men and women, and their responsibility for creation as God’s stewards. In other words, they begin their reflection in Genesis rather than Exodus” (Mitchell 1987: 130). Another reason for emphasizing the whole Bible lies in the Bible Societies’ mission to serve the total ministry of the churches and to do so by providing Scriptures not only for evangelism but also for spiritual nourishment and growth, as well as for catechetical and discipling work. Thus, traditionally the Bible Societies do not initiate translation in an area where there is no church to use and interpret it. In addition (but with some exceptions), the Bible Societies have exercised caution about including too much cultural, theological, and historical material in the translation even when this information is implicit and might help contemporary readers

24


better understand the text. They have relied instead on the churches to teach the biblical background. SIL is specifically translation-oriented. Expatriate missionaries go into areas with no previous written Scriptures, learn and analyze the language, develop writing systems and conduct literacy programs, and carry out translation with the help of native speakers. Other organizations then take responsibility for printing and distributing these translations. A byproduct of this focus is that SIL personnel have made an enormous contribution to the field of linguistics. They have researched, surveyed, and mapped more than 3,500 languages and written over eight hundred dictionaries and grammars. SIL members have published more than six thousand technical articles in professional journals and books, and close to two thousand technical and professional books. Two thousand of their members have master’s degrees, and over three hundred hold doctorates in linguistics or related fields (SIL International 1998 report). This SIL profile contrasts with the profile of the over seventy translation consultants who serve either the UBS or one of the national Bible Societies. Whereas almost all these consultants hold doctorates, their degrees are largely in biblical studies rather than in linguistics, and their research tends to concentrate on translation theory and the practical application of biblical studies or linguistics to the field of Bible translation. Few of them have worked in depth in just one or two vernacular languages, but rather have given assistance to native speakers in many languages. The Bible Societies publish Bibles, which the SIL does not do. Nor do Bible Societies undertake translation and revision, leaving that work to the churches and missions in a language area. The Bible Societies have traditionally provided financial subsidies to this work, and more recently, thanks to the innovations of Nida, technical assistance in the field. The Societies print and sell these translations and take responsibility to continue this work as long as the churches need it. Townsend, SIL’s founder, recognized these differences in the organizations from the very beginning. For him this was enough incentive for them to cooperate. In a 1939 letter written to one of his colleagues, he wrote as follows: I feel most strongly that if the thousands of tribes of the world who are still without some portion of God’s word are to be reached, it will be necessary for all organizations interested in this task to cooperate. That being the case, we should stick to our job of Bible translation and let the Bible Societies do the publishing. The missions, where there are missions established, can take care of the church planting and teaching. (Steven 1999: 116)


25

Roman Catholics, Orthodox Churches, and the Bible Prior to the 1960s, Roman Catholic involvement in Bible translation was slight. This situation did not reflect a Catholic disregard for the vernacular languages, for indeed Catholic missionaries in Asia and Latin America had learned the vernaculars and used them for communication. In fact, they had written grammars and translated materials such as catechisms. But at this time, official Roman Catholic teaching privileged the use of the Vulgate, a Latin translation of the Scriptures. However, as Smalley points out, Roman Catholics did communicate the Bible orally as well as through plays, statuary, and stained glass windows just as they had done for centuries in Europe (Smalley 1991: 30). Not until the Second Vatican Council ended in 1965 did this situation change. From that point on, Roman Catholics entered into Bible translation on a very large scale and mostly in cooperation with the Bible Societies. In the twentieth century, Orthodox churches took only minimal interest in translation work. During much of this time, many of these churches found themselves behind the Iron Curtain where political realities severely restricted religious life. Two exceptions proved this rule: the Ethiopian and Greek Orthodox churches, both of which continued to use formally prepared translations. In 1901, a translation in demotic (popular) Greek encountered significant public opposition. As a result, the Ecumenical Patriarch Ioakeim published an encyclical condemning this translation. Rioters, protesting this purported debasing of the sacred word, took to the streets of Athens (Browning 1982). The situation is far different today from what it was back then. How Things Stood By 1960 As late as the 1960s, Bible translation work was going forward mostly by means of expatriate missionaries, affiliated either with SIL or with church mission organizations. Around this time, however, major churches began moving rapidly into Bible translating, teaming native speakers with missionary consultants, a practice that the Bible Societies were also adopting. Many of these missionary consultants and native speakers now had some training in linguistics or phonology, but there was no general theory of translation to follow. True enough, specific guidelines helped with many difficult aspects, but neither SIL nor the Bible Societies had developed a systematic, practical approach to translation. Until the 1960s, translators labored alone with few experts or consultants to whom they could direct their problems except for the translation departments in the major Bible Societies. They sent their manuscripts to New York, London, or Amsterdam where examiners checked the completeness and consistency of their work before publishing it. Most of these translations conformed closely either to the form of the biblical source languages of

26


Greek and Hebrew or to the form of a modern European language such as English, French, or Spanish. Although these translations had an enormous impact on the churches, many of them were difficult to understand. Preachers spent entire sermons explaining the meaning of the biblical texts. Access to the Bible was therefore still limited to those who had received some biblical or theological training, most often from missionaries.

3. A NEW APPROACH

The summer training camps that Cameron Townsend founded in 1934 were originally named “Camp Wycliffe” after the pioneer English translator of the Scriptures, John Wycliffe (1328–84). Townsend wanted to provide new or potential missionaries with training in linguistics and Bible translation. His own work in New Testament translation among the Cakchiquel had convinced him of the need for a systematic way of approaching language work. Townsend was also keenly aware of the developing fields of linguistics and phonetics and the potential they had for helping translation work. So, although he had had little formal training in this area, his extensive experience in Peru, Mexico, and Guatemala had given him much to teach his students. Kenneth L. Pike enrolled as a student in Camp Wycliffe in the summer of 1935, the second summer of the camp’s operation. While at Gordon College in Massachusetts, Pike felt a call to missionary work in China and had started learning the language. After graduation in 1933, Pike applied to the China Inland Mission, but the Mission rejected his application, primarily because it felt his health would not stand up to the rigors of missionary work in China. Pike returned to Gordon for postgraduate study of Greek, and during this time heard a story from India telling how much the study of phonetics had helped missionaries learn new languages. So he decided to enroll in Camp Wycliffe in the summer of 1935 (Steven 1999: 16). Following the summer’s training, Townsend, his wife Elvira, Pike, and some other students began translation and linguistic work in Mexico. Mrs. Townsend’s niece, Evelyn Griset, accompanied the group. While studying at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), Griset had joined a Bible club, and during her time in Mexico she had written to the club describing the challenge of Bible translation. At that time, the membership of the Bible club included Eugene A. Nida, a UCLA student who planned to graduate in the spring of 1936. Nida had distinguished himself in his study of Greek and Latin, but he had also taken courses in the fledgling field of linguistics.

27

28


Nida reports that he felt called by God to be a missionary (Nida 1988: 62) when he was only four years old and a member of the Methodist Church in Oklahoma City. He had always thought he would go to Africa, and therefore would need to learn some languages. This conviction led to university-level study of languages and linguistics. When Evelyn Griset reported to the Bible club on Townsend’s work and vision, Nida was intrigued by the possibility of attending Camp Wycliffe. He enrolled the summer after graduation. Cameron Townsend had recognized Kenneth Pike’s intellectual abilities and invited him to teach phonetics in the summer of 1936. This invitation is amazing, since Pike had had only had ten days of formal study in phonetics (Steven 1991: 61). Freshly enrolled at Camp, Nida studied with Pike that summer. The two young men quickly became friends, and each stimulated the other intellectually. Applying insights from linguists whom he had read at UCLA, Nida helped Pike analyze some of the latter’s Mixtec grammatical materials from his work in Mexico the previous year. He also directed Pike to the work of Leonard Bloomfield, America’s preeminent linguist. Nida introduced Pike to the concept of the phoneme, the smallest phonetic unit in a language that is significant for distinctions in meaning (Steven 1999: 61). Pike seized on these insights, and his research and writing in the field eventually made him the world’s leading scholar in phonology and phonological analysis. His books on phonology and tone languages served as basic texts for linguistics students well into the 1960s, and they continued to be widely used even for several years thereafter. Structural linguistics dominated the formal study of language among Americans at that time. Linguists such as Leonard Bloomfield and Edward Sapir broke language down into several layers, each of which could be studied systematically. The first layer comprised phonetics, which was concerned with the sounds of language without regard to sense. Phonology, a second layer, concerned itself with the smallest units of sound that differentiated meanings, for example, in syllables and words. Morphology, the next layer, defined the smallest units of grammar, while another layer called syntax studied the ways a language combined grammatical units. Nida introduced Pike to Bloomfield’s book Language, which had been published in 1933 and which, for more than thirty years, would provide a standard textbook in the field of linguistics. In the book, Bloomfield asserted that language study must center on spoken language and that forms, not the meaning of forms, should define the grammar of a language. By the end of the 1936 summer course, Nida found himself teaching, thanks to the linguistics he had studied at UCLA. He continued teaching every summer until 1953. Pike traditionally taught phonetics and phonemics, while Nida taught morphology and syntax. With quite different gifts, the two men complemented each other brilliantly. Nida focused on

A New Approach

29

meaning, culture, grammar, and the relations among these elements of language. His later writings included Morphology and Customs and Cultures, as well as numerous books on translation. Pike stood out for his ability to analyze the sounds of language. His books on phonology and tone languages became required reading in universities and training schools. He also developed a theory called tagmemics, an approach to language that encompassed all human behavior. But the principal value of this theory was heuristic, giving field linguists a tool for close study of a language. Not readily applicable to the analysis of semantic or cultural matters, it did not offer a tool for translation as such.1 After the 1936 summer training program, Nida traveled with the Townsends and some of the other students to Mexico, where they began analyzing the language of the Tarahumara Indians. Nida anticipated that this linguistic analysis would lead to a Bible translation, but life in the village proved very difficult. Intensive work and an inadequate diet led to the loss of twenty pounds in just a few weeks. He developed secondary anemia, a serious skin rash, an irregular heartbeat, and blood-pressure problems. When he broke a tooth, Nida learned from a dentist in Chihuahua that he was in danger of losing his teeth due to a calcium deficiency. These circumstances forced Nida to return to California by mid-December (Steven 1999: 81). Recuperation took several months. Meanwhile Nida began graduate work in New Testament Greek at the University of Southern California and received his master’s degree in 1939. Former American Bible Society (ABS) General Secretary Eric North reports that during this period Nida read the Greek poets and most of the church fathers in Greek for pleasure (North 1974: viii). In 1941, Nida began doctoral studies under an esteemed American linguist, Charles C. Fries, at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. He joined Pike who was already attending the university and who had previously studied phonetics there with Edward Sapir in 1937. Pike had delivered a paper on the tonal structure of Mixtec at a luncheon of the Linguistic Society of America in 1938, and the success of this paper prompted Fries to work out a Ph.D. program for Pike. Nida received his Ph.D. in

1. Years later, in 1966, when the author was taking a course from Pike at the University of Michigan, he heard him comment on one of the differences between himself and Nida. Pike brought to a class session a speaker of an African language that he had never worked with before. As he elicited words and sounds from this informant, the author noticed that the words “rain,” “nose mucous,” and “perspiration” all exhibited a common morpheme or syllable. “Couldn’t that mean ‘water’?” he hazarded. Pike looked at it, and said, “I never noticed that. Nida would have seen it immediately.”

30


1943. For his thesis, he used a linguistic approach known as Immediate Constituent Analysis to describe the syntax of English. His Ph.D. dissertation, “A Synopsis of English Syntax,” presented the first full-scale analysis of any major language using this method. Nida at the American Bible Society Townsend was disappointed when Nida left Mexico and the work in the Tarahumara language. But recognizing that the young man showed tremendous talent and commitment to Bible translation, he wrote to Eric North on 15 September 1937. Townsend proposed that the two organizations both draw on Nida’s talents: Nida would continue teaching at the SIL’s annual institutes, but also join the ABS to supervise and assist missionary translators with technical problems. As the officer responsible for the administration of the ABS’s work in publishing new translations, North wanted to ensure that the ABS published quality translations. For major languages such as Chinese or Portuguese he could turn to qualified scholars for their assessment of new translations or revisions. But increasingly, ABS was receiving manuscripts in languages from Africa and Latin America for which there were no experts to consult. In 1931, a translation of John’s Gospel in Valiente, a Central American language, arrived at ABS. Resolving to examine the manuscript himself, North compared the Valiente version with an English text and discovered some inconsistencies in the use of diacritical marks. He also found some words or phrases omitted or rendered differently in one place than in another. When North wrote to the translator to raise these questions, the translator’s grateful reply convinced him that ABS should develop a process for testing the translations they received in New York. He and ABS Librarian Margaret T. Hills2 developed checklists of proper nouns and important theological words. These lists eventually grew into a large binder of loose slips that, among other things, allowed them to compare parallel passages in the Gospels. North, Hills, and later Dr. James Oscar Boyd, the Society’s first Secretary for Versions, all used and expanded these materials. By the end of 1932, North proposed to the Committee on Translations a nine-step procedure for processing new manuscripts. Later North wrote, As time went on, I realized that more technical linguistic skill needed to be applied by, and on behalf of, the Society than even Dr. Boyd possessed.

2. ABS Librarian 1935–63. From 1955 to 1962 Hills also served as the Associate Secretary for Translations, assisting Nida.

A New Approach

31

I found myself fearing that one reason the gospel seemed to make so little headway in many situations was that the translations were wooden and artificial and unnatural to the people for whom they were made. This led to an inquiry of Mr. W.C. Townsend as someone who could help us. (Appendix F, ABS History Essay 16, VI-A, 24 April 1968)

North welcomed Townsend’s proposal concerning Nida. He was especially interested in the young man’s conviction that a word or phrase took on meaning according to its usage. Nida’s linguistic approach seemed the right one. After finishing his doctorate in 1943, Nida accepted North’s invitation to undertake some of this checking work on an experimental basis. Later that same year, Nida joined the staff of the ABS and began working with Dr. Boyd and North himself who continued to be involved in the checking of manuscripts. In 1943 Nida was also ordained by the Southern California Association of the Northern Baptist Convention and married to Althea Lucille Sprague, a teacher at Bacone College, an Indian school in Muskogee, Oklahoma, where the annual institute of SIL had been held that year. Gene had met Althea one summer at the University of Oklahoma while he was teaching at SIL and she was taking courses toward her master’s degree. Althea and Gene often went horseback riding, and Gene gave her a horse for a wedding present (Eugene A. Nida, pers. comm.). Prior to Boyd’s retirement, North proposed at the 8 February 1944 meeting of the Committee on Versions that ABS engage three-quarters of Nida’s time and appoint him Assistant in Versions. The remaining twentyfive percent of his time would be spent teaching the programs of SIL. North noted that Nida “has special capacities in the phonetics and morphology of languages and the problems of analyzing their grammatical structure, which enables him quite rapidly to go beyond the Society’s tests in current use in appraisal of other phases of the work of the translators” (ABS Committee on Versions minutes). North said that by agreeing to this arrangement the ABS would be extending its services to all who were involved in translation (minutes of ABS Committee on Versions). This policy of providing help to all Bible translators, whether or not they were preparing work that ABS would publish, is one that continued. The journal The Bible Translator and all Translator’s Handbooks, the Greek and Hebrew texts, and several other translator’s aids published by the Bible Societies were for many years provided free to anyone carrying out Bible translation. Nida later earned a promotion to Secretary for Versions, but he suggested a change in title, citing the misunderstanding he met when introduced to various groups. In 1949, the title changed to Secretary for Translations (6 May 1949 minutes ABS Committee on Versions).

32


Nida continued to serve both the ABS and the SIL until 1953, when he resigned from the SIL to work full time with the ABS. Too busy to continue both roles, he had also recognized that the SIL (of which he had been an original founding director in 1942) was growing and wanted to promote their own leadership. Nida’s experience with the translators of SIL, his own language work in Mexico, and his linguistics study at the University of Michigan, convinced him that working with translators in the field, rather than examining manuscripts in New York, would ensure higher quality translations. Collaboration in the field had two advantages. It allowed for raising questions in, and appropriate to, a particular cultural context. And, as Nida discovered, it was easier to raise questions in the course of a project rather than at its end. As Robert Taylor reports, “After years of tedious work, the translator and his or her helpers tend to fall in love with their product. He is much more amenable to suggestion if he can be reached in the early stages of the project” (Taylor 1978: 30). Consequently, North points out, Nida defined his role not as a publisher checking the quality of a translation but as an educator with the responsibility of training translators to do a better job, of providing them with good models, and of helping them organize their work (North 1974: ix). Nida proposed to the Board of the ABS that he travel to translators in the field where the languages being translated were spoken. Initially he planned to assist individual teams of translators, but later he also began to gather groups of translators together in larger workshops. The Board accepted the proposal, and with what Robert Taylor describes as “boundless energy” Nida began to spend several months each year visiting translators. On most trips, his wife, Althea, accompanied him (Taylor 1978: 36). Remarkably, the early days of the Nidas’ extensive travel took place during the Second World War. Yet nowhere in the minutes of the ABS Board or the Committee on Versions does anyone caution the Nidas or seemingly even pay attention to this backdrop for their work. Nor does the war seem to have deterred the Nidas. They located translators in many noncombatant areas, and the newlyweds joined them immediately. At war’s end, the Nidas extended their travels to Europe, Africa, and the Pacific to join European and American missionaries engaged in Bible translation. ABS policy mandated that if a spouse accompanied a staff member on a trip, it would count as a personal expense. However, given the unusual amount of travel that Nida proposed to undertake, ABS made an exception after the first trip. Although initially the Nidas paid their own way, ABS eventually covered their costs since for most of their careers they traveled and worked as a team. In most years, they worked away from home for six

A New Approach

33

When Nida joined the Society, ABS policy mandated that if a spouse accompanied a staff member on a trip, it would count as a personal expense. However, given the unusual amount of travel that Nida proposed to undertake, ABS made an exception after the first trip and eventually covered their costs since for most of their lives Gene and Althea traveled and worked as a team. In most years, they worked away from home for six to eight months. © American Bible Society.

to eight months. There was one period when they traveled for a year and a half without returning home. Later, the Board even authorized the Nidas to travel first class on a number of occasions when they crossed the Pacific by air, the justification being quite simply to do everything possible to not overtire them. The Nidas, however, never took advantage of this offer. In 1950, the Board approved paying all of Althea’s expenses “in light of the services rendered” (Committee on Versions minutes). Indeed, her services were significant. In addition to giving her husband moral and emotional support, she rapidly assumed a number of other roles. Often she typed documents and manuscripts or mimeographed copies of handouts. She also taught typing to the secretaries of the translation teams. In the early days when most translators and project secretaries were missionaries, Althea began training the indigenous helpers, as they were called, so that they could play larger roles in the projects. Many of the translators and consultants still remember warmly her friendship and help. In many cases, with Gene absorbed in his translation lectures, it was Althea who attended

34


to the personal needs of the workshop participants and ensured that appropriate arrangements were made. Althea Nida continued to accompany her husband on most trips until ill health in the late 1970s prevented this level of engagement. In order to spend more time with his wife, Nida also reduced much of his own travel. Althea Nida passed away in 1992. With Althea’s death, the Bible translation program worldwide lost a warm friend and an ardent and committed supporter. Translation Issues in the Field Clearly, Nida’s first innovation consisted of giving assistance to overseas translators whom he joined in the field and with whom he could discuss language and translation issues. In the field, he could offer recommendations that made sense for that language. But this experience also revealed to him more and more the extent and nature of the real translation problems. His list of problems and solutions multiplied and grew richer with each workshop or translation team session. He constantly uncovered problems that never would have occurred to him or anyone else without the experience of working directly in the field with the languages and the translators. Many of these problems had to do with idioms and figurative speech. For example, idioms such as “children of the bride chamber” or “heap burning coals of fire on the head,” when translated literally, led to some colorful misunderstandings. Some African readers understood the “children of the bride chamber” to refer to the children conceived on or before the wedding night, far from the real meaning of “friends of the bridegroom.” And “heap burning coals of fire on the head” was assumed to denote a new way of torturing one’s enemies, not a way to make them ashamed. Other problems involved unfamiliar objects or customs. For example, how could the translators handle “camel” in cultures that did not know these animals? Or “baptism” or, more complicated, “circumcision”? In the Bible, Jewish families circumcise week-old, male babies to indicate that the babies belong to God’s covenant and chosen people. But in the Bible, the word also had a figurative sense referring to a person’s commitment to God. But in some parts of Africa, boys and girls do not undergo circumcision until they have reached puberty and have digested the lore and knowledge of the tribe. In this context, circumcision indicates that a person is now an adult and ready for marriage, as in one region of Cameroon where missionaries had scored little success. But when the missionaries published the Christmas story in leaflet form, many people came to them and said, “Why didn’t you tell us this story before? We would have accepted him as Lord long ago if we had known

A New Approach

35

how remarkable he was, being ready for marriage when he was only a week old.” Some problems stemmed from the structure of the target languages. Greek or English make it easy to say “God is love.” But in languages such as Mazatec in Mexico, a concept such as “love” must be expressed as a verb. So translators must provide something such as “God loves people.” During his field work with translators Nida encountered these and many other problems, and he began to develop practical techniques to deal with them effectively. No examiner in New York or London would have discovered these problems, much less been able to help translators arrive at solutions. For example, it was only as Nida discussed with local informants their physical environment and the realm of spiritual things that he could check to see if translators had made good choices for “God,” “Holy Spirit,” and “devil.” Only close collaboration in the field allowed him to see if translators had appropriately rendered idioms and figurative language into the target language.3 Publications Nida entitled his first major translation publication Bible Translating: An Analysis of Principles and Procedures, with Special Reference to Aboriginal Languages. The book appeared as an ABS imprint in 1947 some fifteen years after the 1932 publication of ABS’s A Guide for Translators, Revisers, and Editors Working in Connection with the American Bible Society. This 1932 Guide arose directly out of North’s experience with the Valiente Gospel of John in 1931 and (with BFBS permission) drew on the Rules of the British and Foreign Bible Society. In the preface to his own book, Nida pointed out that whereas the 1932 Guide gave very clear principles to follow in translation, he had found “that the bare statement of the principles has not always proven an adequate help for the translator. Some supplementary and illustrative material drawn from the experience of other translators has been continually requested” (Nida 1947: 1). In addition, Nida wanted to bring in more anthropological data, which he felt was crucial for quality translation. He went on to say that all the

3. As a consultant in Nigeria, the author carried responsibility for a project that had been checked by manuscript examiners at the BFBS. As he and the translators went through the questions the examiners had asked, they found numerous examples of important questions that had not been asked, and many that they had asked but which had the effect of pushing the translators toward a formal equivalence. For example, the expression the translators had used for “kingdom of heaven” in the Gospel of Matthew referred to some territory in the sky. This expression met with approval from the examiners, but readers had no real idea what it might refer to. As the issue was discussed, the translators arrived at a rendering more like “God’s ruling/reign.”

36


discussions were based “upon data which could be personally investigated or adequately documented.” He included material from the files of the ABS, experiences from his colleagues in SIL, and his own field experiences in checking translations. In the book he also asked missionary translators and linguists from all parts of the world to send him supplementary information. Bible Translating did not offer a technique for analyzing a text to be translated nor did it offer a technique for actually doing the translation. Apart from discussing the size of a committee, the kinds of reviewers needed, and other such matters, it offered a “collection of hints and suggestions” (North 1974: xii). More significantly, it did provide four important guidelines. First, it focused on the concept of translating with the “closest equivalent.” On the one hand, literal translations did not exhibit greater faithfulness, Nida stated, but rather distorted the facts of a language and the meaning of a text. On the other hand, translating only an idea risks a too interpretive rendering, even though idea-translating tries to convey the true meaning of a text. To avoid these extremes successfully, Nida proposed as a middle ground a translation based on the closest equivalents in the source and target languages (Nida 1947: 12). Second, Nida provided translators with hundreds of examples of translation problems and their solutions, collected from a wide variety of non-European languages. Third, Nida introduced translators to many features of communication and language that linguists had begun to describe more systematically. Nida pointed out that “natives” easily misunderstood or failed to understand a translation with linguistic forms that were for them unnatural, as is the case with a literal translation. On the other hand, rendering “I am the bread of life” with “I am the true life” or translating “transfigured” with “made different by holiness” was too interpretive to be acceptable. Thus, throughout the book he argues for a principle whereby there is “recognition by the native bilingual person of the translation as being the closest ‘natural’ equivalent to the statement of the text.” The translation “should be in the natural form of expression of the people. At the same time it must be the closest equivalent to the (source) text” (Nida 1947: 13). Although not yet a full-fledged theory of communication, this approach certainly helped to produce translations that partially broke away from the restraints of literalism while still giving primacy to the form of an original text. Fourth, and from a very practical point of view, the most important contribution of Bible Translating lay in a very detailed discussion of lexical problems in translation. In five chapters, Nida examined terms that relate to the human form, to the natural environment, to material culture,

A New Approach

37

and to social and religious culture. A sixth chapter dealt with problems of linguistic equivalence. In each chapter, Nida examined terms as they were understood in a source text and culture and as related terms might be understood in the target languages with which he had some experience. For example, he describes a biblical Hebrew term that meant the center of deep emotion and that is sometimes rendered “bowels” in English translations. This English term means the interior of the trunk of the body, and from it we get the expression “bowels of mercy.” But “bowels of mercy” has no meaning in modern English and in fact could be offensive to some. A more likely translation would be “a compassionate heart.” Nida also gave examples from other languages where other parts of the body, for example the spleen or liver, form the center of emotion. Translators should attempt to find the natural equivalent in each language in each context. Nida wanted to make sure that translators considered anthropological data. In many cases, he recognized that proposing radical changes to established procedures would meet with opposition. So he continued to give support to some projects that were doing quite literal work because he knew that when the translation team completed that task it would be open to a different kind of project. For these reasons he supported the Almeida translation of the Portuguese Bible in Brazil in the 1950s so that later they would be able to do other kinds of work. For his part, Nida continued to develop a theory of communication that would support solid translation practice. A major effort in this direction was a 1959 article, “Principles of Translation as Exemplified by Bible Translating,” published in On Translation, edited by Reuben A. Brower. Here Nida described four underlying principles of Bible translating and put forward an ethnolinguistic model of communication that allowed him to suggest a definition for translation. The principles helped explain the arbitrariness with which humans use language to organize and segment experience. Nida wished to point out that no translation can give an exact equivalent for the way a source language models human experience. Some information is always lost, some added, and some skewed. Communication takes place in a cultural context, Nida stated. But even within a single culture, the experiences of a person who gives a source message will differ from the experience of a person who receives the message. The receptor will not have exactly the same understanding of a message as the sender. But both the sender and receptor usually recognize this gap and make adjustments to their grids of understanding so as to make communication more effective (Nida 1959: 13, 15). In very simple translation, for example, translation done by a bilingual translator, the receptor of the original message now becomes the source of the message in the target language. This message, of course, is shaped by

38


the cultural context of the second or target language. In Bible translation done by a missionary, the situation is more complex. The translator understands the message of the original ancient language in terms of his own cultural and linguistic context, already a second language, and then attempts to communicate this in a third language, the target language, where again the message is, in part, shaped by the context and culture (Nida 1959: 16, 17). According to Nida, the definition of translation depends on what a translator wants to achieve. However, for Bible translation, since “the purpose is not to communicate certain esoteric information about a different culture, but to so communicate that the receptor in the target language may be able to respond to the message of the translation in ways substantially similar to those in which the receptor of the original message responded to that message.” Thus “translating consists in producing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent to the message of the source language, first in meaning and secondly in style” (Nida 1959: 19). In “Principles of Translating” Nida repeated some of the examples in Bible Translating that examined problems of equivalence between forms of different languages. He pointed out in both publications that “the most frequent mistakes result from a failure to make adequate syntactic adjustments in the transference of a message from one language to another.” He recognized that absolute communication is impossible, but that close approximations to the standard of natural equivalence can be achieved if the translations are sufficiently sensitive to the different syntactic structures and “result from clear insights into cultural diversities” (Nida 1959: 31). “Principles” played a key role in the establishment of modern translation studies. For example, Simon describes how the article is given credit “for plucking translation from its waning association with literature and putting it on a level footing with the social sciences” (Simon 1990: 112, author’s translation). Nida’s influence on translation studies stems from his translation principles that apply generally to all and any translating; they are not specific to Bible translating. But more importantly, Simon believes, was Nida’s reliance on linguistics rather than philology. Translation could now be understood as a type of communication (ibid: 113). Although the beginnings4 of a theoretical basis for translation now lay at hand, a fuller development of the theory required more time. At this point, neither Nida nor anyone else had developed a practical method for approaching the work. Translators in the field still did not have a procedural tool for translating.

4. See chapter 9.

A New Approach

39

In a 1952 article, “A New Methodology of Biblical Exegesis,” published in The Bible Translator, Nida raised a number of questions on the relation between the grammatical and lexical forms of a language and its underlying semantic elements and relations. This article appeared five years before Noam Chomsky published Syntactic Structures (1957), the work that is generally credited with having opened the door for meaningful discussion of these very issues. Chomsky’s approach, known initially as transformational grammar and later as generative grammar, introduced the twin concepts of deep structure and surface structure, which Nida believed to be of great value for a translator. Chomsky’s approach to semantic analysis differed substantially from Bloomfieldian structuralist linguistics. Instead of starting with the minimal sounds of a language, Chomsky began with the basic primitive sentence. His approach generated the innumerable sentences of a language by means of a series of rules. For example, the basic sentence “John saw Mary” is transformed by a passive rule to “Mary was seen by John.” The sentence structure (the form) of these two utterances is different but their meaning is essentially the same. Chomsky argued that every intelligible sentence in a language conforms, on the one hand, to the grammatical rules that are particular to each language and, on the other, to a deep structure that represents a universal grammar. This universal grammar underlies all languages and corresponds to an innate capacity of the human brain. Thus, the grammar and vocabulary in a sentence or text constitute the surface structure, but underlying this surface structure are basic semantic categories and relations that are the deep structure. Charles R. Taber, with whom Nida wrote The Theory and Practice of Translation, suggests that Nida, after completing his own doctoral dissertation, had begun to see the bankruptcy of the traditional American linguistic model. Using an approach called Immediate Constituent Analysis, Nida had gone to enormous lengths to try to specify all of the patterns that turn out to be surface patterns of sentences in English. But he quickly discovered that there was no end to these. Chomsky’s approach helped him conclude that the surface structure was not the only element there. At a deeper level there were semantic elements that could be better controlled than the surface forms of the language (Charles Taber, interview with author, 11 Oct. 2000). These basic semantic features underlay and actualized the surface structure, that is, the grammar and vocabulary of a language. Transformational or generative grammar also dealt with the analysis of lexical items by comparing their semantic elements with other words. This componential analysis formed another key part of Nida’s new theory of translation. Although Nida did not become a transformational grammarian himself, he found much in the initial forms of that theory useful for translation.

40


Nida constantly refined his approach. People who attended some of his workshops in the 1960s recount how he would give a lecture one day, think about it that night, and then tell them the next morning to ignore what he had said the day before. He gladly listened to criticism of his ideas and readily revised materials on that basis. Few scholars have been as open to criticism as he. A New Approach Nida formulated his theory in Toward a Science of Translating (TAPOT ), published in 1964, and The Theory and Practice of Translation (TASOT ), co-authored with Taber and published in 1969. Nida once said that he spent twenty-five years on one idea, and he was swimming upstream for about twenty-three of the twenty-five (Darrell Whiteman, interview with author, 21 Sept. 2000). Some of the concepts he was trying to bring together can be seen in the earlier articles, but they reached their first full articulation in these two books.5 In Toward a Science of Translating, Nida introduced an approach he termed “dynamic equivalence.” In it he states that there are two basic approaches to translation. One is formal equivalence, “which focuses on the message itself, in both form and content.” Thus, a translator is concerned with such correspondences as poetry to poetry or sentence to sentence. Nida contrasts this approach with a second one that attempts to produce “a dynamic rather than a formal equivalence.” In dynamic equivalence, translators concern themselves less with matching a receptor language message with a source language message and more with creating a dynamic relationship “between receptor and message [that] should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message” (Nida 1964: 159). The terms “source,” “message,” and “receptor” all make totally explicit Nida’s starting assumption: translation is a form of communication. His communication model in its simplest form describes how a message requires a source, a content or meaning, and a receptor. In translation, a translator can function both as a receptor of a source language message and a source in a target language. And indeed, the diagrams in Toward a Science of Translating illustrate this point (see 121, 147). But Nida points out how much more is actually involved, especially since interpersonal communication takes place in a sociolinguistic, historical, and cultural context. The meaning of the message and the way the receptor responds to the message are shaped by these factors.

5. Jan de Waard and Nida (1986) continued to develop this approach.

A New Approach

41

Nida’s theory and model have received criticism on several grounds, and one is worth noting here. The theory and model assume that language provides an instrument for communicating meaning. Reddy coined the term “the conduit metaphor” for this approach (Reddy 1979). He says that, in Nida’s communication model, language seems to function like a conduit through which thoughts are transferred from one person to another. Meaning is thereby reduced to objects that can be transferred and studied. Certainly this view of language overlooks what most scholars today see as the very complicated factors in the creation of meaning, such as sociolinguistic, cultural, and institutional environments. Nida later looked to semiotics, the study of signs and how signs make meaning in a particular context, to define further how texts and objects take on meaning. He articulated this in a 1976 article, “A Framework for the Analysis and Evaluation of Theories of Translation.” He states, “Because translating always involves communication within the context of interpersonal relations, the model for such activity must be a communication model, and the principles must be primarily sociolinguistic in the broad sense of the term. As such, translating becomes a part of the even broader field of anthropological semiotics” (Nida 1976: 78). His 1984 Signs, Sense, and Translation further incorporated semiotics concepts into his basic approach to meaning, as did From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating, co-authored with Jan de Waard in 1986. Although Nida significantly altered the basic source-message-receptor model, he continued to view translation as communication. Nida’s theory and model of translation relied on several related assumptions. First, all languages have equal value. Every language can communicate everything in the experience of the speakers. “Each language has its own genius. That is to say, each language possesses certain distinctive characteristics which give it a special character” (Nida and Taber 1969: 3–4). To translate effectively, the translator must respect the genius of each language. Second, Nida assumes that “anything that can be said in one language can be said in another, unless the form is an essential element of the message” (4). A broad commonality exists across all human experience that makes communication possible across languages, although “to preserve the content of the message the form must be changed” (5). Third, Nida’s model assumes that “the languages of the Bible are subject to the same limitations as any other natural language” (7). There is nothing sacred or special about Greek and Hebrew; they are human languages like any others and subject to the same rules and limitations. Nida chose the term “dynamic equivalence” to shock people. He felt the term emphasized the role of context and also the molecular meaning of groups of words in phrases or idioms (Eugene A. Nida, pers. comm.).

42


In Toward a Science of Translating he explains that a dynamic equivalence translation “aims at complete naturalness of expression, and tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture; it does not insist that he understand the cultural patterns of the source language context in order to comprehend the message” (Nida 1964: 159). Such a translation aims at “the closest natural equivalent” to the source language message. Each of the words in this statement is important. The translation should provide as much as possible a message that is equivalent to the source language message. The expression of the message should fit naturally into the receptor language. Nida understood “natural fit” to mean that a message should conform to the receptor language and culture, the target context of the message, and the receptor language audience. Finally, given various options, and keeping in mind both “equivalence” and “naturalness,” a translator should choose the form that stays closest to the form of the original. Theory and Practice of Translation refines and somewhat modifies the theory of Toward a Science of Translating and definitely simplifies the theory and model of communication for readers. More important, it presents a practical way that translators in the field can approach their work and achieve “the closest natural equivalent.” Nida and Taber present a three-stage process. They point out that translators who try to go directly from a source language text to a translation are bound to change, add to, or lose some of the meaning of the original. But by following the three steps, these problems can be avoided. The first step, analysis, breaks down the surface structure of the source language text into grammatical relationships and meanings of single words and combinations of words. The second step, transfer, moves the analyzed material from a source language to a receptor language, while the third stage, restructuring, recombines this material in order to make the final text acceptable and natural sounding in the receptor language. For Theory and Practice of Translation, grammatical analysis means that translators express the meaning of a text in a series of short kernel sentences, a term from Chomsky’s transformational grammar. These kernels represent basic structures or units of meaning that all languages use to construct their surface structures. Kernels form part of the deep structure of a sentence. Essentially, Theory and Practice of Translation taught translators how to look behind the grammatical forms of utterances to the underlying semantic categories. Genitive constructions using the preposition “of” offer a good example. The phrase “the will of God” (surface structure) refers in its deep structure to God willing something: B (God) does A (wills). The phrase “the book of Moses” means “the book Moses wrote”; that is, B

A New Approach

43

(Moses) does X (wrote) A (the book). Similarly, “baptism of repentance” means “people have someone baptize them to show that they have repented”; that is, X (someone not specified) does A (baptizes) to Y (someone else not specified) as a sign that Y does B (repents). Although the three genitive constructions look alike in their surface structure (use of preposition “of”), they do not represent similar semantic relations in the deep structure. These differences show up in the three different kernel sentences that express the meaning. To analyze the meaning of words, that is, their referential meaning, Theory and Practice of Translation relies on a method called componential analysis. This method describes the meanings of words by pointing to the absence or presence of a number of components of meaning, so that the linguist can describe clearly the differences between words that are related in meaning. The distinctive features or components are ascertained by comparing related words. Thus a word such as “remorse” has features [+ prior bad behavior] and [+ subsequent sorrow], but [- change in behavior]; the features of “conversion” include [+ prior bad behavior] and [+ change in behavior], but [- sorrow]; however, in the Bible the word “repentance” has components of [+ prior bad behavior], [+ sorrow], and [+ change of behavior]. In this way, the semantic components show the difference in meaning of these related words. “Remorse” refers to sorrow for past bad behavior, but does not indicate any change in behavior. “Conversion” refers to a change in behavior, but does not indicate sorrow for the past. In the Bible, however, the word “repentance” describes sorrow for past bad behavior and a resulting change. Metaphors and similes are broken down into three components: objects of comparison, which are compared to some image of comparison, and a basis or ground of comparison. Not all of these features are necessarily explicit in either the source or receptor language texts. In the expression “All ye like sheep have gone astray,” the object of comparison is “all ye,” the image of comparison is “sheep,” and the basis for the comparison is “gone astray.” But in “faith as a grain of mustard seed,” while “faith” is the object of comparison and “grain of mustard seed” is the image of the comparison, the basis for the comparison is not given. Translators, when analyzing the expression, may decide to give it their own basis of comparison, and indeed, some translations have “faith as small as a grain of mustard seed” or “faith that can grow like a mustard seed.”6

6. Most of the examples in this section are drawn from the published and unpublished material of many translation consultants, including the author’s. The examples all rely on the dynamic equivalence approach.

44


Componential analysis includes connotative elements, that is, the emotive content of words. For example, in John 2:4 Jesus addresses his mother with the Greek word gynai. A literal English translation “woman” might sound like Jesus was being rude toward his mother, or at least very cold. However, the Greek does not carry that connotation, so the New English Bible translators rendered it as “Mother.” Once translators have broken down a text into these units of meaning, they transfer the units to a receptor language, that is, they now express all these units with kernel sentences or components in the receptor language. What is most striking at the transfer stage is the emphasis on preserving the content of the message at the expense of the form of the message. Idioms, for example, often turn into non-idioms or to new idioms. “To gird up the loins of the mind” may need to become “to get ready in one’s thinking.” Even a non-idiomatic word such as “faith” is quite often conveyed with an idiomatic expression in a receptor language. In Tzeltal, “faith” becomes “to hang on to God with the heart.” On the other hand, figurative language can end up nonfigurative in the transfer stage, and generic terms often shift to specific ones, and vice versa. For example, “Greet the brothers with a holy kiss,” a specific form, might become a generic one, as in “Warm greetings to all the believers.” In translating “Philip was the brother of Herod,” a word as simple as “brother” amounts to a problem in languages that identify only older siblings and younger siblings. Translators must specify whether Herod or Philip was the elder. “Denarius,” on the other hand, is often translated simply as a “kind of money.” Only after translators have expressed all the semantic units in a receptor language do they try to structure these units into a text that is natural to the receptor language. Since all the units of meaning have been transferred, including the emotive and cultural, the restructured text will be equivalent in meaning and will be expressed naturally. To restructure the meaning in a receptor language, translators need to understand the varieties of language and levels of language in both the source and receptor cultures so that the final text is as close as possible to the original in the way it affects the readers. Finding the right style and genre is particularly difficult. For example, while poetry is a very prominent feature of the Old Testament, poetry in modern English is not commonly read and is not a major medium of communication. In fact, to convey weighty theological ideas through poetry would be considered laughable by many, and certainly would not reach most readers. Very commonly, then, poetry is translated as prose, although it may be printed in poetic lines. A feature of the Gbaya language of Cameroon illustrates another common restructuring problem in Africa (see Noss 1981). There are three

A New Approach

45

types of oral discourse in Gbaya. One, called nyere mo, refers to history. It describes everyday life and expression, what a person remembers, possibly even things as far back as his grandfather, but no further. A second, called to, is the tale. It transmits narratives, for instance, myths and folktales. Stories about the great heroes of long ago are used for teaching about eternal truths and what is always relevant. The third type is lizang, the parable. With this form, Gbaya speakers apply past experiences or tales from times of old to current situations. Each of these types of discourse has its own linguistic forms, its own special use of verb forms, action words, and types of descriptive phrases. Parables in the Bible can use the lizang form, but the other Gbaya forms pose more of a problem. For the Gbaya, what is “true” in a Western sense, that is, events that actually occurred in time, only relates to nyere mo and can only refer to recent events. Things that have lasting value are the teachings of to, the myths. Translators must decide whether to treat Genesis, for example, as nyere mo, as something that actually happened (and therefore something that would be perceived as irrelevant by the Gbaya), or as to, myth, and therefore “true” and relevant for the Gbaya. Obviously different styles and forms of language affect the meaning of the text quite significantly. Some Priorities Nida’s dynamic equivalence translation recommends a series of priorities (Nida 1969: 14–52): ✦

✦

✦

✦

Contextual consistency takes priority over verbal consistency, so that a Greek word such as sarx “flesh” may in various contexts be rendered as “flesh,” “body,” “human nature,” “ethnic group,” and “human beings.” Dynamic or functional equivalence has priority over formal equivalence. The meaning derived from the function of a form is more important for the translator than the form itself. Language as it is heard when read aloud takes priority over written language, so that features such as punctuation and capitalization are never used to disambiguate. The needs of the audience take priority over the actual forms of the language, so that if the audience is one not initiated into religious jargon, then theological terminology is avoided as much as possible. Many word forms may have prestige in church tradition, but if a contemporary audience does not understand them they need to be avoided in the translation.

46


Sociolinguistics and Dynamic Equivalence Most translations prepared under this method also aim at using popular language. “Popular language” has been defined by William Wonderly as “the contemporary language in a form that is shared by the entire population that speaks it.” It is used primarily for languages with “little specialization along social, occupational, and literary lines” (Wonderly 1968: 3). Such situations occur in languages where most speakers share a common cultural heritage and where the language has not been used in higher education, with the result that there has not developed a wide difference in “educated” and “uneducated” styles. Most languages without written literary traditions would be included. Another related strategy uses common language. Such translations also try to reach as wide a segment of the population as possible, but in these languages there are important differences in speech within the culture, for example, between social classes or between the more highly educated and those with less schooling. Examples are English, Japanese, Hindi, Russian, and Spanish. There are also differences between the language of older people and youth, but still older people and youth share a common vocabulary and syntax. There are differences between dialect areas, but, again, there is common ground that these dialects share. Thus common language translations do not use the full resources of the language but limit themselves to language forms that are widely understood. Although, in the view of many translators and consultants, dynamic equivalent translations and common language translations are almost synonymous, these two approaches are in one sense incompatible. Dynamic equivalence calls for translators to use the full resources of a target language. The translation cannot be completely natural otherwise. But a common language translation, by definition, is limited in its scope. Thus, a common language translation cannot in practice be fully dynamically equivalent. Solving Lexical Problems Producing translations that are understandable, yet also accurate and faithful to the original, often presents a wide variety of problems. One immediate problem that translators face is how to handle biblical terms that are unfamiliar to a target culture. How can one say “wheat” in an area where wheat does not grow? How about “figs” or “bread” or “camels”? Should the translators substitute some local terms and render “wheat” as “maize,” “figs” as “mangoes,” “bread” as “rice” or “yams,” and “camels” as “cows”? Should “denarius” be rendered as “dollar” or “pound” or “franc”? Obviously, translators must adapt a biblical text to a target language and culture since they want readers to understand the Bible. Still, they also

A New Approach

47

feel that a translation should not sound as if the events took place recently in the reader’s own context. So if “wheat” is not known, translators might use a word such as “grain.” “Figs” might be compared to a local fruit in an expression such as “a fruit like X called ‘fig.’” “Bread” in some contexts can be rendered as “food,” while “camels” might be translated as “large beasts of burden.” In addition, since money values change rapidly, a “denarius” can often be called “a kind of money (or, coin) called a denarius,” or “money worth a laborer’s daily wage.” Certain key theological terms of the Bible present particularly difficult challenges. A common problem concerns the terms for “devil” and “God” and other spirit powers and forces. Translators in the Yala language area in southeastern Nigeria were shocked to hear local people say that they would never be able to be Christians because Christians wanted them to give up the devil, and the devil was much too important to give up. The problem was not that the people were devil worshipers of any kind but rather that the wrong term for devil had been used in translation. The translators then investigated all the Yala terms related to spirit and other forces. They uncovered many different terms in this general area of meaning, but none of them corresponded exactly to the biblical concept of the devil. One of the important Yala spirits, Yapliija, was the force behind all the shrines where people worshiped. This spirit also gave power to the fetishes they used; it could do mischief, cause diseases, and even kill. This was the term that the translators had chosen for “devil.” But Yapliija could also do a great deal of good, including causing women and fields to be fertile, and protecting young children and mothers. No wonder he was too important to give up! So the translators had to find an alternative way to render “devil.” They eventually chose yapliija odwobi, bad yapliija for “demon” or “devil,” and translated “the devil” as the leader of these bad spirits. There are many similar problems. How should a language distinguish between “prophet,” “angel,” “apostle,” and “messenger”? Many old translations rendered “prophet” as “future teller,” but borrowed the words “apostle” and “angel” from Latin or Greek, as English has done. But in the case of “prophet” the translation would be wrong, and for the two others the meaning would be nonexistent, so that in both cases there is a failure to translate. It would be better to consider a “prophet” as a “spokesperson for God,” an “angel” as a “messenger from God,” and an “apostle” as “someone who is sent with a particular commission.” Syntactic Issues Many problems stem from differences between the syntax of the source languages and the receptor languages. The Bible very often uses the passive construction to avoid using the name for God, as in “Your sins

48


are forgiven” or “Judge not that you be not judged.” Many West African languages do not have a passive voice and must supply an agent and an active verb. Other languages, such as Thai, have a passive voice but usually reserve its use for negative events as in “I was beaten” (but not for “I was rewarded”). Translators, then, are forced by the target language to supply an agent. In the case of the act of “judging” it is clear in the biblical context that it is God who judges, so that it would be acceptable to say, “Don’t judge other people so that God will not judge you.” However, in the story in Mark 2 where Jesus tells the paralytic “Your sins are forgiven,” the problem is more delicate. If translators have Jesus say what is perhaps theologically correct, “God forgives your sins,” it may not account for the negative reaction of the scribes who were sitting there. They felt that Jesus was blaspheming. However, if a translation says, “I forgive your sins,” it would have Jesus making a claim for the authority to do something that only God could do. Some translators have solved this by saying “I tell you God has forgiven your sins,” so that Jesus is still claiming the type of authority that accounts for the reaction of the scribes. Each language uses direct and indirect speech in different ways. In some languages one can say “Jesus said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life,’” but in other languages indirect speech would be more natural: “Jesus said that he was the way, the truth, and the life.” Yet linguists and theologians alike might feel that indirect speech causes Jesus’ claim to lose some of its force. So translators must then look carefully at the target language to find a solution that is natural and yet captures the force and impact of what Jesus is claiming, as in “Jesus claimed that he himself, he is the way, he is the truth, and he is the life.” Discourse Issues Other problems arise because languages differ in their discourse structure, constructing their narratives and expositions and descriptions in a variety of ways. Failure to understand these differences can produce translations that not only sound strange, but possibly also give a wrong meaning. Theory and Practice of Translation did not address this type of problem in great detail, but its basic approach allowed for it. In fact, its emphasis on naturalness makes discourse analysis as crucial to the success of a translation as analysis at the lexical and grammatical levels. Almost simultaneously with the publication of Theory and Practice of Translation, William Smalley, a close colleague of Nida, began to address discourse issues in workshops and in training translators. Discourse issues cover a very wide range of problems. The Fulfulde language in Cameroon uses different sets of pronouns depending on whether participants in the story stand in the foreground and thus in focus,

A New Approach

49

or form part of the background. This distinction is one that can even elude Bible translators. For example, one careful analysis of the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 focused on its discourse structure and use of pronouns. The analysis revealed that a certain translation of the parable had mixed sets of pronouns. Readers could not tell whether the father or one of the sons was in focus at any one place in the parable. Problems with a missionary translation prepared in the Bwamu language in Burkina Faso many years ago serve to illustrate several types of issues that arise if discourse is not studied carefully. When local church leaders approached a UBS consultant about the need for a translation in their language (see ch. 1), they collected and examined together the earlier unpublished drafts containing translations of almost all the New Testament writings (except for 1 and 2 Peter, which had been eaten by termites). Although the translation was a grammatically correct rendering of the Greek text at the sentence level, it was unintelligible to speakers of Bwamu. After testing the drafts, that translation of the New Testament was never published (Stine 1980). There were primarily four reasons for this lack of intelligibility, all having to do with differences in discourse structure between Bwamu and the Greek of the New Testament. In Bwamu, for example, it is common to maintain cohesion in a text by repeating certain verbs. A narration might read something like this: “The man decided to go to the next village. After he decided, he went on the road until he arrived at the village. After he arrived at the village. . . . ” Because such repetition does not figure in Greek discourse structure, the translator had not used it. Bwamu readers, deprived of the expected repetitions, found the translation unnatural. A second problem had to do with sequence of tense. Essentially, Bwamu establishes the tense for a narration in the first sentence. After that, an unmarked or narrative tense form is used throughout. But the translator relied on the tense forms of the Greek text, and the result was incomprehensible. Flashback was a third problem because it is a technique used differently in the Greek New Testament and in Bwamu. New Testament instances of flashback are better rendered in Bwamu by reordering the passage so as to have a more chronological sequence. Finally, Bwamu handles reported speech differently from the Greek. In fact, direct speech is quite unusual in Bwamu, being used only to give a heightened emotional content, usually negative, to a particular statement. And the use of the first person pronoun “I” in such cases is normally interpreted not to refer to the speaker in the text, but to the person who is reading aloud, or possibly to the translator! “Jesus said ‘I am the light of the world’” would not mean in Bwamu that Jesus is the light of the world, but that the translator or the reader is.

50


Cultural Issues Insensitivity to the very different ways that cultures interpret things that are said and done puts up the greatest barrier to producing translations that are understandable. For example, after Job is severely afflicted almost to the point of death, he laments his unfortunate life (Job 3:1–9). However, cultures such as the Tonga in Central Africa, where the causes of such woes would normally lie with some evil spirit or spirits, would not understand Job’s behavior. The Tonga would wonder why Job did not make supplication to his ancestral spirits, and why his whole family did not join him in this supplication, for the family’s role would be important in Tonga society. Instead Job asks why his parents brought him into this world, for which his wife rebukes him. As a result of this “odd” behavior, readers in Tonga would decide that someone, maybe even his wife, had bewitched Job (Wendland 1990: 112–19). Translators cannot change a story, of course, but they must realize how readers will understand a passage and consider what can be done to avoid it being misunderstood. They can carefully select vocabulary (for example, avoiding expressions in this account that would seem to insult Job’s mother), or provide cultural notes for readers. Another example comes from Thai Buddhist culture where correct behavior is believed to lead to a series of reincarnations. The assurance of life eternal in a verse such as John 3:16 (“so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life”) is seen as a condemnation. Translators must look for a rendering that puts the emphasis on the quality of new life, not on its unending nature. Even simple terms can pose complex problems. If the only meaning that is represented by the word “cross” is “crucifix,” then Jesus’ call to take up one’s cross, meaning “being prepared to die,” might be misunderstood. And if a language understands “to have a hard heart” to mean “to be courageous” or possibly “to lack compassion,” then people may not understand that in the Bible people with hard hearts are stubborn. Significance of the Approach With the publication of Theory and Practice of Translating, Bible translators now had a method to follow in their work. They could approach the biblical text and express the meaning in units that had some universality to them, that is, they could transfer this meaning into similar units in the target language, and then restructure these into a meaningful text. Translators from a very wide range of educational backgrounds could learn this method and put it into practice. It opened up the possibility (and later the necessity) for native speakers to work in their own languages to a degree that had not before been possible or even considered. It resulted in translations that were more easily understood than in the past. Without

A New Approach

51

question, it had the effect of giving millions of people in hundreds of languages access to the biblical message in an unprecedented way. The dynamic equivalence approach had the great merit of simultaneously providing naturalness as well as a measure of fidelity, which a formal equivalence translation cannot do. Dynamic equivalence would not, for example, produce a version such as the Living Bible. This version aimed (and succeeded) at readability as well as sounding natural and colloquial, but it frequently distorted the sense of the original text because it had been paraphrased from an English translation and had not been exegetically anchored in the Greek and Hebrew texts. The method presented in Theory and Practice of Translation required both naturalness and exegetical rigor. Charles Taber speculates that without Nida’s approach Bible translations today would take one of two routes. There would be those that insist on being “scholarly,” meaning formal and literal and others that would read more like the Living Bible, very idiomatic but irresponsible exegetically. He adds, “I suspect that the development of Nida’s ideas is influential in bringing about a thing like the New Living Translation (NLT) where this new Bible is not just the way it was when Ken Taylor did it at his kitchen table, but a fairly responsible piece of work. That probably would not have happened if it hadn’t been for Nida’s ideas” (Charles Taber, interview with author, 21 Oct. 2000).7 Nida later felt that the term “dynamic equivalence” had been misunderstood and was partly responsible for translations like the Living Bible. Some translators used the term “dynamic” to refer to translations that had impact and appeal. But since he had in fact defined “dynamic equivalence” in terms of “functional equivalence,” he began to use this latter term instead. “Functional equivalence” was introduced in From One Language to Another, co-authored with Jan de Waard (1986: 36). Characteristics of the Approach Critics frequently overlook three features of Nida’s approach. Each of these features deserves mention. First, proposing that a translation should be as natural as possible argues against translations sounding like translated literature and being perceived as somehow foreign. The translator should, in a sense, be “invisible.”8 In short, a translation should read like a

7. Kenneth Tayor prepared the Living Bible as a translation he could read to his grandchildren. Although highly readable, it was criticized by many scholars for its exegetical lapses. The publishers subsequently had a number of biblical scholars re-work the material to correct this problem, and released it as the New Living Bible. 8. See Venuti 1995 for recent discussion of this point.

52


text written originally in a target language. Nida decries what he calls “translationese,” insisting that translators make every effort to render the meaning of a source text in a way that a writer or speaker of the target language might write or say it. The Cebaara New Testament described earlier would be an example. The translation is therefore not a museum of the unfamiliar but a living text. The second feature is the focus on receptors. Translators need to have a good understanding of the culture and the literary background of their readers. As a result, Nida placed a great deal of emphasis on anthropological and cultural studies. He and his colleagues founded the journal Practical Anthropology, and he wrote Customs and Cultures precisely to sensitize missionaries and translators to the need for understanding the connection between cultural issues, effective communication, and even more importantly, faithful translation. Translators could not hope for a response in their readers that was as similar as possible to that of the original receptors if they were not very aware of the target culture and context. A third feature is related to the first two. In any given language there are bound to be receptors with different experiences and different understandings. In Theory and Practice of Translation Nida and Taber therefore proposed that more than one translation (they suggest three as a minimum) might be needed in each major language (Nida and Taber 1969: 31). Native Speaker Translators Inevitably, this approach helped native speakers assume responsibility for translating in the target languages. As native speakers they would understand how something could or would be understood in their language and culture, and they would be better able than a nonnative speaker to render the meaning naturally. So even though Nida began his work with the ABS by training missionaries, by the 1980s the Bible Societies had taken an official position to only publish translations drafted by native speakers, even though in many cases there was still a great reliance on expatriates for exegetical and organizational assistance. Hesitations Within the Bible Societies Dynamic or functional equivalence did not please everyone involved with Bible translation. In fact, some translators, scholars, and Bible Society staff showed dismay because they felt a focus on receptors came at the expense of the actual forms of the Bible. They argued, too, that often the forms did more than render meaning or content. They criticized Theory and Practice of Translation and many other writings by Nida where he had faulted concordant translations, that is, translations that consistently translate a Greek or Hebrew word by a single word in the receptor language, regardless of what the Greek or Hebrew word actually refers to in a

A New Approach

53

A Khoisan speaker in South West Africa (now Namibia) demonstrates for Nida how to pronounce a word in his native language. Nida was instrumental in establishing the practice of using local peoples rather than expatriate missionaries as the primary translators when preparing Bible translations. These indigenous people were supported by translation consultants, experts in the biblical languages and the science of linguistics. Beginning in the 1970s, the Bible Societies practice was to publish only translations drafted by native speakers. Thus the old pattern of expatriate translators working with native informants shifted to native translators working with expatriate assistance. © American Bible Society.

particular context. For example, some concordant translations would render the Hebrew word for “know” or “knowledge” with the same target language word everywhere. But with such a concordant translation, many readers will not realize that the text “Adam knew his wife Eve” in Genesis refers to sexual relations. So Theory and Practice of Translation encouraged translators to use an expression that makes such differences clear and to use “know” or “knowledge” only where the Hebrew actually refers to knowing. Thus “know” can have several renderings in a target language. For their part, these critics point out that the Hebrew word for “know” is used a number of times in the opening chapters of Genesis and serves to

54


help tie the chapters together. This discourse marker is thus lost in the nonconcordant translations that an approach following Theory and Practice of Translation produces. Others challenged Nida’s approach for precisely the opposite reason, believing that the focus on the closest natural equivalent tended to produce literal translations and noting that some translators chose the closest form even when it did not have the same function in the source language that it had in the receptor language. Norm Mundhenk points to Nida’s experiences with some of the SIL translators he had worked with in Mexico who attempted to make explicit too much of the implicit content of the source text. To counteract this tendency toward “overexplication,” Nida used the term “closest” (Norm Mundhenk, interview with author, 30 June 2000). Yet other critics felt that it was impossible to measure the response of the original receptors. How then could one speak of an equivalent response coming from a translation’s audience? This is probably a valid query. A final major criticism ties in with the understanding of language that underlies dynamic equivalence. Using Nida’s approach, language functions essentially as a vehicle for carrying meaning. But many argue that language is much more complex than that. Crisis at the British and Foreign Bible Society The British and Foreign Bible Society particularly resisted Nida’s approach since they had long held a policy of keeping the focus on the biblical form (a position Nida himself had supported in his earlier work). BFBS scholars, including the Reverend Wilfred Bradnock and the Reverend Harold Moulton reacted strongly to Nida’s insistence that a focus on form often had the effect of distorting the meaning and that it was in fact the meaning that should be paramount. Bradnock argued that translations based on a dynamic equivalence approach were interpretative. Nida pointed out that a formal equivalence translation was also interpretative since it gave sanctity to the words rather than the message, itself a theological statement. In 1957, after the Suez crisis of the previous year, the BFBS found itself in financial straits. Out of funds, they had to stop printing Bibles and so appealed to the ABS for assistance. They needed to borrow about £80,000. ABS took this moment as an opportunity to discuss frankly some difficulties in coordinating work. In a number of countries, both Societies had established projects of some sort, and the duplication had proven both costly and often counter-productive. In other countries, including some in Africa, Nida and his teams were receiving requests, including some from American missionaries, to help translators in countries that the BFBS felt were its responsibility. At this time, the only African country where BFBS

A New Approach

55

acknowledged that ABS had responsibility was Liberia, even though ABS had given assistance to translators in several other countries where missionaries or churches had sought their help. For example, the first manuscript that Nida examined after joining ABS came from Gabon, and the ABS also published the Zulu Bible. All the rest were under BFBS, although it had requested the Netherlands Bible Society to work in Cameroon on their behalf. A year or two earlier, Laton Holmgren, the Secretary at ABS with responsibility for programs, had visited Bible Society projects in a number of countries worldwide. He had, after advising BFBS of his plans, spent time in several countries in Africa where American missionaries had asked ABS for Scriptures or were involved in translation. Holmgren then stopped in London to report to BFBS on his trip. At one point he said to W. J. Platt, the Home Secretary, “We could do so much more in Africa if we could do it together.” Platt pointed to a map of Africa, and with a sweeping gesture covering the whole continent, said, “Young man, I did not become the General Secretary of the BFBS to preside over its decline. Africa is BFBS territory, and will remain so as long as I am General Secretary” (Laton Holmgren, interview with author, Jan. 2001). When the BFBS appeal for a loan came to ABS, Robert Taylor, responsible for fundraising, said, “I can’t raise money for the BFBS. But I can raise money for Congo or for India or for Kenya.” In other words, if ABS could have more responsibility for countries such as those needy ones, then the funds would be easier to raise. According to Holmgren,Taylor, ABS Treasurer Charles Baas, and he sailed to England on the SS France, using the time on board to plan for their upcoming discussion with BFBS. The ABS delegation told BFBS that it was important to reach agreement on joint agencies or partnership in several countries. The BFBS accepted. The leaders of the two Societies also decided that the cooperation had to extend to translation, and so urged Nida (who was on his way to attend a conference in the Netherlands), and Wilfred Bradnock, the BFBS Translation Secretary, to work out a common approach to translation. The two men failed to agree. Although they tried to establish some framework for future work, fundamental differences in belief made this very difficult. BFBS continued to maintain a manuscript department in England where they checked manuscripts from the field long after the ABS had begun to rely exclusively on field consultants. Nor could the BFBS accept the dynamic equivalence approach. However, ABS did manage to expand the help it gave to translators in Africa. After these meetings, Nida suggested that Baas, Taylor, and Holmgren take responsibility for the ABS program. Holmgren was somewhat concerned that he would thereby be Nida’s supervisor, although the latter was senior to him. Nida reassured him this was not a problem. “Don’t saddle

56


me with administration,” he told Holmgren when the latter suggested that it was Nida who should be a General Secretary. “I’ve got more important things to do” (Laton Holmgren, interview with author, Jan. 2001). The BFBS opposition to dynamic equivalence resulted in its loss of exclusive rights to the British market for a revolutionary new translation. In 1966, the ABS published a New Testament, Good News for Modern Man, in the Today’s English Version. This translation had been prepared following dynamic equivalence principles, and was, in part, intended to serve as a model to translators in other languages. But because of the BFBS position on this type of translation, they declined to distribute the version in the United Kingdom, ordering twenty-five copies only. The UK rights went to a commercial publisher. Only later, under new leadership, did the BFBS adopt the dynamic equivalence principles, disband their manuscript department, and publish and promote the Today’s English Version. Worldwide sales of this New Testament and the whole Bible that appeared ten years later have now totaled almost 130 million copies. This success is due almost entirely to the fact that both native English speakers and those who speak it as a second language find that they can understand this translation easily and yet have confidence in its faithfulness to the original texts.

4. IMPLICATIONS OF DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE

The Democratic Republic of Congo is covered by savannas and vast rain forests and is drained by the extensive Congo River system. The Congo carries the second largest volume of water of any river in the world, surpassed only by the mighty Amazon. When missionaries in the nineteenth century began to develop work in the Congo, they realized that river travel provided an excellent way to evangelize the country. But they encountered a problem. After its long route from the south and east, before reaching the Atlantic in the west, the Congo flows down 250 miles of treacherous rapids. Boats that were large enough to withstand extensive river travel could not travel up river from the ocean. Baptist missionaries, however, found a solution. In 1883, they motored the steamboat Henry Reed up the river from the ocean to the beginning of the rapids, near the present port of Matadi. There, they disassembled the steamboat into small enough parts for one thousand bearers to carry it on their heads to where the river was navigable again—some 250 miles away! The boiler itself had to be rolled the entire way. The crew then reassembled the Henry Reed at Stanley Pool (named after the famed explorer who was the first Caucasian to visit the area). According to a report by a former Baptist missionary, Robert E. Smith, a metal plate commemorating the event states that the steamboat was put back on the water 24 November 1884. Shortly thereafter, a second boat, the George Grenfell, was handled in a similar fashion. In this way, the missionaries had access to the entire interior of the country. Today, boat building continues at the same location in what is now the capital city, Kinshasa. The translation process that Nida introduced is quite similar. Just as the boats would have wrecked on the rocks had anyone tried to steer them directly up the rapids, translators who try to go straight from a source language text to a target language text are bound to make damaging errors. The missionaries took the boats apart into pieces small enough to carry. The analysis stage of translation breaks a text down into manageable units of meaning that can be transferred and then expressed simply in the target language. Finally, when reassembled, the boats could

57

58


again be used on the river as they were intended. When translators take the various semantic units that they have now expressed in the target language and restructure them into a new text, they will, to a significant degree, have equivalent meaning. In Nida’s terms, the translation will evoke a response from the receptors that is close to, or the same as, the response of the original readers. Such a process makes immediate sense to most Bible translators, which accounts in part for the ease with which translators could learn Nida’s approach. If the method had been theoretically sound but involved concepts that could not be grasped easily by people new to the translation process, it probably would never have been widely used. But translators from a wide variety of educational backgrounds and from different cultures found that they could easily understand and master the basic approach. This success should not surprise us. Nida did not hold an academic post in a university and try to develop a translation theory. He did not concern himself with literary criticism as such. Rather, he wanted to find a practical way to help the hundreds of Bible translators he encountered who for the most part were working in minority languages, languages that rarely had written traditions. He knew that most translators, whether expatriates or native speakers, had little or no background in linguistics. Widespread, formal training of translators did not yet exist, and certainly few Bible translators would have had university training in translation. Nida realized there had to be a practical way for these translators to approach their work. That was his major concern. At the same time, he knew how important it was for the translations to communicate, as accurately as possible, the information of the Hebrew and Greek source texts. And equally important was the result: clear and understandable translations in the target languages. Recently, scholars have raised questions about the theory itself, but it should be noted that, although Nida was determined that his approach be sound theoretically, what really concerned him was finding a method that could be taught and used easily in field situations. Nida drew on concepts and findings from a number of fields. To varying degrees linguistics, communication theory, semiotics, sociolinguistics, cultural anthropology, and psychology all contributed to his approach. And even within a discipline, for example linguistics, he drew from differing theories. He always readily admitted this eclecticism, stating that he would do whatever would help a translation be meaningful and relevant to the people for whom it was intended. Barclay Newman worked extensively with Nida in many different language projects, and affirms that Nida’s focus lay inevitably on the immediate needs of a particular translation project. Newman states that Nida recognized and understood the kinds of people who were doing the translations, the kinds of problems they faced, and

Implications of Dynamic Equivalence

59

what would be immediately helpful to them (Barclay Newman, interview with author, 30 June 2000). Dynamic Equivalence and the Nature of the Scriptures Nida’s approach put the focus of translation on communication and meaning. This approach assumed that writers used the forms of a source text to communicate their message, whether those forms consisted of words, grammatical structures, or literary genres. But this position appeared to challenge the view of Scripture that many translators from conservative theological backgrounds had always held (and many Bible translators came from such backgrounds). Most Bible translators and church leaders would affirm that in some way God provides the ultimate source of the Bible. But many also hold a view of how the Bible expresses that divine source, a view that connects the divine source with actual words and forms. They see God directing in some way the writing and canonization process. For translators who believe that not only were the thoughts of the Bible inspired by God through the Holy Spirit but also the words themselves, a translation approach such as Nida’s contradicts their theology because it puts a premium on the message rather than the form. Many translators set to work with very little knowledge of the history and nature of the biblical writings, and with a very uncritical view of the Bible. But when they began to translate, for the first time in their lives, at least for some of them, they came to see important differences in the various books. Many saw for the first time the differences in the accounts of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Sometimes translators wanted to harmonize these differences. But Nida and his colleagues in the Bible Societies taught that this should not be done. Inevitably, therefore, whether consciously articulated or not, the translators expanded their understanding of inspiration to account for these differences among the biblical authors. And certainly, as the churches began to use these translations and read them as a community, they discovered things they were not aware of previously. Consequently, their theology changed, too. Charles Taber tells of working with the Bambara translation team in Mali and recounts the struggles of one of the missionary translators who had been involved in an older translation that had followed the form of the source texts very closely. The church felt the need to revise or replace this older translation, but the missionary had difficulty in identifying those revisions. When, however, through a workshop with Taber, she caught the idea that the focus lay on meaning instead of form and realized that it was more important for people to understand the text than to have a translation that imitated the surface of the source text, she freely and enthusiastically supported the new translation project. This translator had caught an important theological insight about the Bible, although she might not have put it

60


in those terms, and might not have been aware that her view of inspiration had changed (Charles Taber, interview with author, 11 Oct. 2000). Inevitably, because of their theological stances, some translators, church leaders, and even Bible Societies did not accept Nida’s theory and practice. The BFBS, for example, continued to resist this approach well into the 1970s. Moreover, some translators preferred to work with organizations such as the Trinitarian Bible Society, which still followed a very literalistic approach to the source texts and translation methods. However, others found the method so persuasive that, consciously or not, they ended up modifying their own understanding of the Bible. They came to understand how language carries meaning in particular contexts and that what was relevant and important in the Bible was the message or meaning. They saw that words and other linguistic forms merely provided the means for conveying that message. In fact, as Danny Arichea points out, increasingly translators agreed that only when they treated the Bible as inclusive of human composition could translation be possible (Arichea 1990: 50–54). In short, translation was only possible if it assumed that the writers of the Bible used normal human language to communicate, and did so in their particular cultural and historical contexts. Robert Bratcher, in an interview, describes how this view came to be expressed by some conservative missionaries who attended the first major translators’ conference, held in Bobo Dioulasso, in what was then Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso). They wrote to him after the workshop to describe how the event had been a liberating experience and to say how they had come to a new understanding of what the Bible really was. Bratcher states, Without intending to do such a thing, I think those lectures made it possible for some of those people there who had never seen the Bible as anything but a sacred icon that had fallen from heaven and been given to the people straight from God, to develop a new understanding. They could now see the historical process that went into the making and the appearance of this book, and be able to accept it in a much more, not simply reasonable manner, but in a more meaningful manner. They could see how it can really speak to us today. So I think not only the technical information that we contributed but also the whole attitude of what the Bible is and how we should approach it, and how we understand it, made a lot of difference for many people. (Robert Bratcher, interview with author, 11 Oct. 2000)

Translations prepared using the dynamic-equivalence method made the Scriptures accessible to laypeople in a way that had not really been possible before. Older translations, whether prepared by missionaries or native speakers, tended, with few exceptions, to be formally equivalent


61

and therefore neither natural-sounding nor easy to understand. It was the role of the professionals—the missionaries, ministers, or evangelists who had had some theological training—to explain the meaning of the text to their congregations. Nida often recounted pointedly the story of a Japanese pastor who was horrified at the idea of a translation that people could understand. He said, “I’ll have nothing to preach about” (Robert Bratcher, interview with author, 11 Oct. 2000, as well as several others). Readable and understandable translations changed that. Congregations and individuals could now read the Bible with a significant degree of understanding. The Bible was no longer a text that only the initiated or the professionals could understand. It stood open to all. The feeling that the Bible was somehow “foreign” was replaced with a feeling that God addressed all people equally. In language after language Christians acquired a sense of ownership: this word from God was addressed specifically to them. When a church feels ownership of the Bible, and when that Bible reads in clear, natural and understandable language, the feeling of independence is likely to be even stronger than is the case with missionary-produced translations. As members of the congregation study the Bible, and feel like they can have some understanding of it, they will develop a theology that is less dependent on that of the missionary churches. They will, instead, apply their understanding of what they read and study to their own context on issues such as polygamy or spirit powers and forces. These positions may differ significantly from those of the missionaries who evangelized them in the first place. Only native speakers can prepare a translation that aims at the “closest natural equivalent.” A nonnative speaker will find it virtually impossible to really make a translation sound natural. Only native speakers can use idioms correctly and employ all the finer and deeper nuances of a language. Darrell Whiteman, a former missionary in Papua New Guinea and now professor of cultural anthropology at Asbury Theological Seminary, addressed that issue in an interview. “How many translations have there been that have been completed by missionaries that just lack the real punch that a native speaker would have been able to give to the language?” Whiteman asked. “Such a translation will be wooden. Correct, but no life to it. I think this whole approach that the Bible Societies have pioneered of using native speakers was right on target. I suppose there was a theoretical reason for doing so. But in terms of the practical outcome of that we have really seen, it has made a big difference” (Darrell Whiteman, interview with author, 21 Sept. 2000). Although in the early days Nida worked primarily with missionary translators, he realized that there eventually had to be a shift to native translators. Heber Peacock, who began working with Nida in 1963, is clear

62


on this. “Gene was responsible for the move to native speaker translators. I think this is terribly important. He didn’t start that way, but he knew it had to happen. Even during the very earliest days, he knew that these missionaries were not going to get the job done. Native speakers had to come in. So he began pushing in that direction” (Heber Peacock, interview with author, 11 Oct. 2000). Of course, many native speaker translators in Africa, Latin America, or South and Southeast Asia had not done biblical studies or studied the biblical languages. As a result, a common pattern developed in which each project engaged an exegete to assist the translators. These exegetes came most often from the ranks of missionaries, and frequently the missionaries also served as coordinators or typists on such projects. But beginning in the 1970s the Bible Societies increasingly began to publish only translations drafted by native speakers. Thus the old pattern of expatriate translators working with native informants shifted to native translators working with expatriate assistance. Organizations such as SIL and the Lutheran Bible Translators traditionally sent expatriate missionaries to do pioneer work in languages where there was no previous translation, and where there were often few, if any, literates in the language. Thus, for many years the older pattern of missionary translators continued in contrast to the Bible Societies’ newer pattern. However, the logic of having native speakers translate led these organizations to change as well. Increasingly, the expatriate member of these organizations now served as animateur, coordinator, trainer, or exegete for projects organized around native speaker translators. When native speakers translate, their work often impacts the church profoundly. This is particularly true if the churches had a hand in choosing and supporting the translators, a pattern that Nida encouraged. Whiteman teaches a course called “Agents of Change in Mission,” in which students are required to reflect on how change is introduced in communities. He has found that Bible translation serves as a good model. “Any time you involve the life of the community in ownership of the project, then you increase the chance it will, in fact, be adopted and used and be very effective in bringing change. I observed this when I was a missionary in Papua New Guinea. The more local speakers you involve in the translation, the more ownership there is of the final project” (Darrell Whiteman, interview with author, 21 Sept. 2000). Finding the closest natural equivalent in translation implied using the full resources of a language in translation. When Nida suggested that many languages should have at least three translations, one of those translations would certainly be a close natural equivalent. However, it was also obvious to him that for a translation to have wide usage across all ages and dialects, the language in it should be limited to forms that were common


63

In addition to giving her husband moral and emotional support, Althea Nida rapidly assumed a number of other roles. Often, she typed documents and manuscripts or mimeographed copies of handouts. She also taught typing to the secretaries of the translation teams. In the early days when most translators and project secretaries were missionaries, Althea began training the indigenous helpers, as they were called, so that they could play larger roles in the projects. Many of the translators and consultants still remember warmly her friendship and help. © American Bible Society.

to all. That is, translators preparing a common language translation would not use forms that were only known by the elderly or the young, or only used in one dialect area. The resulting form might not in fact be the closest or the most natural for all readers, but would be one that they could all understand. William Wonderly, one of Nida’s early colleagues, described popularlanguage translations as translations that limited themselves to the language most frequently used by a population (see Wonderly 1968). Later, translators generally confused the two terms, referring to popular-language translations as common language, although that was not necessarily true in all cases. In fact, it was difficult to distinguish between the two; the real point was to have translations that were understandable for the widest cross-section of people. Common language or popular language translations had obvious merit in a number of situations. In highly literate societies that already had a

64


Bible, a popular-language Bible could reach those who were unfamiliar with the Bible and its older language or who were nonnative speakers. It could therefore be used as a resource in evangelism. In language areas that were only recently evangelized, and where the translation being prepared was the first of its kind, a popular-language, dynamically equivalent translation could certainly reach a wider number of people than a formally equivalent one. As a result, for the past thirty years, the major thrust of Bible translators associated with the Bible Societies and with SIL has been to produce common and popular language translations. In major world languages such as English, French, and Spanish, the Bible Societies have prepared popular language translations to supplement the more formal translations they had previously published and continue to publish. The Today’s English Version (TEV),1 the Versión Popular (VP) and the Français Courant (FC) have all sold millions of copies and made an enormous impact on the church in those language areas. In Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, South and Southeast Asia, and the Pacific Islands where most work was either on first translations or on translations meant to replace older missionary translations, common language translations have served the churches in evangelism and in helping believers understand how they should live as Christians. But many languages, especially those in which a Bible has existed for a long time, still need translations that can fully exploit the resources of the language in such a way that it has literary merit and lends itself to liturgical usage. This is true for European and Asian churches with long traditions and increasingly for ones such as Swahili churches in East Africa. Some translators have felt that to prepare such translations directly conflicted with dynamic equivalence. On the contrary, only such translations can actually approach being the closest natural equivalent. Without Note or Comment From its founding in 1804, the BFBS maintained a policy of publishing Bibles without note or comment. With its first publication in 1611, and with a few subsequent editions, the King James Version had included a number of textual or exegetical notes as well as explanatory ones. These notes showed certain alternate readings and explained how text decisions were made in passages where significant options presented themselves. However, since 1762, the Oxford and Cambridge University

1. The translation itself was originally known as Today’s English Version (TEV), but it is now referred to officially in the Bible Societies as the Good News Bible (GNB ), the title of its first publication, or, more recently, as the Good News Translation (GNT).


65

Presses had also provided extensive marginal notes that contained theological interpretation. The newly formed Bible Society did not want to be known as a religious or partisan organization, especially in a time of sharp political disagreements between different Christian bodies. In order to serve all churches, and perhaps in part to ensure that the Bible was not viewed as the property of any one confessional or doctrinal body, but as a sacred text for all, the Society took the position of publishing the Bible without any notes. So, in addition to excluding interpretative notes that had crept into other editions of the King James Version, they also excluded the textual and exegetical notes that the KJV translators felt were crucial to proper understanding of the text. The board members, who were all laymen, undertook as their mission “to encourage the widest circulation of Holy Scriptures without note and comment” (founding document, 1804). Throughout their history the Bible Societies had also developed principles for translators that insisted that there be no “interpretation,” the worry being that there were significant differences in the way that some of the denominations of the Free Churches and the Church of England interpreted certain biblical passages. If one interpretation or another were published, it would not be possible to serve all the churches with that edition. The National Bible Society of Scotland also held this position, which had become accepted by most of the other Societies as well. When the Netherlands Bible Society called for a conference in 1939 at Woudschoten to celebrate its 125th anniversary, the BFBS formed a subcommittee to look at the range of meaning the phrase “without note or comment” covered. The committee recommended refining the expression somewhat to refer specifically to doctrinal notes (Robertson 1996: 61). In fact, the major Bible Societies that had been working in China and several other Asian language areas were already publishing Scriptures with culturally relevant notes since literal renderings would be meaningless or misleading. This practice continued to expand over the years until at the UBS Council meeting in Brazil in 1957, Nida persuaded the Council to agree to several changes. One of these was the use of a reference system for “younger churches,” that is, churches only recently evangelized and without a long tradition of theological teaching. The Council also approved the use of section headings with parallel passage references for the entire Bible, a short subject index, a list of Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, tables of weights and measures, and model concordances. The following year, at the request of the UBS Subcommittee on Translation, Nida published an article in The Bible Translator where he described more fully the nature of the notes, and the need for them. He distinguished between two types of notes: (1) section headings and parallel references that were essentially identificational notes; and (2) notes that

66


gave alternative readings of the Greek and Hebrew texts, or alternative renderings of these, and notes that explained cultural differences. This second type he called explanatory notes. He pointed out that notes should not simply explain a text that was different or strange but rather should help readers understand the translation. If the text could be deemed obscure or meaningless to the average reader, then a note was essential. He added that these notes should clarify a point, not make it more complicated; should take into account the background of the readers; should be as brief as possible; and should avoid both doctrinal interpretations and anything that could be emotionally charged (Nida 1958: 20). Nida always believed that notes should be brief. A number of years later, when the Bible Societies began to consider study Bibles, Nida’s rule of thumb was the notes should not take up more than one quarter of the page. In reality, of course, this proved to be difficult to adhere to. The move toward notes in Bible Society publications received a further boost in 1964. The Bible Societies invited over one hundred church leaders from all over the world to a consultation in Driebergen, Holland. Among other things, the meeting resulted in an endorsement from the group on the use of readers’ aids. In part their document read: The difficulty of modern man to see the relevance of the Bible in his life is one of the main impediments in the effective use of the Bible. The Bible Societies are, therefore, encouraged to provide aids to the readers. (Report from the Driebergen consultation)

The document then delineated the kinds of notes and other helps it had in mind, all of which closely matched those previously described by Nida and that were beginning to be used by many Bible Societies. Despite this endorsement, many people continued to believe for a number of years that the Bible Societies published Bibles without doctrinal notes. By 1990, however, consultants and Bible Societies further refined the statement, at least in practice if not officially, to no sectarian doctrinal notes or comment. This new Bible Society practice had one far-reaching result: it helped clear the way for the development of guiding principles for interconfessional translation in 1968. Canon law required that Roman Catholic translations contain notes, and this change in Bible Society policy and practice met those requirements. Study Bibles Because of their traditional policy regarding notes, the Bible Societies were slow to develop study Bibles. Though most Bible Societies accepted


67

Nida’s concept of producing meaningful translations, they did not see that producing Bibles with nondoctrinal study notes and materials was a logical extension. The whole purpose of dynamic equivalence was to give readers access to the Scriptures, but because of the enormous gap between the culture of the Bible and the cultures of today, even these meaningful translations could not ensure that readers would always understand the content. Whereas some translators wanted to build into the translation itself such cultural, theological, and historical information, for the Bible Societies the only real option was to increase the number and range of notes, as in a study Bible. By 1990, the Bible Societies had begun to produce their own study Bibles. The first was the Spanish La Biblia de Estudia, the Versión Popular (VPEE) with study notes. This appeared in 1994, although the New Testament had been published four years earlier. The VPEE has enjoyed great success in Latin America among Roman Catholics, but it is only now gaining some recognition among Protestants. The project was interconfessional with Roman Catholic scholars and Protestants (primarily UBS staff) working on the notes, and included the Deuterocanon. It has been successfully used for teaching religion in Roman Catholic schools. In some languages, however, it was too late for UBS-produced study Bibles as far as the market was concerned. For example, the Good News Bible was published in 1976, only three years after the International Bible Society (not related to UBS) had published the New International Version (NIV). However, the NIV Study Bible appeared in 1985 and was eagerly bought by audiences hungry for help with understanding the Bible. The Good News Study Bible, supported by the BFBS, did not appear until 1997. Even though it was of exceptionally high quality, it came out too late to reach much of the audience it might have attracted ten or fifteen years earlier. In 1999 the ABS produced a transcultural adaptation of the VPEE into English. Significantly, Nida was one of the principal adapters, the other being Erroll Rhodes, a staff member in ABS’s Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship. Part of the reason for the long delay in producing study materials was that the UBS generally relied on their own overworked staff to prepare the needed notes. These consultants were constrained to produce notes that were helpful to readers but yet not doctrinal or sectarian. Additionally, consultants had to ensure that notes fit with the type and nature of the translations themselves, at the same language level. They often found that outside scholars tended to use too high a level of language or to discuss matters beyond what the Bible Societies saw as their responsibility, that is, they were too “doctrinal.”

5. SPREADING THE WORD

Moses replied, “I have never been a good speaker. I wasn’t one before you spoke to me, and I’m not one now. I am slow at speaking, and I can never think of what to say.” The Lord became irritated with Moses and said: “What about your brother Aaron, the Levite? I know he is a good speaker. . . . Aaron will speak to the people for you, and you will be like me, telling Aaron what to say. I will be with both of you as you speak, and I will tell each of you what to do.” —Exodus 4:10, 14–16, Contemporary English Version

In the winter of 1967 Eugene Nida spoke at the University Reformed Church in Ann Arbor, Michigan. It was a Sunday evening, and for a little over an hour his audience (which included the author) thrilled to his exciting stories and absolutely spellbinding descriptions of Bible translation work. Those who met with him afterward heard him describe how he was building a team of consultants who would train and assist translators to work in their own languages. He talked about the cultural issues in translation. He gave examples of how his approach to translation was making the Scriptures more accessible. He showed the newly released New Testament in Today’s English Version as an example of the kind of translation they wanted translators all over the world to produce. The information was exciting. Nida communicated superbly, and his enthusiasm infected many in the room, making anyone interested in Bible translation want to work for him immediately. A year later, at a four-week workshop in Baguio City in the Philippines, Nida was still exciting translators in his daily presentations. In the course of the workshop many teams decided completely to redo their work. They quickly realized they could produce something much better than they had before. Because of that workshop eight projects in major languages of the Philippines started up. Each Bible produced followed the principles of dynamic equivalence, and churches have used them widely and easily. 69

70


Danny Arichea, a seminary New Testament professor at that time, attended that workshop. He so valued this approach to translation and to the Bible that he invited one of the other professors to join him at the workshop. They went back to their seminary and completely changed the whole way of teaching the Bible. When people are asked about Eugene Nida they often refer to his dynamic teaching. Words such as “brilliant,” “exciting,” “exhilarating,” and “convincing” are used over and over. Howard Clark Kee, an outstanding New Testament scholar who served on the ABS board for many years, writes of his first experience of Nida’s “brilliant, fascinating lectures” (Kee 1974: 133). Nida in full flow was simply awesome. Even in retirement, he still has this ability. Darrell Whiteman tells of inviting Nida to lecture to some of his seminary classes a week after Nida’s eightieth birthday. “I had him speak in seven different kinds of class opportunities. With each one he got stronger and more excited and we had to practically pull him off the ceiling by the time he finished. It was amazing to watch him, watch him perform, really” (Darrell Whiteman, interview with author, 21 Sept. 2000). Clearly, Nida needed no Aaron to speak for him. The skills he demonstrated when he led his high-school debate team to the Southern California championship were well honed. They helped him persuade translators on the merits of his approach and, at the same time, teach it to them effectively. Most translators accepted his teaching readily, but for those who were initially resistant or hesitant, his “graceful but astute approach to the unconvinced and skeptical” proved remarkably effective (Laton Holmgren, interview with author, Jan. 2001). Aristotle identified intelligence, character, and good will as the three characteristics that a good communicator must have (Aristotle 1991). The audience has to believe that a speaker is knowledgeable and competent to speak about a subject and that he or she is able to reason and use good judgment in regard to the subject. The audience also must believe that the speaker is someone of integrity and honesty, not someone trying to mislead. Finally, they have to believe that the speaker is concerned about their situation more than his or her own. Nida demonstrated these characteristics and more. Aristotle’s first requirement, intelligence, meant having a wide range of knowledge to offer. Nida did. His scholarship was unquestioned, and his approach made sense. Nida could show facts and examples of why the method worked and how it could be used. Equally important was his ability to explain the approach in straightforward, clear, and nontechnical vocabulary. Nida has sometimes been dismissed as a “popularizer” because of the popular language he used to explain very sophisticated linguistic concepts. In fact, this ability to simplify the complex proved to be one of his greatest strengths.

Spreading the Word

71

Nida’s openness to working with people of all backgrounds, his willingness to take their points of view seriously, and his ability to communicate with them in terms that related to their context meant that people believed in his sincerity and found his teaching credible. Nida’s generosity of spirit significantly influenced people’s response to his work and teaching. He shared information, data, and advice freely with all he encountered. Researchers, scholars, and translators, whether Bible Society staff or not, Christian or not, would meet with him and discover that he took an interest in their ideas and work, and that he would give them input and help on their projects. Mona Baker of the Centre for Translation Studies at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology has benefited from this spirit. Speaking at a Conference on Translation and Similarity in 2001, she recalled Nida’s “gift of believing in others” and “his gift of making you feel special” (remarks at the Conference on Translation and Similarity, 2001). Hundreds of people around the world would echo this. There was also his ability to animate and excite people. His enthusiasm for what he was teaching, and his obvious deep commitment to making the Scriptures communicate clearly, was infectious. Participants became convinced that they, too, could produce good translations. They left his lectures excited about what they were learning and what they could do. Aristotle’s requirement of character was met. Nida demonstrated Aristotle’s notion of good will with what Laton Holmgren calls his “theological amiability.” Nida could speak to everyone from ultra-Protestant Pentecostals to Roman Catholic prelates and convince them that he took their position seriously, as in fact he did (Laton Holmgren, interview with author, Jan. 2001). In a 1988 article in which he describes his own pilgrimage in mission, Nida asserts that one of his great discoveries was finding out that “great souls exist in all kinds of churches.” He admits it was quite revealing after experiencing hostility from Roman Catholic fanatics in Latin America in the past “to be involved with interconfessional committees in which Roman Catholic participants provided some of the most meaningful and inspiring devotional messages.” Similarly, despite what seemed like bizarre religious practices in some of the sects of Africa, Nida said he and his companions “felt a shock to meet with a brilliant New Testament scholar from one of these indigenous churches and to discover in him not only profound intellectual comprehension of Christian faith, but an active and devout personal expression of his commitment to Jesus Christ” (Nida 1988: 62). Despite Nida’s stature in the world of translation, he showed a willingness to listen to criticism or objections and adapt accordingly. Mona Baker, for example, in her remarks at the 2001 Translation Conference, noted that Nida’s willingness to watch out for his own blind spots, to listen

72


to criticism, and then continually to adjust, learn, and grow characterized him both as a scholar and a person. This trait presented itself even during his early career. Once, in his first year of teaching at Camp Wycliffe, when he was only twenty-three years old, some of the students almost mutinied against him and Pike because they felt the level of teaching was too high and demanding. Both Nida and Pike, realizing that the academic background of these students did not adequately prepare them for the work, immediately adjusted their teaching style (Steven 1999: 93–96). Some years later, Darrell Whiteman recalls, while Nida was lecturing at a translation workshop in Asia for an audience of Koreans, Japanese, Filipinos, Chinese, and Taiwanese, the Japanese participants approached their leader and were dismissive of Nida as not being very learned and therefore ill-suited to teach them. The problem lay in Nida’s all-too-understandable communication style. To the Japanese, this style indicated that the lecture was probably not very scholarly. The leader told Nida that in order to gain their respect he would have to give a lecture that they would not understand. Nida resisted the idea but finally acquiesced, saying, “I’ll fix that problem in the morning.” The next day he lectured using a very high level of language and accomplished his goal. Some of the Japanese came to him and said, “Thank you, Dr. Nida. You are such a scholar.” Nida reports, “Once I earned their respect for being a scholar by using obfuscating language, then I went right back to teaching in ways that were understandable. They were with me the rest of the time.” Whiteman suggests that this “is a beautiful example of someone who understands people, knows how to communicate with them in ways that will drive home his credibility, and then gets on with the business of teaching” (Darrell Whiteman, interview with author, 21 Sept. 2001). Even in regard to things he wrote, he welcomed criticism. Norm Mundhenk, long-time United Bible Societies translation advisor, describes some of the early meetings with translation staff. “He would bring people together and we would simply rip his draft book from one end to the other. It never fazed him. He would just happily accept all of this and rewrite the whole thing under the influence of his colleagues. It was wonderful working in those workshops” (Norm Mundhenk, interview with author, 30 June 2000). Nida used his gifts to focus on effective oral communication, so his strengths lay more in lecturing than in writing. His secretary, Leila Wright, whose responsibilities included polishing almost all of Nida’s drafts, confesses that she often completely re-worked everything he wrote. When William Smalley served as editor of Practical Anthropology, he also had similar experiences.

Spreading the Word

73

Some of the techniques that served Nida well in teaching made his writing appear stilted. When Charles Taber was working with him on The Theory and Practice of Translation, Nida would most often come up with the basic ideas and leave it to Taber to express them clearly or propose a rewrite. Unfailingly, Nida would rewrite material without hesitation and accept quickly the input of his collaborators or editors (Charles Taber, interview with author, 11 Oct. 2000). Althea Nida was often instrumental in helping him to be sensitive to the needs of his audiences. She would quite frequently take him back to their room during a workshop and point out something he had done that was inappropriate or unwise or let him know if he was going too fast for the participants. Many of his Bible Society colleagues have stories of her doing this. Barclay Newman says, “Althea was the only one in the world who could say to Gene Nida, ‘How can you know so much and be so dumb?’” (Barclay Newman, interview with author, 30 June 2000). After receiving constructive criticism, Nida would apologize at the next session and modify his material. As in all things, he aimed primarily at helping translators do their jobs effectively, so he did his very best to bring the material to them in a way they could understand and use. He constantly adapted his teaching to make it helpful to particular translators in their own contexts. The basic principles of his approach remained, but his method of teaching the materials changed as was necessary. This skill in communicating proved as important as the translation approach itself. The method needed a good salesman, and Nida sold his own material brilliantly. Taking the Message to the Field Nida knew he could not educate translators if he stayed in New York. He had to work with them where they were, struggle with the real problems they faced, and give them assistance that was appropriate for their situations. The minutes of the ABS committees, and later the UBS committees, give an amazing picture of those months of travel each year. For example, the 16 June 1948 minutes of the ABS Translation Committee report on one trip: The total cost of the trip, covering 8 1/2 months, from New York to England, Holland, Belgium, England, a large part of Africa, Paris, London, Dunblane, London and New York for Dr. Nida with half of the expenses of Mrs. Nida was $6,466.41. (emphasis added)

Minutes from a 1966 UBS Council report list the following translators’ institutes, all of which were led by Nida:

74

Let the Words Be Written Peru (April-May 1964) New Guinea (August-September 1964) Thailand (April-May 1965) Congo-Leopoldville (June-July 1965) Kenya (October-November 1965)

Eric North reports in an appreciation of Nida: In 1966, twenty years after becoming ABS Executive Secretary for Translations, he spent the first few months of the year in Peru, Paraguay, Brazil, and Mexico, June 29 to July 10 in Congo, July 20 to 21 in Zambia, July 23 to 31 in Lebanon and Egypt, August 3 to 11 in the Philippines, August 12 to September 3 in Japan, then some time conferring in Europe, and December in Mexico. (North 1974: x)

He worked tirelessly on all these trips. The daily schedules of the workshops were daunting enough, with lectures in the mornings, work with translation teams in the afternoons, and often further lectures in the evenings. Then he would work in the night to adjust or improve his material for the next day. Despite this grinding schedule, Nida found time to counsel with translators and others he met and to make himself available as he was needed for preaching and giving interviews. Even on these trips, he kept up an extensive correspondence. He had to, since he was so rarely in the office or even at home. His secretary in New York for more than thirty years, worked for him for nine months before she ever met him. She received the tapes he dictated and mailed to her, then she typed and mailed out what, in some months, amounted to several hundred letters. In addition to keeping up with his correspondence, Nida published extensively. A prolific writer, he wrote a steady stream of articles and books at a rate that a sedentary professor would have envied. As a result of these years of traveling, translators in hundreds of languages were helped in ways that would have been totally impossible otherwise. Nor would the shift to dynamic-equivalent translations have happened, had the Nidas not worked side by side with translators in their own areas. Building a Team Because of the large number of projects being undertaken worldwide, Nida realized he could not do justice to them all. If there was to be a shift away from checking manuscripts in New York, London, or Amsterdam, then there had to be a team of people stationed in various parts of the world who could work with translators from the onset of their projects. Thus, shortly after he joined ABS, Nida began to recruit other consultants

Spreading the Word

75

to share the work and to encourage the Netherlands Bible Society (NBS) and the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) to do likewise. In 1953, Nida asked Ellen Ross, a thirty-five-year-old missionary with the Canadian Baptist Mission in Bolivia, to join the American Bible Society and assist with projects in Latin America. She had learned Quechua and worked with Nida in preparing a course for missionaries. She had also worked with the Summer Institute of Linguistics, but had left because of differences over major issues of cooperation with governments. She had, however, maintained good relations with her former colleagues. Nida told the ABS Board that SIL was doing above average work in technical areas but had limitations because of “restricted theological training.” Therefore there was a need for a full-time person to help them. Although the Board was aware that Ross needed more linguistic and theological training, Nida recognized that her expertise in Andean languages would be an invaluable asset to translators working there (Committee on Versions minutes, 22 April 1953). Ross spent 1954 and 1955 studying first at Cornell

Even on his many trips, Nida kept up an extensive correspondence. He had to, since he was so rarely in the office or even at home. His secretary in New York for more than thirty years worked for him for nine months before she ever met him. She received the tapes he dictated and mailed to her, then she typed and mailed out what, in some months, amounted to several hundred letters. © United Bible Societies. Used by permission.

76


Nida’s theory and approach, valuable as they were, would not have won so many advocates if Nida had not dedicated himself to disseminating them through years of travel and teaching. Doubters and skeptics turned into believers when Nida worked with them. This inspiration came in part from the very convincing facts he presented in lectures and consulting, and in part from the energy and dynamism of his presentations and discussions. Anyone who has attended one of Nida’s lectures will vouch for the excitement he engenders in his audience. © American Bible Society.

Spreading the Word

77

University, then at the University of Michigan at a special summer program in linguistics, and finally at Princeton Theological Seminary. Even though she was desperately needed in the field, Nida emphasized that solid scholarly preparation was important if she was to contribute significantly to the translation work. Nida believed training was essential. In later years, when he no longer carried responsibility for the recruiting and training of consultants, and when budgets were sometimes tight, some regional committees were unwilling to pay for training. Inevitably, this hurt the people who were recruited and ultimately the work of the Bible Societies. Ross did excellent work (Eugene A. Nida, pers. comm.) but only worked for ABS until 1958. Unable to get medical clearance, she felt the need to return to her home in Canada. She later returned to Ecuador with the Gospel Missionary Union. Nida also wanted full-time people to help translators in Mexico, Central America, and the Philippines. His career had been as an itinerant consultant, but he knew that it would be better to have resident consultants in the areas where the translation work was taking place (Laton Holmgren, interview with author, Jan. 2001). So after hiring Ellen Ross, he also recruited William Wonderly to help in Latin America. Wonderly, a translator with SIL, was working on the Ostroacan dialect of Zoque in Mexico. But Nida knew that Wonderly had developed theological differences with SIL and encouraged him to get his PhD in linguistics at the University of Michigan and join the ABS team (Eugene A. Nida, pers. comm.). Wonderly was put on an hourly rate for part-time work in 1953 and became a full-time ABS consultant in September 1955 (ABS Versions Committee minutes, 7 Oct. 1955). Another early member of Nida’s translation team was Henry Waterman, a New Testament Greek teacher at Wheaton College in Illinois. Nida recruited Waterman and sent him to the Philippines in 1954 to assist projects there (Eugene A. Nida, pers. comm.). Although Waterman spent a number of years at ABS, teaching remained his first love. Eventually Nida suggested that he return to Wheaton. William Smalley was a missionary in Laos with the Christian and Missionary Alliance. Upon his return to the United States to work on a doctorate at Columbia University in New York City, he met Nida, who knew his father. William Smalley began part-time work with ABS in November 1954. In 1955, when he was almost finished with his doctorate, he accepted a full-time position. Nida, in particular, wanted him for work in Africa (ABS Committee on Versions minutes, 7 Oct. 1955 ). Nida also recruited J. Harold Greenlee to work in the New York office. Greenlee later gave invaluable assistance to the UBS Greek New Testament project while he worked as a professor at Asbury Theological Seminary.

78


The ABS General Administration Committee minutes of 2 December 1954 report that since Nida’s appointment ten years earlier he had developed “a staff of five full- and part-time linguists for work with translators.” At this meeting the Committee also recommended to the Board that Nida be appointed Secretary for Translations at ABS. In August of 1955 Nida held the first conference of ABS translation personnel. Participants included Wonderly, Ross, Smalley, Greenlee, and Nida as well as “regular department personnel.” Waterman was in the Philippines at the time (General Administration Committee minutes, 7 Oct. 1955). The minutes outline the principal issues discussed during the five-day meeting: the preparation of helps for translators, procedures for checking translations, and the relationship of the translations department to other departments of the Bible Society and to various mission boards. The same minutes report on survey work in the Miskito-speaking areas of Central America that Nida had asked William and Marie Reyburn to conduct. Nida frequently recruited qualified people in the field who could support other groups or missions in their particular tasks. But he also had his staff help mission boards with needed work. For example, he arranged with the Board of Foreign Missions of the United Presbyterian Church for Smalley to go to Sudan for three months to analyze linguistic problems and the translation of the Scriptures in some of the languages there. The Presbyterian and Reformed Church boards shared the cost with the ABS (General Administration Committee minutes, 7 Oct. 1955). Nida deliberately sought out people who knew more about biblical studies or linguistics than he did. These expert men and women not only helped promote the method of translation that he developed, but they were also instrumental in its development. For one thing, the ethos of collegiality that Nida fostered encouraged them all to critique his work. But Nida also tried to recruit people who could themselves do research and writing and contribute to the theory and practice of translation. Nida looked less at what a person had achieved than at what he thought that person could do and become. On more than one occasion a potential recruit would have the right academic background, but the question that Nida would ask of himself and his colleagues was, “How will this person work in this situation (that we’re sending him or her into)?” The group would frequently try out such a person in a workshop situation and conclude that despite the glowing credentials, the candidate would not make the kind of contribution they needed. Nida looked always for the best people he could find. He did not fear competition from this team. On the contrary, he knew they enriched the team and the program.

Spreading the Word

79

The Impact of Robert G. Bratcher In 1950, Nida and Wilfred Bradnock, Translation Secretary of the BFBS, worked with a committee in Brazil that was preparing a revision of the Almeida Bible. This translation was in many respects the Portuguese equivalent of the King James Version in English. One member of the committee was a Southern Baptist missionary, Robert G. Bratcher, who was teaching at the Brazil Baptist Seminary. An expatriate, Bratcher had grown up in Brazil and therefore spoke excellent Brazilian Portuguese. By late 1956, however, the Bratchers realized they would not be returning to Brazil. Bratcher wrote to Nida to say, “I know that you do a lot of traveling and you know Baptist seminaries and colleges. If you find a place that you think you could recommend me to, where I would fit in, would you please remember me?” Nida made a special trip to Louisville, Kentucky, to meet with the Bratchers. “Bob,” he said, “we’ll keep on looking for a place for you to teach, but in the meanwhile, why don’t you join the Translations Department of the American Bible Society as the New Testament consultant?” As Bratcher remarks, “So that was 1957, and the meanwhile lasted until 1995” (Robert Bratcher, interview with author, 11 Oct. 2000). It was, in Bratcher’s words, “a very happy meanwhile”—and a “very happy meanwhile” for the Bible Societies, too. Without doubt, Bratcher’s contribution to the translation revolution comes in second only to Nida’s. Bratcher brought to the program an expertise in biblical studies that it previously lacked. He also had the ability to relate that expertise directly to Bible translation. This became apparent first in the translator’s handbooks that he and Nida wrote. The first handbook covered the Gospel of Mark. Bratcher wrote the exegetical discussion of each verse, and Nida supplied the translation discussion and models. After collaborating with Nida on several handbooks, Bratcher subsequently teamed up with other linguists on the Bible Society staff to produce additional volumes. Bratcher’s communication skills played an important role in the larger workshops that the Bible Societies began to organize. Nida would teach translation theory, and Bratcher would lecture on different aspects of the Bible, relating it always to translation. For many translators, it was Bratcher’s teaching that helped them understand the nature of the Bible and that freed them to adopt the dynamic equivalence approach. People who had never viewed the Bible as anything but a sacred icon, began to understand the human and historical process in which God was at work in the making of the Bible. They began to see how the Bible could be meaningful for their everyday lives, and, further, how it needed to be translated meaningfully. Bratcher’s task proved delicate. Many of the missionaries who attended the workshops had Bible School training that did not introduce them to a

80


text-critical or analytic approach to the biblical texts. When Bratcher showed them that a favorite passage they had memorized was either not based on the best Greek texts, or not the best rendering of what the Greek actually said, they were often very uncomfortable. One such example was Rom 8:28, King James Version: “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God.” This frequently quoted passage has been misused and has caused Bible readers to accept all kinds of evil that happens since it purports that we are the object of some providential good luck which makes all things work together to a good end. The verse could better be rendered “We know that in all things God works for good with those who love him” (GNT). This provides a correct understanding; namely, that in all circumstances God is present, working together with them for good. Some rejected the approach to the Bible that Bratcher introduced, but others felt liberated to do further study of the texts and use this knowledge in their translations (Reyburn 2001). People always found Bratcher approachable in workshops. Indigenous translators were particularly drawn to him. It was clear that he had a profound biblical knowledge. But he imparted that knowledge in such a way that native speaker translators who had little biblical training could understand. They appreciated this and always felt they could bring their problems and queries to him (Euan Fry, interview with author, 28 June 2000). The Today’s English Version As important as his other contributions were, Bratcher’s name will be remembered most for his work on the Today’s English Version. More than any one thing, this translation helped people to understand what dynamic equivalence was really about. As a translation of the Bible, the Today’s English Version1 (TEV) became a model for translators in hundreds of languages. It gave millions of people who read or spoke English direct access to the Scriptures. The TEV also gave impetus to the Bible Societies’ translation programs in an unexpected and certainly unprecedented way. Its inception was innocuous. The Reverend M. Wendell Belew, the Secretary of Special Ministries of the Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, had been a classmate of Bratcher’s at Georgetown

1. Bible Society custom has been to speak of the translation text itself as Today’s English Version (TEV), but to refer to Bible editions of the same as the Good News Bible (GNB ). Since 2001, it has become common practice among all the Bible Societies to reference this translation as the Good News Translation (GNT).

Spreading the Word

81

College in Kentucky and also at Southern Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. Sometime in 1961, Belew wrote the American Bible Society to ask what the best translation of the New Testament would be for someone who read English as a second language (Robert Bratcher, interview with author, 11 Oct. 2000). Nida gathered several of the translation staff together to examine the various translations then available: Goodspeed, Phillips, the Revised Standard Version, and others. They paid special attention to a translation of some of the Gospels that had been prepared in Liberia by Annie Cressman, a missionary with the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. This translation, whose version of the Gospel of John the ABS had published that year, used an extremely limited English vocabulary. Nida pointed out places in the texts of each of these translations that simply would not make sense to people who spoke English as a second language. The other staff contributed examples as well. Consequently, in December of 1961 Nida wrote to Bratcher asking him if he would consider doing a translation of the New Testament for Southern Baptists. Bratcher responded that it would be a good thing for Southern Baptists to know their Bible, so he would try it. Shortly after, Bratcher met in New York with Nida, Smalley, and Wonderly. They had requested that he prepare a sample for their evaluation. Bratcher chose to translate Ephesians, but the group faulted his draft so severely that he left the conference convinced he could not do the job. As he says, “And so with that good start, when you know you can’t do it, you can do it” (Robert Bratcher, interview with author, 11 Oct. 2000). An appointed review committee of five colleagues assisted Bratcher. Harold Moulton of the British and Foreign Bible Society proved to be the most helpful. This was significant because when the translation was finally published, the BFBS decided not to distribute it. Bratcher worked on the translation between 1962 and 1965, even though he was studying French in France during part of that time. Nida traveled so extensively that he and his supervisor Laton Holmgren rarely had opportunities to consult in the New York offices. They met whenever their travel schedules afforded them the opportunity. In 1965, they spent a day together in London, and Nida brought up several matters relating to the new translation Bratcher had prepared. He had several points. He requested that every effort be made to publish the translation in 1966 to mark the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the American Bible Society. Nida had initiated the Versión Popular in Spanish before the English because he thought that a “radical” new translation in a language other than English would meet less opposition from the ABS Board. Since the Spanish translation would be ready for publication in early 1966, it would be possible to publish the English

82


translation later in the year (Laton Holmgren, interview with author, Jan. 2001). Secondly, he recommended that the first edition be paperback and that it be sold at a very low price. The two men also discussed what the translation should be called. They felt it should have some resonance with familiar translations such as the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version. Nida suggested that the translation be called Today’s English Version and that the book itself be titled Good News for Modern Man (Laton Holmgren, interview with author, Jan. 2001). ABS accepted all of these recommendations. Later, when the book went to press, Holmgren commissioned an artist to design an appropriate cover. However, nothing that the artist presented seemed to capture what Holmgren had envisioned. Then, one evening as he was preparing for bed and watching the news on television, he had a flash of inspiration. “This is good news, it’s current news, it’s great news!” he thought. He got dressed and went to Times Square to an all-night newsstand and bought a copy of all the foreign newspapers he could find. At home he cut out the mastheads and arranged them in a pattern that became the cover for the first edition. The first print run was 150,000, and the 25-cents sale price did not actually cover the cost. However, ABS did not expect to sell very many. When the initial run and a subsequent reprint sold out, ABS realized they had to raise the price to 50 cents or continue to suffer a loss. Soon, positive public reaction and millions of sales of that New Testament prompted the ABS to continue the project and translate the Old Testament. But this time, instead of a being the single translator, Bratcher led a committee of six. The TEV text for the Bible appeared in 1976 as the Good News Bible. Although the Spanish common language translation of the New Testament, the Versión Popular, was finished before Bratcher’s TEV, its influence was limited to the Spanish-speaking countries. Since, however, English was understood or used to some degree in many parts of the world, and Bratcher and the other TEV translators had always had nonnative speakers of English in mind, the English translation became immediately popular. Regions such as anglophone Africa, South Asia, Australia, the Philippines and New Zealand, as well as the United States embraced this new translation. In Britain, its popularity skyrocketed once a commercial publisher began to distribute it. The sales were so impressive that the British and Foreign Bible Society requested that another edition be prepared using British English and spelling. However, the TEV had its greatest impact on translators working in hundreds of languages. It gave a concrete example of what a dynamic equivalence approach could produce, especially if translators were striving

Spreading the Word

83

for popular or common language. It was an understandable translation that was based on sound exegesis, and it reflected the meaning of the original texts. Although Nida and the translation consultants emphasized that it was not to be a base or source text for translation, it undoubtedly influenced translators in several ways. They relied on it to help them understand the meaning of the original texts, and they relied on it as an excellent model of how to express meaning. The introduction of the TEV translation helped to solidify in the minds of its users everything that Nida and the translation consultants hoped to achieve. Its success greatly boosted their influence and helped to firmly establish the validity of the dynamic equivalence approach. Heber Peacock, longtime consultant in Africa and then global coordinator, is clear about this: “Without that translation we would have been in an awful mess around the world in terms of translation. It became a model of what we were aiming to do” (Heber Peacock, interview with author, 11 Oct. 2001). Sociolinguistics and Translation William Wonderly also played a significant role in the advancement of the field. He is most closely identified with two projects: the Versión Popular translation in Spanish and his book Bible Translations for Popular Use (1968), which outlined most clearly the principles of common language and popular language translations. He proposed that these types of translations should be given priority for support from the Bible Societies. As a result of Wonderly’s proposal, these translations were, in many regions, the only type that the Bible Societies worked with. In 1950, Nida had been involved in a project to revise the Reina-Valera Spanish Bible, the version most widely used by Protestants in Latin America and Spain. Previously the ABS had published a Spanish translation called the Hispano-Americana. This translation had been based, for the most part, on the text of the American Standard Version, but it was too difficult for the average reader and at the same time too innovative for most of the conservative churches that used the Reina-Valera. Consequently, Nida helped to organize an extensive revision project for the Reina-Valera. There were 140 consultants and an editorial committee of six people (North 1974: xvi). Although well received in Latin America, the revised Reina-Valera appeared during the time that Nida was developing the principles of dynamic equivalence and that Wonderly was working out sociolinguistic principles for translation work. Wonderly focused on the possibility of doing a translation that could be used by lay people. Nida was himself beginning to promote this idea widely, so he and Wonderly instigated a completely new translation in Spanish that could be widely used even by those who did not have theological training. The ABS Committee on

84


Translations officially approved the project (committee minutes, 27 May 1960). Wonderly took the lead in this translation, and the Versión Popular (VP) appeared in 1966, several months before the TEV New Testament. Bratcher acknowledged how much the VP influenced his own work in English. Wonderly published Bible Translation for Popular Use in 1968. In it he distinguished between popular language translation that focused on the normal language of the average speakers, language used in the home or market, for example, and common language translation that limited the vocabulary and grammatical forms to those that could be understood by different groups. For example, the speech of the elderly often contained archaisms and other forms that were no longer widely used. Youth, on the other hand, used a lot of slang and innovative forms that do not endure. A common language translation could avoid either of those problems by employing forms that all would understand. The same principle applied to the differences in dialects in a language. Rather than using the forms of one dialect area, or using a few forms from each of several dialect areas, translators could limit themselves to the forms that would be understood most widely in the language. The distinction between popular and common language translations has blurred in the minds of most people, however, and often Bible Society personnel use “common language translation” to refer to both. Nevertheless, this sociolinguistic approach became a key part of Nida’s theory and of Bible Society practice. Discourse and Translation Toward a Science of Translating and later Theory and Practice of Translation did not handle discourse units above the sentence level. TEV essentially limited itself to the sentence level as well, although in a number of places it re-ordered content over two or three verses.2 Bill Smalley was a quiet scholar and an excellent teacher who did extensive research in sociolinguistics and discourse analysis. Later on, much of his work concentrated on discourse in translation, and it was Smalley who persuaded the translation team to consider the importance of

2. In 1969 the author submitted an article to The Bible Translator in which he suggested that, just as a sentence could be analyzed into the small semantic units called kernel sentences, the features of cohesion and coherence in larger discourse units could be accounted for, or at least they should go up to the paragraph level. William Reyburn was editor at the time, but he sent the article to Nida to review. Nida replied that trying to take discourse into account would “open up a whole can of worms” (private correspondence from Reyburn, 1969) that translators were not equipped to handle. The article was rejected.

Spreading the Word

85

this topic. In 1972, and again in 1975, at the Triennial Translation Workshops, Smalley outlined the need for handling meaning at the discourse level and presented a framework for doing so. He not only opened up the proverbial “can of worms,” as Nida had called discourse issues in translation, but he also showed that linguistics could provide the insights and methods that translators needed to tackle such issues. Today a number of translation consultants attest that the analysis of discourse structure now provides their starting point in training translators. Theory and Practice of Translation did not rule out the possibility of analyzing the discourse structure. It simply did not cover it. In fact, once linguists had the tools to analyze discourse coherently, discourse analysis was folded into the dynamic equivalence approach. Translators would analyze the discourse in the source text, transfer this information into the target language, and then use their knowledge of discourse structure to create a cohesive and coherent text in the restructuring stage. The approach itself was flexible enough to fully integrate this level of analysis. Later translations, for example, the American Bible Society’s translation, the Contemporary English Version (1995) did exactly this. Consultant Training and Qualifications As Nida continued to recruit more translation consultants, he began to establish a list of the minimum qualifications they needed. Consultants, for example, had to have a background in linguistics, biblical languages, biblical studies, and anthropology or cultural studies, with a doctorate in one of these. They should also have had some experience working “in the field,” and should have some familiarity with at least one language of the area where they were working. Of course, few people met all these qualifications, so Nida developed the custom of employing people who met most of the criteria, sending them to the field, and then helping them finish their academic work. Biblical scholars took a summer or even a year of linguistics, and linguists went off to do a year of biblical studies. Heber Peacock was typical of Nida’s earliest recruits. He was a professor of New Testament at Mid-Western Baptist Seminary in Kansas City in the early 1960s. The school was embroiled in a dispute over the firing of a professor, and Peacock resigned in protest. Bratcher suggested to Nida that Peacock might be a possible choice as a translation consultant. Nida, invited to speak at the school, met Peacock there. Later, as Peacock took Nida to the airport, Nida asked him, “How would you like to go to Africa?” Peacock agreed to go and was hired in 1963. However, when his name appeared in a prominent magazine in connection with the troubles at the seminary, it seemed this would cloud his tenure. Knowing that Nida was somewhat upset about this, Peacock asked if he should resign. “No,

86


no, no,” Nida replied, “I want you to go to Africa. Why don’t you get out of this country for a while?” (Heber Peacock, interview with author, 11 Oct. 2001). That was how Peacock was hired. First, however, he attended SIL’s annual institute, which was at that time held annually at the University of Oklahoma. Then he was sent to Ouagadougou in Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso) to learn the Mooré language prior to taking on full consultant responsibilities. For a while Nida and the ABS recruited younger people whom they saw as having potential, and then helped them with their graduate study. Norm Mundhenk belonged to the earliest recruits. The son of missionaries in India, he had graduated from college in Oregon in 1963. Intending to teach, he found out that twenty-year-olds were not allowed to do so. As a result, he began looking for something to do until he was old enough for a teacher’s license. His math professor had worked previously with Althea Sprague before Althea had married Nida, and Althea and the professor had kept in touch. This professor contacted the ABS, and Nida arranged for Mundhenk to receive training at SIL to see if he had any potential. When Mundhenk did well, Nida arranged for him to begin graduate work in linguistics at Hartford Seminary Foundation and later at Cornell at ABS’s expense. In 1965, Mundhenk went on salary, combining his graduate studies with translation fieldwork (Norm Mundhenk, interview with author, 30 June 2000). Although Mundhenk remained with the Bible Societies, most of the other scholarship students did not work out, and the plan was later dropped. When it was resumed in a modified form, it served to recruit students from developing countries who would become translation consultants in their own regions. Finding More Consultants Among Nida’s team of consultants who assisted him from time to time were William and Marie Reyburn (née Fetzer). Fetzer taught anthropology at Wheaton College but met Nida in December 1949 at an InterVarsity missions conference in Urbana, Illinois, where he was one of the presenters. She expressed her interest in missions and by the summer of 1950, she was duly enrolled in the Summer Institute of Linguistics program in Norman, Oklahoma. At SIL, Fetzer met Bill Reyburn, a fellow student who was also studying linguistics and anthropology.3

3. While it was not possible to interview the Reyburns in person, Bill Reyburn responded to many of the author’s questions by e-mail and generously shared the unpublished manuscript of his autobiography.

Spreading the Word

87

Reyburn, a former First Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps, served as a platoon commander in the Pacific during World War II. After the surrender of Japan, he was assigned to an engineering battalion in Sasebo, Japan. His interest in language stemmed from spending his early childhood in Colorado and New Mexico where he had contact with Spanish speakers and indigenous Americans. This childhood love of language continued when he served in Guam and Japan. In both places he endeavored to learn as much of the language as possible. His interest in Christian missions and Bible translation led him to work on his Ph.D. in linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania, and enroll in SIL’s summer program at the University of Oklahoma in 1950. Later that year Nida asked Fetzer to go to Liberia on behalf of the ABS, but because her relationship with Reyburn was blossoming, she declined his offer at that time. After Marie and Bill married in September 1951, Nida renewed his offer, now proposing to send the couple to Liberia, but they had already made plans to work among the Quechuas in Ecuador. The Reyburns lived among the Indians and did an excellent job working together on Quechua language analysis and ethnography and helping several missions organizations to understand the Quechuas. They sent Nida many of the articles they had written about their work, and Nida was impressed. A year later, on a visit, Nida asked them to help a Mennonite mission in Argentina working among the Toba people. At the end of that assignment, Nida asked the Reyburns to conduct an ethnolinguistic survey in Central America among the Miskito Indians. The Reyburns later went to Cameroon for the Presbyterian mission, but after a three-year term they were again approached by Nida, who this time asked them to return to Cameroon with the ABS. Bill Reyburn joined the ABS in 1959 and was sent to Princeton Theological Seminary for biblical studies. It was in the area of culture that he made some of his most significant contributions to the program. As a prolific contributor to the journal Practical Anthropology, Bill Reyburn constantly provided missionaries and other Christian workers with practical information that would help them in crosscultural communication or translation. For her part, Marie Reyburn served as book-review editor of the journal for six years until it was merged into a new journal, Missiology. Reyburn, a gifted storyteller, knew how to use stories effectively as part of his teaching. He was also an excellent diplomat. Up to 1967, the American Bible Society, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the Netherlands Bible Society all managed translation work in countries to which they were tied historically. When the translation work was placed under the United Bible Societies, it became apparent that the UBS needed someone to guide the transition, and Reyburn proved the logical choice for that delicate task.

88


Jacob A. Loewen also did contract work for Nida prior to officially joining ABS. Loewen’s first contact with Nida goes back to 1945 when the first SIL Canadian program convened in Briercrest, Saskatchewan. After finishing college, Loewen and his wife, Anne, went to South America as missionaries with the Mennonite Church, and then returned to North America to teach at Tabor College. Nida asked Loewen to help train missionaries at institutes held in Toronto and in Stony Point, New York. When the United Mennonite Mission asked Nida to do a survey of its work in India, Nida passed the job on to Loewen. Loewen returned to South America as a missionary to Paraguay, but in 1964 Nida asked him to join the UBS as a translation consultant for South America. The Loewens were initially based in the United States, but from 1965 to 1970 they lived in Lima, Peru, and transferred to the Africa region at the end of their stay. Charles Taber came to ABS as another prominent Nida recruit. The son of missionaries in the Central African Republic, Taber grew up speaking Sango, French, and English. His father, besides being a doctor, was also a biblical scholar who had been involved in an Old Testament translation project in Sango. His mother, too, had an interest in biblical studies and languages. Taber first met Nida while a student at Bryant College. Nida used him as a Sango informant in a monolingual demonstration.4 After also serving as a missionary in the Central African Republic, Taber began working on his Ph.D. in linguistic anthropology and African studies at the Hartford Seminary Foundation under Dr. H. A. Gleason, a member of the ABS board. Partly through Gleason’s influence, Nida recruited Taber to join the ABS in 1966 after he had finished his doctorate. Although he was given a number of research projects, his main work was to collaborate with Nida on their co-authored work, Theory and Practice of Translation. After Theory and Practice of Translation was published in English, Taber began working with the Reverend Jean-Claude Margot of Switzerland on the French version of the book. He subsequently went back to Africa and worked with translators in West Africa for four years. In the mid 1960s Nida began looking for someone to prepare a Greek/English dictionary for translators. Heber Peacock recommended Barclay Newman, who had been one of his students at Southern Seminary before Peacock left there in 1958. Nida invited Newman to New York in 1963 to discuss the project with him. He wanted a dictionary of

4. In this exercise a linguist elicits responses from a speaker of a language he or she does not know and who normally does not speak the linguist’s language. In the space of just an hour or two, the linguist can discover a great deal about the language. Both Pike and Nida frequently did this to demonstrate the value of linguistics in the field.

Spreading the Word

89

about two hundred pages, to be ready in two years. He offered him $3.00 an hour for the work, but the latter, not used to such largesse, said the salary was overly generous. Eventually he received $2.50 an hour for the work. The dictionary, finished in two years, ran to 204 published pages. During Newman’s work on the dictionary, Nida visited him in Missouri to check on the project and to invite him to assist with a translator’s institute that was being held in 1965 in Limuru, Kenya. Newman mistakenly assumed that it would be warm in Limuru, since the workshop would be held near the equator. Limuru, however, lies seven thousand feet above sea level and is extremely cold, and had not Newman brought a pair of thermal underwear with him (which he wore every day and night for the whole month), he would have been quite uncomfortable. One evening after the workshop, Nida took the entire staff into Nairobi to see the movie My Fair Lady. The next day one of the missionaries attending the workshop remarked to Nida that all the staff had been gone the evening before. Knowing her conservative view of entertainment such as movies, Nida answered, “Yes, we all went to an audio-visual presentation on phonetics” (Barclay Newman, interview with author, 30 June 2000). After the Limuru workshop, Nida invited Newman to join the Bible Society as a translation consultant in the Philippines. Newman first took several courses at the Hartford Seminary Foundation before arriving in the Philippines on New Year’s Day, 1967. With the help of Rosario Yu of the Philippine Bible Society, Newman held a workshop that year for six major languages. The following year, Newman coordinated a large workshop at Baguio for translators from all over Southeast Asia and the Pacific.5 Newman worked for a number of years in the Philippines and then in Malaysia and Indonesia, where he devoted a major portion of his time to common-language translations in the national languages there. For family reasons, the Newmans relocated to Missouri but he continued to commute to Southeast Asia to work with those projects. He also joined the Old Testament Committee for the TEV, and at Nida’s request he assumed the writing of translator’s handbooks. Newman subsequently became one of the most prolific exegetical authors of handbooks, working initially with Nida as co-author, and later with other consultants. The Contemporary English Version The handbooks, the numerous Bible Translator articles, and especially the Malay and Indonesian translations all exhibited Newman’s exceptional creativity. In passage after passage he found new ways to

5. The author and Danny Arichea attended this workshop prior to being hired by Nida.

90


deal with translation problems. These translations and articles have served as models for translators in numerous languages. Thus it was no surprise that Nida approached him with an idea for a project that eventually developed into the translation for which Newman will be best remembered. In 1984, during the Triennial Translation Workshop in Stuttgart, Nida suggested that the two of them work on a literary-liturgical translation in English. However, the ABS did not see this as a high priority at that time. The UBS global coordinator for translation met with the ABS about the proposal and suggested that Newman and Nida consider preparing a children’s translation instead. ABS took to the idea quickly—especially since it was something they had been toying with for some time—and proposed it to the two men. Nida and Newman began researching children’s literature and made attempts at Bible translations for youth and children. Initially they both drafted material and met for several weeks at a time, usually in Puerto Rico, to go over the drafts. Their wives would be with them, and Jean Newman took responsibility for inputting all drafts into the computer. After a few meetings, they found it worked better if Newman produced drafts that they could revise together. Although other translators were added to the team later, Newman remained the principal translator of the entire Bible project. However, he shifted from UBS to ABS in the early stages of the project. The ABS first published a collection of stories from the Gospels. The response was extraordinarily positive, and it became clear that although the translation was meant for children, adults enjoyed reading it as well. Consequently, the focus shifted from a children’s translation to a Bible for the whole family. Published in 1991, the New Testament in this Contemporary English Version (CEV) was titled Bible for Today’s Family. The entire CEV Bible, which appeared in 1995, has been well received in the United States and the rest of the anglophone world. One of the principal reasons for its success is that Newman and the other translators focused not only on language that could be read by readers of all ages but also on making it a translation to be heard. They were concerned with the sound and rhythm of the translation so that when it was read aloud in a family or church gathering, people could listen and follow easily without having to look at the printed page. Nurturing the Team Gradually Nida’s team of expert translation consultants grew, and by 1968 there were thirteen consultants in the field.6 In addition to the North

6. UBS translation consultants are expert in fields such as biblical studies or linguistics who carry oversight responsibility for major translation projects around the world.

Spreading the Word

91

Americans Nida had recruited, this number included several consultants from the Netherlands, Britain, and Australia, in addition to national Bible Society staff in India and Indonesia. Nida worked hard to encourage this development, but it was especially difficult for the British and Foreign Bible Society, since they still relied on manuscript examiners in London. However, under intense pressure from Nida and others, BFBS began to send out consultants in the late 1960s. The first was Roland Stevenson, a Church Mission Society (CMS) missionary in Sudan who had taught at the University of Khartoum. After being recruited by BFBS, Stevenson relocated to Nairobi and took responsibility for a region stretching from the Middle East through the Horn of Africa and down to Tanzania and Malawi. Nida realized that there was only one way to persuade the UBS Committee on Translation to shift the efforts from manuscript examiners to field-based consultants: to have someone from BFBS assume the role of UBS translations coordinator. Wesley Culshaw, a former missionary in India, accepted this post. International in outlook and open-minded in equal measure, he stood in stark contrast to his superiors in London. In the years before responsibility for the work was shifted to the regions, he served ably as the global coordinator. An extraordinary rapport developed between Nida and the team of translation consultants. They did not see each other very often, perhaps once a year if they were on the same continent, otherwise once every three years at the Triennial Translation Workshops, but somehow a strong sense of fellowship developed, centering in Gene Nida, who shared the individual consultant’s material with the team and fostered a sense of collegiality. Although these consultants whom Nida had recruited each made significant contributions, all of them recognized that they were expanding and working out the practice of something that Nida had started. Even when some consultants wrote a few things that Nida probably would not have written or became involved in media other than print, they were nevertheless working within the parameters and with the methods that he had set. Some collaborated directly with Nida, as Taber did with writing Theory and Practice of Translation, but most did not. Nida formed the center of the research, the writing, and the translation consultancies. He formed the center not only because he had recruited and managed the team but also because of the effort and guidance he put into their work. His guidance was of several kinds. Most important, whenever he met with any of the consultants he would talk with them about the research and writing they were doing. He would suggest areas for them to consider, would listen to what they were working on and respond to it, and he would read any drafts of papers or articles they wrote and respond with helpful comments. He would also suggest publishers for their materials, and more than once he contacted

92


publishers on behalf of the consultant. In many cases when publishers approached him for an article, he would recommend, instead, one of his colleagues who could do the work. He would also discuss with the staff their consultancy work and advise them on how to approach various situations they faced. In addition to guiding their research and writing, he also provided them with his informal “Relevant Ramblings.” As he read articles or books that he considered were worth sharing with the field consultants, he wrote reviews or descriptions of them, which he sent out every few months. These were not objective scholarly reviews such as might go to a scholarly journal. Rather, they were usually highly subjective. Nida offered his frank opinion and quoted liberally from the book being reviewed so that those who received “Ramblings” would get a good idea of the content of the book and some indication of whether it would be helpful or not. Later, other consultants contributed to “Ramblings” as well, but Nida continued to be the major contributor until 1984, when he turned the responsibility over to the office of the UBS Translation Services Coordinator. Nida also provided scholarly books to give the translators access to commentaries and other aids that would help them with their work. ABS established a translator’s library in 1953 (Committee on Translation minutes, 22 April 1953), and books were loaned to translators for as long as they needed them. However, as Nida began to send translation consultants in the field, he also established a book budget for each of them. They could order through the ABS office any books and journals they needed and keep them in their own libraries both for their own use or to loan to translators in their areas. Since most consultants in the field did not have access to good libraries or bookstores, these steps ensured that they kept up to date in the various fields in which they worked. Triennial Translation Workshops Perhaps the greatest opportunity for assisting the consultants, however, arose at the triennial meetings of all the consultants. This series of workshops started as a one-week meeting in 1955 with the team of five. It proved so helpful that other meetings followed. In 1957, Nida invited all those who were giving full-time help to translators, whether from ABS or other Societies, to meet for three weeks in the living room of his home in Greenwich, Connecticut. Three years later this meeting reconvened, but the group was too large for the Nida living room, so it met at Echo Lake, Pennsylvania, from 19 to 28 September (ABS Committee on Translations, 9 January 1961). This is considered the first official Triennial Translator’s Workshop (TTW), although two previous gatherings had taken place in the Nidas’ living room.

Spreading the Word

93

By the time of the fourth TTW, held in El Escorial, Spain, in 1969, there were almost thirty people in attendance. At the 2000 TTW, in Malaga, Spain, there were over 120 participants.7 Some of the early TTWs lasted for three weeks; currently they convene for two weeks. At each of the first four Nida presented drafts of a book he was working on, and the group critiqued it and, of course, learned from it. In 1969, for example, he and Taber presented in detail the draft material of Theory and Practice of Translation and received extensive feedback from the group. In 1972 Smalley presented his draft material on discourse and translation. Others presented material they were working on as well. This cross-fertilization of ideas became important in the intellectual development of the consultants and has continued to be one of the highlights for all the team. At the 1981 TTW, no one had a whole book to present. Subsequently, all consultants were required to present some kind of paper, and this tradition has continued. It has proven to be important for the consultants to have this opportunity to share their research and writing with colleagues. Themes and topics are now assigned in advance, and in many cases groups working on particular topics exchange materials several times before the actual TTW. For example, some consultants have undertaken a long-term study of translating the Bible in various media, others have worked on issues in translating poetry, some focus on particular Old Testament problems, and still others on Old Testament textual issues. Because of these research projects, the TTW continues to be the stimulus for publishing a number of books and articles. Many papers are later published in The Bible Translator, some in the UBS Monograph Series, and others in scholarly journals. In the early TTWs, almost all participants belonged to the Bible Societies. There were one or two efforts, most notably in 1972, to have outside scholars contribute as well. This did not become a major feature of the TTWs, however, until the 1991 meeting at Victoria Falls. By then a felt need prompted UBS to expose the consultants to new research in biblical studies and translation theory. As a result, appropriate scholars were invited to give a series of papers to the group. The combination of rich scholarship by invited scholars and by field consultants proved to be extremely stimulating and productive. Dr. Tom Boomershine, a New Testament and media professor who participated in the 1991 and 1994

7. Other TTWs have been held in Rüschlikon, Switzerland, in 1972 and 1975; Bangkok, Thailand, in 1978; Chania, Crete, in 1981; Stuttgart, Germany, in 1984; Harper’s Ferry, West Virginia, in 1987; Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, in 1991; Chiang Mai, Thailand, in 1994; and Mérida, Mexico, in 1997.

94


meetings, said, “Of all the academic conferences I have ever been to, this experience has been by far the most stimulating” (pers. comm.). Helping Translators: The Bible Translator Nida continued to write in order to disseminate his approach to translation. Both he and his colleagues realized that scholarly articles in academic journals would not reach most of the translators and he saw the need for a more practical journal with articles that focused specifically on translation problems. Nida had become acquainted with Herman Rutgers of the Netherlands Bible Society at Haywards Heath in 1946 when the United Bible Societies (UBS) was being organized. The two men had a lot in common, and at their second meeting later that year they considered various ways to raise the quality of translations produced on the field. UBS historian Edwin Robertson writes of that meeting, “It was clear that their intention was not merely to modify or gently reform existing procedures, but to undertake a revolutionary change” (Robertson 1996: 58). Nida and Rutgers worked to prepare a specimen copy of the practical journal they envisaged, and presented this in 1949 to the newly formed United Bible Societies Committee on Translation. The Committee approved the publication of this quarterly journal with Nida as the first editor, an action confirmed by the UBS Council that same year. The specimen became the first issue the next year for The Bible Translator (BT ), a journal that continues to be a primary source of help to translators and a forum for significant articles from biblical scholars, linguists, and others interested in the field. Institutes Nida and his colleagues also decided to gather together as many as a hundred translators from a large area for translation institutes that lasted from four to six weeks. The first was in Bobo Dioulasso in Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso) in 1962. Typically in the mornings, Nida would lecture on translation method, Bratcher on biblical material, and a few other invited staff would cover related topics. For example, Wonderly or Smalley might lecture on sociolinguistic issues or one of the BFBS specialists might lecture on a particular book of the Bible. In the afternoons, Nida and his colleagues worked with individual translation teams, checking their translations, and giving them individual assistance. In addition to training translators, these institutes provided the opportunity to work with consultants-in-training and to look over prospective translation consultants. Prospective consultants could gain some idea of the nature of the work, and Nida and his colleagues could determine whether or not the individual had assets that would benefit the Society.

Spreading the Word

95

At the same time, the new people could learn a great deal about translation and about how to work with translation consultants.8 A number of consultants joined the team after these workshops. But sometimes the prospects realized that this was not the kind of work they wanted, or conversely Nida and his colleagues decided that a person probably would not fit in well. It was a good way to avoid costly mistakes. These large institutes continued until the early 1970s. After the UBS shifted to smaller and shorter workshops, trainee consultants did not get the exposure to translation theory or to consultancy that these larger institutes had provided. The Translation Services Coordinator and the Regional Translation Coordinators (RETCOs) eventually had to develop special training programs for new hires and for the senior consultants who would be their mentors. Translator’s Handbooks As Nida and other consultants worked with translators, they realized that their visits did not take place often enough. Furthermore, the workshops could only cover some of the myriad problems that translators faced. They discovered, too, that commentaries on the Bible, although excellent for scholars and theologians, often did not address many of the practical problems of interpretation that translators encountered. A common problem, for example, was to determine which information would actually be relevant to translation. In addition, many commentaries had particular points of view to promote. A translator, however, needed to know the entire range of possible interpretations of the text, and even to be given some guidance as to which exegesis reflected the majority view of current scholarly opinion. A second problem for the translators had to do with determining how the linguistic characteristics of the target language posed problems when dealing with the biblical material. What kinds of things did the translators have to know to express the meaning with some equivalent forms? To address these problems, Nida developed a series of handbooks for translators. He and Bratcher co-authored the first one, on the Gospel of Mark, in 1960. Bratcher commented on the exegesis and textual issues of every verse, setting out in clear language what the issues were and what the major interpretations were that translators should be aware of. Nida

8. Nida invited Danny Arichea and me to the four-week institute in Baguio, Philippines, in April 1968. Every afternoon I would sit in, being encouraged to participate fully, with Bill Wonderly as he worked with translators. Arichea worked with Barclay Newman, who was already working as a consultant in the Philippines. By the end of the month the UBS staff had decided on accepting both men, and they in turn believed they would enjoy the work.

96


then treated the ways that these various meanings could be handled in a variety of language types. Other handbooks rapidly followed. Nida himself worked with several of the biblically-trained consultants, but eventually a number of other linguist consultants became authors. By 2000, the whole New Testament series and about two-thirds of the Old Testament series were completed. For most translators, these handbooks are the single greatest source of help with their translation. Culture and Translation “Good missionaries have always been good ‘anthropologists,’ ” Nida wrote in the preface of Customs and Cultures, published in 1954. “Not only have they been aware of human needs,” he continued, “whether stemming from the local way of life or from man’s universal need of salvation, but they have recognized that the various ways of life of different peoples are the channels by which their needs take form and through which the solutions to such needs must pass. Effective missionaries have always sought to immerse themselves in a profound knowledge of the ways of life of the people to whom they have sought to minister, since only by such an understanding of the indigenous culture could they possibly communicate a new way of life” (Nida 1954: xi). Elsewhere he wrote that, despite radical differences among languages, “As linguists and anthropologists have discovered, that which unites mankind is much greater than that which divides, and hence there is, even in cases of very disparate languages and cultures, a basis for communication” (Nida 1964: 2). These two passages demonstrate clearly that Nida realized that good translation, which was after all, good communication, required a solid understanding of the culture of the people. However, his travels made him “conscious of the tragic mistakes in cultural orientation which not only express themselves directly and indirectly in translations of the Scriptures but in the general pattern of missionary work” (Nida 1954: xi). When Nida met Pike at the SIL in 1936, he introduced him to the writings of Bloomfield and Sapir, the two most prominent American linguists of that time. He also introduced him to the concept of emic/etic and by extension to the phoneme that Pike found useful in developing writing systems.9 The Americanist tradition of anthropology and linguistics that

9. Linguists use the emic/etic concept to distinguish between all the sounds of a language or all the parts of words that are semantically or linguistically relevant. Whereas a linguist from the outside might record and describe all the sounds that are made in the language, within the language only certain of these are relevant. For example, in English there are several different

Spreading the Word

97

held sway in the twentieth century maintained that a culture had to be understood on its own terms (see, e.g., Cove 1999.) The emic/etic concept was an expression of this insight. Another element of the tradition stated that “Language, thought and reality are inseparable” (Darnell 1999: 46). In fact, in the North American tradition, cultural studies and anthropology were inextricably linked (47). Linguistic methods such as the etic/emic distinction that were used widely in phonology and morphology were applied to the study of culture (Murray 1999: 59). It was thus a logical step for Nida and his colleagues to recognize that effective communication, including translation, would link to a good understanding of cultural issues as well as linguistic ones. Practical Anthropology In order to help missionaries work on their tasks, including the task of translating, more effectively, Nida published Customs and Cultures in 1954. He and his colleagues also persuaded the ABS to found a journal that dealt with cultural issues. Practical Anthropology (PA ) first appeared in 1953 and was published for nineteen years. Almost all the articles came from Nida, his ABS colleagues, and others who worked with him from time to time: Smalley, Reyburn, Wonderly, Taber, and Loewen. Darrell Whiteman, himself an anthropologist, praises their accomplishments: Through this journal, they were able to take the whole field of anthropology and demonstrate how useful it was whenever we take the gospel and connect it deeply into the cultural context of a particular people. And when you do that, the church is going to grow, the Bible is going to make sense, and there are all kinds of ways for the missionaries to figure out how to relate more effectively to local populations. I think at one time Practical Anthropology had as many as 4,000 subscribers. It was immensely popular. It came out six times a year, and Nida was the genius behind it. (Darrell Whiteman, interview with author, 21 Sept. 2000)

t sounds. Before a vowel, a puff of air (aspiration) accompanies the sound. After an s, however, there is no aspiration. In both cases the tongue briefly blocks the airflow and then releases it. When the t is final in a word, the air normally is not released. When the t lies between two vowels, it is pronounced differently yet, as the tongue flaps briefly against the roof of the mouth with neither aspiration nor release. But because in English none of these t sounds occur in the same phonetic environment or context, one letter /t/ can be used to write all of them without causing confusion to native speakers, who will automatically pronounce the “correct” one for the language. A description of all the t sounds would be an etic description; hence the word phonetics to describe all the sounds that are made. But analysis of the fact that one symbol /t/ could stand for them all without confusion is emic; hence the word phonemics for this kind of analysis of the sound system of a language.

98


After nineteen years, Nida and the editor at the time, Charles Taber, felt that their work was done. The journal had achieved the desired effect of sensitizing missionaries to cultural issues, and the Bible Societies did not need to continue to be the ones to play that role. Consequently, the journal was merged with a new journal, Missiology, also edited by an anthropologist, Allen Tippett. Six years later, when Whiteman became the editor, he wrote in his first editorial, “We are continuing Practical Anthropology, and as long as I am the editor of this journal, we will continue to use the insights of anthropology to see how the growth of the church will be more effective when it is anchored deeply within the context of the culture” (Darrell Whiteman, interview with author, 21 Sept. 2000). Lamin Sanneh would concur. He points out that missionaries had the motivation to go out into the field to work in other cultures but that they frequently did not take an extra needed step. This step consisted of recognizing the logic of what they were doing, a logic that required them to engage the culture in a positive way. As he explains, translating the Bible assumes that God is present in a culture already. Otherwise, it would not be possible to translate the names of God or many theological concepts. This is an optimistic and positive view of a culture. However, the cultural inhibitions of most missionaries prevented them from recognizing this; consequently, they did not approach the culture with positive attitudes (Lamin Sanneh, interview with author, 28 Sept. 2000). Sanneh believes that Practical Anthropology addressed this issue clearly. He thinks it no coincidence that the Bible Societies stopped publishing it at the same time that they completed the shift away from missionary translators to native speakers. The journal’s purpose had been to educate the missionaries. Similarly, Nida never felt the need to revise or reprint Customs and Cultures. Sanneh goes on to say that, with the increasing multiculturalism in the United States, there is now a need for a Practical Anthropology for ministers and Christians in America in the twenty-first century. Customs and Cultures Nida wrote Customs and Cultures (1954) in six weeks. As he reported, “I had this project in mind for a long time. In my briefcase I had notes and I had chapters outlined. The stuff was all there, and I kept traveling with it. I was on my way to Brazil. I was going to do two different workshops down there for a two-month period. This was back in the early 1950s when flights were expensive and not all that convenient.” He arrived in Brazil only to discover that one of the workshops had been cancelled or postponed. So suddenly he had almost six weeks on his hands with nothing to do. “I checked myself into a hotel and began writing,” he recounted to Whiteman (Darrell Whiteman, interview with author, 21 Sept. 2000).

Spreading the Word

99

Customs and Cultures emerged from that concentrated time of focused energy. He had spent more than ten years collecting all kinds of stories and observing people all over the world and had developed clear principles about what was the most effective way to communicate and work cross-culturally. One reviewer praised the book but said it was a pity that Nida did not quote his sources for all the data. How could he? All the data came from his own notes and observations. More Cultural Studies Nida wrote two other books related to communication, culture, and mission that reflected his purpose and mission. Message and Mission: The Communication of the Christian Faith was published by Harper & Brothers in 1960. In it he dealt with all types of religious phenomena, especially classes of religious practices, beliefs, and resultant behavior. Nida stated that he aimed to introduce readers to principles and procedures of communication and then to focus on how these could be relevant to the communication of the Christian faith. In the book he contrasts what he calls “the common ground” approach to mission, which he feels is ineffective, with a “point of contact” approach. He argues that the latter is more effective because one cannot separate an element of belief from its context and still have the same belief. Therefore, focusing on common elements, as some missiologists advocate, is unrealistic. Elements of belief only have significance as part of a system, and religions are systems. However, identifying where belief systems share common elements or contact can form the basis for communicating the distinctiveness of the Christian faith. Religion across Cultures: A Study in the Communication of Christian Faith appeared in 1968, published by Harper & Row. In his preface Nida stated that he went beyond Customs and Cultures, which dealt with the anthropological context of communication, and beyond Message and Mission, which treated the techniques of communication in terms of missionary outreach. Here, Nida explained, the concern centered on the psychological and dynamic factors in communication that are universally applicable. Thus, he focused on such human needs as sex and hunger, showing how they are manifest in different ways in different religions. Customs and Cultures in 1954 and Message and Mission in 1960 explain clearly the rationale behind Nida’s work, namely, the effective communication of the gospel across all cultural and linguistic barriers (North 1974: xi). Customs and Cultures in particular continues to be used in missiology courses in many seminaries, even though it is now almost fifty years old. Whiteman finds that his students are astounded at the

100


insights it has and at the wealth of illustrations and cases. It is full of anecdotes that drive home the fact that being a good missionary involves being a good anthropologist (Darrell Whiteman, interview with author, 21 Sept. 2000). Although it is usual to speak of Nida as one who applied linguistics to translation, the fact is that his understanding of culture played a much larger role in shaping the approach. Susan Bassnet is correct in listing him in the culturalist phase of translation studies (Bassnet 1998: 131). Nida was concerned that some people might misunderstand his emphasis on cultural anthropology, taking it as a way of manipulating people, getting them to behave in a particular way, or doing things they might not otherwise do. But he points out that, “On the contrary, the principal value of anthropology is to change ourselves, not to remake others” (Nida 1988: 64). A New Organization In 1939, on the occasion of the 125th anniversary of the Netherlands Bible Society, representatives from the Bible Societies in the United States, England, Scotland, the Netherlands, Norway, and France met at Woudschoten in the Netherlands. They discussed the need for cooperative work in distribution but also expressed concern for ensuring high-quality translations. They agreed to form a Council of Bible Societies (Robertson 1996: 9). Five days after this historic meeting, Germany invaded Poland, and World War II interrupted this effort at cooperation. As might be expected, Bible publishing in Europe during the war was severely affected. Immediately after the war ended, the ABS stepped in to offer as much help as it could, providing printing and folding machinery for Germany and, in 1947, supplying 550 tons of sulphite pulp so German paper mills could make the paper needed for one million Bibles. Further, ABS began to produce 250,000 Bibles and 900,000 New Testaments in German. They also sent Bibles and Testaments into Russia, both in Russian and Greek (Taylor 1978: 130). The serious shortage of Scriptures in Europe then led to a meeting of thirteen Bible Societies from 6 to 9 May 1946 at the Elfinsward Conference House in Haywards Heath, England. The American Bible Society delegation included Eugene Nida, who had been on staff only two years. The conference decided to form the United Bible Societies (UBS) as an instrument to coordinate more effectively the sharing of resources needed for the global work. Each national Society retained its autonomy, but in fact both the British and Foreign Bible Society and the American Bible Society, who had extensive work outside their borders, were yielding some of their influence to the new organization. For example, rather than directly subsidizing work in Africa or Asia, and thereby maintaining great influence

Spreading the Word

101

there, the larger and more affluent Societies contributed to a common fund that would be distributed on the basis of global priorities. This new collaborative work resulted in a translation program and the eventual formation of a UBS Translations Committee. The American Bible Society, the British and Foreign Bible Society, the Netherlands Bible Society, and the National Bible Society of Scotland had each been giving some assistance to translators in areas where they had historic ties, and this continued for some years after the UBS was formed. In 1947 a conference on translation matters convened at Woudschoten, the same site as the 1939 meeting. The conference recommended that the United Bible Societies should publish helps for translators, an action that led to the publication of The Bible Translator. Nida took on the responsibility for leading the UBS Translations Committee into a more unified program (Taylor 1978: 133). This was not easy. Some Bible Societies resented the loss of influence over translation work in areas where they had been working, and many, particularly BFBS, did not accept the type of assistance that Nida was proposing for translators. They still examined manuscripts in London, not in the field, and did not accept his developing approach to translations that placed the emphasis on meaning, not on form. However, as Taylor says in his history of the work, “Nida’s skill and obvious correctness of approach of translations nearly always nullified objections” (Taylor 1978: 133). Nida’s team of translation consultants was growing, and he encouraged the other Bible Societies to engage such people as well. Eventually the Netherlands Bible Society began to recruit a few consultants for the field, as did BFBS. But they were appointed by their national Societies, and managed by them. The next step, therefore, was to put the management of the translation programs in the regions. In 1970, Regional Centers opened in Asia-Pacific, the Americas, Europe, and Africa and a translation coordinator appointed for each of these. Reyburn had been asked to assume global coordinating responsibility, which he had done the year before, and Nida was appointed the UBS translations research coordinator. From this position he was able to encourage field consultants in their research, but he was also able to coordinate all the various projects that provided helps and scholarly editions for translators. Each consultant’s appointment came from the UBS Committee on Translation. Regional Translation Coordinators (RETCOs) managed the work of these consultants. Home Societies paid the salaries but charged them to the UBS budget. The staff salary scales were also established by the UBS. Bill Reyburn, who was transferred from ABS to UBS, found the move liberating. “I was no longer representing an American or Dutch Society, but was acting on behalf of an international fellowship,” he wrote in his autobiography (Reyburn 2001).

102


The UBS translation program was officially in effect from 1970. Projects in countries where there was a national Bible Society were, of course, managed by that Society, but quality control was the responsibility of a UBS-appointed or approved translation consultant. In other countries the UBS often continued a fairly large management responsibility, but as more and more national offices became autonomous Bible Societies, a pattern developed in which a national Society took responsibility for the work, although the subsidy budget was still provided by the UBS regions. Increasingly, national Societies have begun to hire translation consultants for work in their own countries; South Africa, India, Indonesia, Australia, Nigeria, and Ghana are examples. Although these consultants are national Society staff, the UBS regional coordinator is responsible for their training and for ensuring that their work meets global UBS translation standards. In countries where UBS staff still provides assistance, their role is largely quality control, assisting the national Society in training translators, helping them solve problems, and recommending to the national Society which translations should be published. Nida started alone but began to hire consultants throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Today UBS and national translation staff who supervise a number of projects (as opposed to translators working in just one language) number about seventy. Together they assist approximately 865 translation projects. By 1975 Reyburn felt that the regions were sufficiently established and that there was no longer a need for a global coordinator. He returned to the field as a consultant, while Nida stepped down as research coordinator and assumed the role of consultant to the ABS. Nida continued to write and lecture, but apart from his work on study projects and the CEV, had little direct involvement in assisting translators. UBS then created a position of translation services coordinator with responsibility for the quality of the translation team worldwide. Developing a UBS Policy In a 1995 interview with UBS historian Edwin Robertson, Nida listed eight factors he had promoted as essential for new directions in a UBS translation policy that would ultimately achieve the goals of the Bible Societies. 1. 2. 3.

The growing cooperation in translation by the various Bible Societies; Interconfessional cooperation involving both Roman Catholic and Orthodox constituencies; The development of the Greek New Testament text published by the Bible Societies particularly for translators;

Spreading the Word 4. 5. 6. 7.

8.

103

The Hebrew Old Testament Text Project; The Versión Popular in Spanish and the TEV in English as models for popular-language translations; The development of translation consultants to assist in translation projects throughout the world; The production of helps for translators: sample concordances, thematic indices, reference systems, and handbooks on separate books of the Scriptures; The preparation of special helps for readers, including particularly the publication of study Bibles. (Robertson 1996: 59–60)

It was indeed an ambitious agenda, but Nida kept the vision and helped others to grasp it as well. As Robertson wrote, “Only the single vision of one man over these forty years could have carried that through. When Nida left, the structure for such an agenda was in place and mostly accomplished” (Robertson 1996: 60).

6. TAKING THE BIBLE SERIOUSLY

From their earliest beginnings in the nineteenth century, the Bible Societies committed themselves to exegetical and textual integrity. They insisted that their published translations reflect the exegesis of mainstream scholarship as closely as possible. They also wanted the translations to go back to the best available Greek and Hebrew texts. The Societies believed that these approaches were necessary if they were to serve all the churches. They felt they could not fulfill their mission if they allied themselves with one interpretation or another, and they knew that their credibility would be diminished if they, or the translations they produced, appeared partisan or reflected poor scholarship. These concerns account, in part, for the policy of publishing the Bible without note and comment. They also partly explain the source of a major conflict that arose when Nida began to promote his dynamic-equivalence approach. Many in the Bible Societies, most notably in the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS), believed that his approach led the translator too far away from the text itself. Nida, of course, argued that faithfulness to the Bible really meant being faithful to the meaning, not to the form. “When a high percentage of people misunderstand a rendering, it cannot be regarded as a legitimate translation” (Nida and Taber 1969: 2). Romans 1:17 provides an example of an easily misunderstood text. Traditional or formal translations usually have a rendering such as “the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith.” Most average readers assume that “righteousness” refers to the fact that God is righteous (UBS staff have tested this rendering themselves in church groups). Scholars, however, generally point out that the phrase refers more to the process by which God puts people into a right relationship with himself. Thus, what is involved here is the act of justification, not the character of righteousness (1969: 2). Today’s English Version reflects this with the following translation: “For the gospel reveals how God puts people right with himself: it is through faith from beginning to end.” Nida and Taber also quote 2 Cor 3:10 as a passage that simply makes no sense if it is formally translated. The American Standard Version, for example, offers, “For verily that which hath been made glorious hath not 105

106


been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth.” The New English Bible cleared this up with a more dynamically equivalent rendering: “Indeed, the splendour that once was is now no splendour at all; it is outshone by a splendour greater still” (see further, Nida and Taber 1969: 2). Quite simply, faithfulness to the form results in loss or change of meaning, Nida points out, thereby defeating the purpose of the Bible Societies that aims to make God’s word accessible to all. Nida helped people see the cultural issues. But some still feared that his approach could lead to translations with interpretations far from the accepted ones. Nida wanted to be sure that the translations did indeed retain exegetical integrity, so he promoted several principles and projects, some of which were already standard in the Bible Societies but in need of restatement or reinforcement. Others stemmed directly from the changes being brought about by his approach to translation. Translating Each Book of the Bible on Its Own The Old Testament has always posed a problem for some Christians. It contains many practices that seem somehow “un-Christian.” For example, there are accounts of God ordering the Israelites to utterly destroy those who opposed them, including women and infants. Some of the patriarchs practiced polygamy with God’s blessing. Some punishments that were ordered for infractions of the law seem barbaric to many today, and many of the laws on diet and dress seem simply irrelevant. Further, much of the teaching of Paul in the New Testament seems to indicate that Christ put an end to the Old Testament law by his suffering, death, and resurrection. (This is in contradiction to Matthew, for example, who says that Christ came to fulfill that law.) Some Christians have resolved this problem by thinking of the Old Testament as essentially background material that helps us understand the New Testament. They see many of the prophecies in the Old Testament as pointing to Christ. However, it is the New Testament and the resurrection of Christ, they would say, that gives the plan of salvation and shows believers how to live. This conviction leads to the practice of interpreting the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. The situation proves to be even more complex, however. The Bible that the New Testament authors used and quoted was the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation of writings originally in Hebrew (and some Aramaic). Most Western Christian translators today, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, use the Hebrew and Aramaic as the source text for Old Testament translation. (Eastern Christians, that is, the Orthodox churches, have continued to use the Greek translation as a base rather than the Hebrew.)

Taking the Bible Seriously

107

As a result, many translators, particularly from an evangelical Protestant background, tend to translate parts of the Old Testament in light of the New. A clear example of this is Isa 7:14. The Hebrew text in a formal or literal translation would read, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the pregnant young woman will bear a son and call him ‘Immanuel.’ ” The Hebrew word almah most often refers to a young woman. (The Hebrew word for “virgin” is betulah.) In the context of this verse, almah could refer to the wife of the king, Ahaz, to whom Isaiah is speaking, as some scholars suggest. If that is the case, Isaiah is reassuring the king that the line of David will continue. When the book of Isaiah was translated into the Greek of the LXX, the translators used the word parthenos, which could refer to a young woman but in other contexts meant “virgin.” Matthew, whose version of Isaiah would have been the LXX, saw in the Isaiah passage a prophecy that beyond its immediate context could refer to Jesus. He clearly understood parthenos to be a reference to Mary’s virginity and cited the Isaiah passage to confirm this (Matt 1:23). Should translators of Isaiah translate what the Hebrew text has, “young woman,” or be swayed by Matthew and use “virgin”? The question is not whether Jesus was born of a virgin but rather how to render Isaiah. Many have translated Isaiah in light of Matthew and put “virgin” in this verse instead of the more correct (according to the Hebrew) “young woman.” Nida and de Waard point out that “reading a virgin birth back into Isaiah 7:14 would mean either that the text was completely irrelevant for Ahaz (even though the context indicates clearly its immediate significance for the Syro-Ephraimite crisis) or it would be necessary to postulate two virgin births for the Scriptures” (1986: 23). Another example is found in Gen 2:17 (see Barr 1994). In the New International Version, God commands the first man, “But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” The key word here is “when.” The Hebrew has literally “on the day,” not “when,” and most translations reflect this. However, as Barr points out, of course the first man and woman did not die on the day they ate the fruit; the serpent was right, not God. God said something and it did not happen. The Bible Societies, with Nida’s strong support, have insisted on putting the facts before the readers without regard for what this might do to a particular theological position. The TEV has, for example, “that same day.” But Barr notes that the NIV rendering does not allow readers to see that God’s word was not fulfilled literally; the translators translated the Old Testament through their own conservative Christian lens (Barr 1994: 272, 273). Other familiar examples of viewing the Hebrew Bible text through a Christian lens, especially of finding messianic implications within the Old

108


Testament, include “until Shiloh come” in Gen 49:10 and “I know that my redeemer lives” in Job 19:25 (Bobrick 2001: 262). The position of the Bible Societies has been to translate each book and passage as the writer understood it (Nida and Taber 1969: 8). The CEV of the ABS, for example, renders the Gen 49:10 phrase as “until nations obey you,” a more likely translation of the Hebrew and one less likely to be taken as a messianic reference. With this kind of problem and others in mind, Nida consistently and constantly promoted a policy of letting each book of the Bible speak for itself. For example, Nida and de Waard argued strongly that it is better to let the Old Testament and the New Testament convey their own messages in light of their contexts (Nida and de Waard 1986: 23, 24). Another kind of problem arises when parallel passages in the Gospels differ. For example, in Matthew’s Beatitudes it is “the poor in spirit”—that is, those who know they are spiritually poor—who are blessed. In Luke’s version, on the other hand, it is simply the poor who are blessed. The Bible Societies have always insisted that this difference in the two versions be maintained. In other words, it is not the role of the translators to try to uncover what the original words of Jesus might have been in Aramaic or to account in the translation for perceived discrepancies or differences between passages and books. Their task is to reflect as accurately as possible what was understood by the author or editor of the text as it has come to us (Nida and Taber 1969: 8). Nida explained this policy in his books (e.g., Nida and Taber 1969; Nida and de Waard 1986), but Bratcher and the other consultants who taught biblical materials in the workshops also covered the issue carefully, arguing persuasively that “faithfulness” required it. Mainstream Scholarship Nida, Wonderly, and Smalley were linguists, Loewen an anthropologist with linguistic training, and Reyburn a linguist with anthropological orientation. For a number of years many of the new recruits were linguists as well. Not surprisingly, Nida’s own approach to translation was linguistically based. This approach came into play even in the early part of Nida’s career, when most translators were missionaries. Nida relied on linguistics to help train them in learning and analyzing languages and in understanding sociolinguistic and cross-cultural communication issues. However, Nida recognized that good translation required good exegesis. He rapidly made himself competent in the area, insisting that the translation consultants he hired do likewise. Customarily, after a term in the field working under senior consultants, a consultant trainee went off to do a year of intensive biblical studies at a major theological institution before he or she could be confirmed as a full consultant. Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Virginia; Princeton Theological Seminary in


109

New Jersey; and Emory University’s Candler School of Theology in Atlanta, Georgia, all welcomed UBS trainees on a regular basis. Nida actively recruited scholars to fully ensure that translation work reflected good biblical scholarship. Bratcher, Newman, Peacock, Arichea— these early consultants all had excellent credentials as biblical scholars. They helped Nida enormously in the workshops and wrote extensively in The Bible Translator. Each translator’s handbook teamed a biblical scholar and a linguist. The input of these biblical scholars became fundamental to the guidance the Bible Societies gave to translators. By the 1970s the Bible Societies hired mostly biblical scholars, not linguists, as new consultants. This shift stemmed from the Bible Societies’ decision to work with native-speaker translators who needed to understand the biblical text. If they had basic training in translation methods, they could render the meaning in their own languages naturally and with significantly less difficulty than a nonnative speaker. However, they did need help with the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew texts. This practice differed markedly from that of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, where linguistics continued to provide a major element of training. This accent on linguistics was necessary because the SIL sent expatriates into countries and language areas where they had no previous translation experience. Further, most of these translators came from an evangelical background with a focus on the New Testament. It was, they held, in the New Testament that the message of salvation was found ( Darrell Whiteman, interview with author, 21 Sept. 2000). Consequently, SIL focused exclusively on New Testament translation. There were cases where Bible Society consultants and SIL translators clashed over exegesis. Usually the Bible Societies were less willing to take liberties with the interpretation of a text, insisting on translating each book according to the author’s purpose and meaning as he (or she) intended and avoiding the tendency to harmonize ideas from different books. These disagreements surfaced in the early days when Nida and Wonderly worked primarily for SIL, but matters deteriorated in the 1980s to the point where, in most parts of the world, the two organizations did very little together except share in some training. Happily, this situation has changed. Many SIL translators and consultants now have training in biblical studies and are conducting important research in the area. All SIL personnel receive biblical training in addition to their linguistic work. Equally important, the two organizations have a much closer, more cooperative working relationship than at any time in their history. Early on Nida began the process of listing and recommending commentaries that translators could use as aids for exegetical problems. Later each consultant received a budget for a lending library of these and other

110


aids so that translators would have the best possible insights into biblical scholarship as they worked. In choosing commentaries to recommend and to use in the new translator’s handbook series he and the other consultants were writing, Nida used a simple rule of thumb. He took new and current scholarship seriously, but he did not promote or recommend interpretations or positions out of step with mainstream scholarship and theology. This policy applied as well to articles published in The Bible Translator. Nida saw the Bible Societies’ role as one of helping translators avail themselves of good scholarship; theirs was not to promote positions that were radically different from what was currently accepted by the majority of churches. Working with the Churches The Bible Societies have traditionally seen themselves as the servants of the churches. Dr. Ulrich Fick, a former UBS General Secretary (1973– 88), used to point out that sometimes it was the role of the servant to walk behind and carry the bags and at other times to walk in front and carry the light. Regardless, whether encouraging the churches to undertake translation or supporting them as they did it, the Bible Societies have, with few exceptions, seen the translation program as the work of the churches. They supported the churches by giving technical and financial assistance, by publishing the Scriptures, and by making them available at prices people could afford. As a result, the Bible Societies have not supported translation work where there was no church. As they see it, their role is neither to evangelize directly nor to plant churches but rather to provide a needed tool to the churches for their ministry. Nor do they see interpreting the Bible or developing theology as part of their role. That, according to Bible Society policy, remains for the churches to do on the basis of solid translations of the Scriptures. Nida’s experience with translation projects around the world led him to promote a system of organizing projects that involved the churches at every step of the way. Typically the churches would nominate translators and cover at least some portion of their support. They would also be involved in the review and approval process. Logically, of course, there would be few native speakers to undertake a translation in languages where there was no church. In the past this position constituted one of the differences between the Bible Societies and organizations such as SIL, who have often begun work where there was no church and few, if any, believers. Establishing believers and giving teaching on the Bible thus formed an integral part of their program. Where no church existed to explain or teach the Bible, SIL translators felt from time to time the need to build into a translation something


111

of a commentary or teaching function. Those translations made explicit much more background material than the Bible Societies normally include in their translations. Now that SIL puts a strong emphasis on exegesis and biblical study and makes increasing use of native-speaker translators, this difference between the organizations has essentially been eliminated. The Bible Societies, for their part, recognized the need to learn from SIL’s launching of programs to aid readers in better seeing the relevance of the Bible for their lives. SIL also used the Bible in their discipling and evangelizing activities. Implicitly, the Bible Societies recognized that simply giving someone a Bible did not suffice to bring them into the Christian faith or even to mature the faith of those who already believed. Rather, through its witness and teaching, the church gives the message of the Bible a meaningful context. The UBS policy of working with the churches was a long-standing one, and Nida’s approach to translation strengthened this policy. The Best Texts For Bible translators and Christians, much emphasis falls on “what the Bible actually says.” Consequently, a translation of the Bible can only be as reliable as the source texts. But “What does the original text say?” is not a question that easily yields an answer. In the case of the New Testament, over the centuries scribes made copies of copies of manuscripts. Often errors or changes crept in and then were themselves copied. When scholars compare the more than five thousand extant manuscripts and papyri of the New Testament, they find many differences in them. The various books of the Old Testament, written down over several centuries, circulated in various collections at different times and in different places. Further, at that time Hebrew was written without vowels and word breaks. Over the years various scholars, Jewish and Christian, added vowels, diacritical marks, or annotations about what the original writers or editors probably intended. Few Bible Society translators had been good enough textual scholars to evaluate the vast amount of evidence and array of choices. They needed help. So Nida instigated two major projects designed to offer translators sound advice on how to handle text cruxes or problematic texts with more than one reading and meaning. In the case of the New Testament, the project resulted in a new edition of the Greek text that is now the standard for scholars and students around the world. It also contains helpful evaluations of the decisions the committee took. The work on every textual variant in the New Testament was so exhaustive and the principles developed for making decisions so sound that Dr. Bruce Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary, one of the committee members, believes that further textual work will most likely be unnecessary unless new manuscripts should be discovered (Bruce Metzger, interview with author, 29 Sept. 2000).

112


In the case of the Old Testament, the committee did not contemplate a new edition of the Hebrew Bible. Rather, it addressed the more than five thousand difficult problems in the existing text. The resulting work helped not only translators but also Hebrew Bible textual scholars as well, who would be remiss to overlook a project of such high quality and scope. Greek New Testament A portion of the minutes from the 27 September 1954 meeting of the Translation Committee of the ABS reads: All the currently published Greek texts reflect nineteenth century scholarship and there is none reflecting the developments of the past 50 years in research in papyri, new appreciation of the value of the early versions, reevaluation of certain manuscripts, modified alignments in families and harmonization criticism. This information is now buried in learned journals, etc., and is not available to missionary translators who often would not be equipped to evaluate it, even if available. The desired text would be based on a fresh approach to the subject, the critical apparatus consisting of a listing of readings by manuscripts rather than by families, more reference to the readings of early versions and the patristic writings, indication of variations from the Textus Receptus, readings employed by the RSV and the British revision now in process. . . . The text and supplementary volumes would provide the Bible Societies with an adequate authoritative guide in matters of text and a much needed point of contact with the world of biblical scholarship.

The proposal for work on a new edition of the Greek New Testament was approved, as were the procedures, the list of possible committee members, and the budget that Nida had prepared. Thus the Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament was born. Prior to this, and with one exception, individual scholars had produced the various versions of the Greek New Testament. None of them took into account all the extant manuscripts. Furthermore, the critical apparatus, that is, the notes on which manuscripts and their readings were either accepted or rejected, were not helpful to translators or students who did not have the training in textual studies to evaluate them properly. The International Greek New Testament Project, formed in 1949, aimed to gather together a vast number of accurately recorded variant readings so that other scholars could make use of that depository. Despite some funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and the input of dozens of scholars, as of 2001 all that has been published is Luke (Bruce Metzger, interview with author, 29 Sept. 2000). Nida’s idea consisted in forming an international committee of the world’s best scholars who represented different approaches to textual


113

study. The committee would not only take into account the variant readings of old manuscripts and make decisions about the probable original but would also give an A, B, C or D rating to each. An A ranking meant the committee felt completely assured of the original, while D meant that the evidence for and against a particular reading looked about equal. Metzger, an American Bible Society Board member, renowned textual scholar, and himself a member of the International Greek New Testament Project, helped Nida choose the committee: Allen Wikgren of Chicago; Matthew Black of Scotland; Kurt Aland, at first in East Germany but later of Münster in West Germany; Arthur Vööbus, originally from Estonia but then at Maywood Lutheran Theological Seminary in Illinois; and Metzger himself. In 1955 the National Bible Society of Scotland and the Württemberg Bible Society in Germany joined the ABS in sponsoring the project. Initially the British and Foreign Bible Society did not join, since they were sponsoring another project, but later they came in, as did the Netherlands Bible Society. Several scholars were recruited to help collect the detailed information. Principal among them were J. Harold Greenlee at Asbury Theological Seminary, Robert P. Markham of the ABS, assisted by Karen Munson, and the staff at Aland’s Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster. The committee met for five weeks each summer for ten years. Since they received no pay for their work, the ABS arranged for their families to join them. Meetings convened sometimes in Europe, sometimes in the United States. As a result of their work, the first edition of the Greek New Testament appeared in 1966. Carlo M. Martini of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome joined the committee for the second edition.1 Vööbus had resigned after four years, and it was felt that a fifth person was needed to avoid tie votes. Work on the third and fourth editions continued, and when Black and Wikgren retired, Barbara Aland of Münster and Johannes Karavidopoulos of Thessaloniki replaced them. Although not a member of the committee, Nida attended all the meetings. His organizational skills proved invaluable in helping the committee complete the work in a reasonable time. Equally important, with the five scholars coming from different academic traditions and often having quite different convictions about the text, the work could easily have broken down. Nida played the role of moderator in the sessions and worked before and after the sessions with the members in what Metzger described as “a very, very intense and insightful manner.” Metzger believed the group

1. Now emeritus Cardinal Archbishop of Milan, Italy.

114


In 1954 Nida received approval from the ABS Translations Committee to produce a scholarly edition of the Greek New Testament “that would be based on a fresh approach to the subject, the critical apparatus consisting of a listing of readings by manuscripts rather than by families, more reference to the readings of early versions and the patristic writings, [and] indication of variations from the Textus Receptus.” The first edition of the UBS Greek New Testament was published in 1966. Shown here are the members of the Committee at work on the second edition: (left to right) Klaus Junack (noncommittee member), Matthew Black, Bruce Metzger, Allen Wikgren, Kurt Aland, Carlo M. Martini (who replaced Arthur Vööbus, who had worked on the first edition). Although not a member of the committee, Nida (far right) attended all the meetings. His organizational skills proved invaluable in helping the committee complete the work in a reasonable time. © American Bible Society.

came to an agreement without too much friction because they had “the aid and assistance of Gene Nida. He already had a good know-how of the best way to get people to work and to make progress in discussions. There were some heated arguments that emerged, but Dr. Nida was able to pour oil on troubled water and quiet down those who were making some trouble” (Bruce Metzger, interview with author, 29 Jan. 2000). The success of this project exceeded ABS’s or the Bible Societies’ expectations. Early minutes and correspondence in ABS archives indicate that they assumed the project would add helpful notes for translators to the well-known text of Westcott and Hort. Instead, a totally new edition of the


115

Greek New Testament was prepared. The United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, as it became known, is now widely adopted as the basis for translation around the world, and it is the most popular text among Greek students. Its influence grew even more when in 1979 the NestleAland edition of the Greek New Testament, the most widely used by scholars, then and now, replaced the Nestle Greek text with the UBS text. This edition now differs from the UBS text only in the apparatus, that is, the notes on the various textual variants and evidence. Needless to say, the committee achieved its original goal brilliantly. The apparatus that the committee prepared using the A through D evaluations, as well as tools such as an indication of discourse features and related punctuation, have proved to be practical and helpful for translators. By the time the fourth edition was being prepared, all extant manuscripts had been considered, as well as all the evidence from other Greek versions and citations by the church fathers. The committee had also organized and published a textual commentary, written by Metzger, that outlined their principles and reasons for the decisions they took on most controversial passages. It is probably true that, barring the discovery of new and differing manuscripts, the study of the text of the Greek New Testament is completed. Only the Bible Societies had the credibility among scholars to attract the kind of committee that could achieve this, and only they had the finances to see the project through. But it took someone with exceptional organizational and diplomatic skills to have done that—only Eugene Nida could have made it happen. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project When studying the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, translators faced even more confusion than they did in the New Testament. For the New Testament, textual scholars could point to the existence of some original text and attempt to reconstruct that. For the Old Testament, this was not the case. Rather, different editions of the books circulated at different periods. Communities of believers came to accept one or another of these as sacred and therefore their standard text (a process called canonization.) Since originally Hebrew did not use vowels or spaces between words, scholars had the added difficulty of trying to establish what the writers intended. Inserting different vowels or breaking a word or sentence at different places could significantly alter the meaning. To help with the understanding and reading of the texts, scribes began to make decisions about vowels, word breaks, and so on. A group of ancient scholars known as the Masoretes carried out one phase of this work, beginning perhaps as early as the year A.D. 500. They annotated the texts in order to preserve them in what they believed was the correct way,

116


and these protected texts are known as the Masoretic Text. Perhaps the best of these is the Aleppo Codex, a good but incomplete text that was partially destroyed by fire. However, of almost comparable quality, and complete, is the Leningrad Codex. The most widely used edition of this is currently known as the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS ), published by the German Bible Society in Stuttgart. Even with a Masoretic Text, there are thousands of places where translators need to make decisions about what they think a text should read. Often translators have looked to decisions taken by major translations in European languages, only to find remarkable inconsistency among them. In fact, even translators of the New English Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the Revised Standard Version, or the New American Bible had no consistent principles to follow in judging texts and making decisions. There was a tendency to call a particular text corrupt in order to put in a conjecture that fit with what a translator felt made sense, but each translation did it differently, and the translators did not even follow the same principles throughout their own translations. Confusion only grew with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These texts, older than the BHS or Aleppo texts, offered an opportunity to reconsider some passages. How, then, could translators in non-European languages, with typically no training in Hebrew textual study, make decisions? Nida decided to address this. In 1967 he formed a committee of Hebrew textual scholars knowledgeable of current scholarship and familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls. By 1968 the committee had recruited six members: James A. Sanders from California, Dominique Barthélemy from Switzerland, A .R. Hulst from the Netherlands, Norbert Lohfink of Germany, W. D. McHardy from Scotland, and Hans-Peter Rüger from Germany.2 Nida gave them the task of making recommendations on the more than five thousand difficult passages in the Hebrew Bible. These passages were not necessarily the ones the scholars would have preferred to work on, but they were the ones that Nida and his colleagues had identified as the most problematic for translators. By the time the project was completed, the committee had actually worked on six thousand problem texts. The committee met for one week in 1969 to organize their work and then four weeks each summer for eleven years. Nida, though not a textual scholar, had the complete confidence of the group and, at its request, chaired the committee. Sanders reports that this freed them up to express their opinions and debate issues, in other words, to carry on their work without concern for chairing and achieving consensus. In the end, this

2. Much of the information about this project comes from the author’s interview with James Sanders (29 Sept. 2000).


117

committee, more so than the Greek New Testament Committee, developed close bonds of friendship and fellowship. Daily routines included taking walks together and spending time socializing. From the beginning the committee realized that a second task lay beyond the one that Nida had given them: solving the over five thousand problems. They would have to develop a new concept and method in textual criticism that would be scientifically based. There simply was no coherent method to follow at that time. Nida was open to this. Sanders said, “Nida allowed us to think the whole time that we were doing something more than just the primary purpose.” In the end, the method they developed was groundbreaking, and it is likely to endure.3 No Old Testament textual scholar today can afford to bypass the pioneering work of this committee and the resulting volumes edited by Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament.4 As the committee members worked out the problems Nida gave them, they released their findings to translators in a series of volumes, the Preliminary and Interim Report of the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, known to translators simply as HOTTP. These reports indicated the most likely original Hebrew of the passages in question. Often the most likely Hebrew original is more difficult to translate than some of the readings in the ancient versions or the conjectured emendations to the text found in major translations, but translators at least can know that the HOTTP recommendation is based on solid and consistent principles and is more “correct” and appropriate for faithful translation. Some theologically conservative critics suggest that the Bible Societies are too “liberal.” They claim that Nida’s dynamic-equivalence approach dilutes the familiar passages from the King James Version of the Bible. Treating the Bible as a human text, these critics suggest, takes away from its power as the word of God. The fact remains, however, that the Bible Societies take the Bible quite seriously. Indeed, Nida’s approach demonstrates a fundamental policy of allowing the translations to reflect closely and accurately the content of the Greek and Hebrew texts. Nida is, and the Bible Societies are, more “conservative” than the critics.

3. The principles are highly technical. Readers interested in the methods are referred to the Critique Textuelle volumes. 4. Five volumes are envisioned. The first was published in 1982, but the last two are still in preparation.

7. NEW RELATIONSHIPS, MORE ACCESS, FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Roman Catholics In October 1959 the Jesuit magazine America published an important article by Father Walter Abbott, S.J., “The Bible as a Bond.” In this article Abbott pointed out that since it was now possible for Catholics and nonCatholics to agree on the Hebrew and Greek source texts for the Bible, people around the world should be able to have the same Bible translation in their vernacular languages. For some time Abbott, as the magazine’s religion editor, had been advocating the idea of cooperation in Bible translation with other Christians. Because his American readers had responded enthusiastically, Abbott took his idea a step further and sent a copy of the article to Augustin Cardinal Bea at the Vatican (Walter Abbott, interview with author, 4 June 2001). Bea and Abbott had met in 1950 when Abbott was still a seminarian. While studying classics at Oxford University, Abbott had gone to Rome for the summer to do some work in Roman archaeology. He lodged at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, where Bea, a biblical scholar from Germany, served as rector. Bea and Abbott had dined regularly together for several months. To Abbott, Bea seemed old and frail, a stooped figure preparing for death (Abbott, ABS oral history). Shortly after his election as pope in 1959, John XXIII decided to appoint several new cardinals. His appointments included a Jesuit, as an honor to the order. Bea came recommended to the pope as a distinguished biblical scholar. However, since Bea was retired and appeared so aged, many believed that he probably would not be energetic enough to tackle new issues or make innovative changes. When the new pope interviewed him, however, he found in Bea a kindred spirit. He told him, “We must do something about Christian unity. I want a new department set up here at the Vatican to do that kind of thing. I would like you to make a plan, and help me do this.” Pope John made Bea a cardinal, and according to reports Bea seemed taller when he returned home. The appointment had rejuvenated him and filled him with new energy and enthusiasm for life. 119

120


Bea was heading up the new Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity when Abbott sent him his America article. In January 1960, when Pope John announced an ecumenical council, which later became known as Vatican II, Bea put Abbott’s article forward to be included in the discussion. In shortened form, the article eventually became the core of chapter 6 of the Vatican II Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum ) (Walter Abbott, interview with author, 4 June 2001). Dei Verbum represented a clear, new policy for Roman Catholics about the distribution of the Scriptures. It committed the Church to bring the Scriptures to all people, Christian and non-Christian, in their own languages at a price they could afford, or even for free. It also encouraged all Catholics to study the Scriptures, a significant change as well, since traditionally Scripture study occupied mainly the clergy and scholars. In some ways the basic idea of the document was old: if you do not know the Scriptures, you do not know Christ. It emphasized that it is through the Scriptures that the world knows Christ, and therefore the church should be doing everything possible to make sure that everyone, not just clergy and scholars nor even just Catholics, but all people, be acquainted with the Scriptures. It was probably the first time in the history of the Roman Catholic Church that the teaching authority declared that the Bible should be used in evangelism, in mission work, and in outreach (Abbott, ABS oral history). Of course, this had long been a practice and belief of Protestants, but it was new for most Catholics. Five months after the end of the council, on 4 April 1966 Cardinal Bea went to the pope, now Paul VI (John XXIII having passed away), to ask for a mandate to implement those things in the Constitution of Divine Revelation, which touched on cooperation with other Christians, and, in particular, to follow up on chapter 6, which dealt with the Bible. Bea specifically asked for Walter Abbott to be appointed as his General Secretary with the responsibility of implementing the idea of common Bibles. Although Abbott’s Superior General had previously appointed him Director of the North American Division of Vatican Radio, the pope approved Bea’s request. In place of a radio ministry, Abbott began carrying out an assignment he had been urging upon the Church for so many years. Bea and Abbott met with the pope to consider what steps should be taken. They agreed that Abbott would make a survey of all the Bishops’ Conferences around the world to find out what they needed, particularly what languages regional churches were seeking to translate the Bible into. They also polled bishops to determine what they felt they should be doing about the Scriptures but were not. In addition, Abbott was asked to determine what ideas they had about cooperation with other Christians and, specifically, what their feelings were about collaboration with the United Bible Societies.

New Relationships, More Access, Future Directions

121

The survey revealed what the Bible Societies already knew. Many bishops and church leaders had begun asking if they could use the Bible Societies’ vernacular language translations. They had not only brought their requests to Cardinal Bea but had also approached the local Bible Societies. Bea obtained the pope’s approval for those bishops to use the Bible Societies’ translations providing they did not have any doctrinal notes. This proviso did not pose a problem since the Bible Societies had always maintained a policy of publishing Bibles without note and comment. The exceptions turned up in areas in which the cultures differed significantly from those of the Scriptures. Up to that time, canon law required that a Roman Catholic Bible have notes. Paul VI, however, gave his approval to proceed immediately using the Bible Society editions without notes.1 Other bishops and church leaders asked some national Bible Societies for help with translation. In 1966, for example, Father Alfredo Trusso of the Church of Todos Los Santos and Father Jorge Mejia of Argentina asked the Argentine Bible Society for counsel and assistance in Bible translation and distribution. As these Roman Catholics prepared a translation of the New Testament in the vernacular of the River Plate region, they met with Nida and Wonderly to seek their assistance with the translation (Nothdurft 1979). Father Mejia left shortly after that to assume a post at the Vatican assisting Walter Abbott at the Christian Unity Secretariat. Mejia later replaced Abbott as the General Secretary in 1978. This experience in Argentina with Nida and Wonderly no doubt helped forge continued good relations between that office and the United Bible Societies. The survey also revealed that the bishops had identified 150 languages where they needed new translations of the Bible. The pope asked Abbott to study the work of the Bible Societies and to draft a plan for cooperation with them or with whomever could help accomplish new translations in these 150 languages. At the end of six months, Abbott enthusiastically endorsed cooperation with the United Bible Societies. He pointed out that the church could not easily on its own produce 150 new translations but that the UBS had the expertise and the infrastructure needed, as well as the desire to work with Roman Catholics. Several things impressed Abbott about the Bible Societies. For one, he lauded their commitment to scholarly integrity, particularly their approach to the biblical texts and exegesis. He found that scholars such as Nida and

1. The policy on cultural and historical notes that the UBS Council had approved in 1957 was not yet being applied by most Bible Societies. Such notes did, however, meet historical Roman Catholic requirements, so that later they became a required feature of interconfessional editions.

122


Bratcher, whom he had met and with whom he had become friends, were exceptionally intelligent and competent scholars and leaders (Walter Abbott, interview with author, 4 June 2001). In addition, Abbott respected the Bible Societies’ commitment to serve all the churches. Leaders such as Olivier Beguin, the General Secretary of the UBS, and Laton Holmgren, the ABS General Secretary and also Chair of the UBS Executive Committee, took the lead in pointing out to the Bible Societies that a mission of serving all people included serving Roman Catholics. Abbott also thought that the Bible Societies’ approach to translation, using native speakers and producing translations in common languages, was most appropriate. Such translations would obviously go further to accomplish the goals of Dei Verbum than the more traditional, formal translations. Abbott also notes that the Bible Societies, in particular the American Bible Society, reached out to him (Abbott, interview with author, 4 June 2001). The ABS was the first to respond to the Vatican initiative. Shortly after Abbott’s appointment to the Vatican, even before he had moved to Rome, the ABS invited him to address its Advisory Council. In his address Father Abbott asked the Bible Society fellowship to help produce a joint Protestant-Roman Catholic translation, and he called for a common witness to the non-Christian world. The response, according to the next day’s New York Times, was enthusiastic (Fiske 1966: 34). During the meeting Edward B. Fiske of the New York Times approached Abbott. Crouching down beside him at the head table, Fiske told Abbott that a number of guests, knowing he was a reporter, challenged him to “Go up and ask Father Abbott how does this all fit with the condemnations of the Bible Societies from several of the popes over the past one hundred years?” There had been six decrees over that time forbidding cooperation with the Bible Societies. Abbott thought for a moment before replying, “By accepting Dei Verbum and appointing me to this task as he has, Paul VI has simply undone all that. He has, in effect, cancelled those condemnations of his predecessors” (Abbott, interview with author, 4 June 2001). Abbott may have overstated things, as surely the past decrees were not completely negated. Still, Abbott’s appointment did show a significant new degree of openness to interconfessional cooperation. Abbott cited this important point repeatedly when he met with Bible Societies in meetings around the world. (He had a full schedule attending such meetings!) In Oaxtepec, Mexico, in December 1968 at a meeting with Bible Society leaders from the Americas, he went even further. He acknowledged the “sad history of persecution by the Latin American Roman Catholics of bodies such as the Pentecostal Church,” and then he


123

asked the churches for forgiveness. This apology profoundly moved the Protestant leaders at the meeting. Laton Holmgren, in personal notes on the meeting wrote, “This session was a historical watershed in our relations with Roman Catholics in Latin America. The Bible Society secretaries in Latin America were never the same after the Oaxtepec meeting due primarily to Abbott’s presence” (Abbott, ABS oral history). The Bible Societies were ready for cooperation despite the long history of suspicion and hostility between Roman Catholics and Protestants, as well as the former, open opposition by the Roman Catholic Church to the Bible Societies themselves. This opposition had, for instance, been expressed in The Catholic Encyclopedia edited by C. G. Herbermann, which had outlined what was called “the fundamental fallacy of private interpretation of the Scriptures.”2 The church was “the divinely appointed custodian and interpreter of Holy Writ,” and thus it was dangerous for individuals to have access to the Scriptures without note and comment (quotation of “Bible Societies” entry in The Catholic Encyclopedia, cited in Holmgren 1968). Over the years, other encyclicals from various popes reinforced the opposition to the Bible Societies. Leo XII, for example, in Ubi Primum (In the First Place) in 1824, opposed the vernacular translations of the Scriptures being published by Protestant groups, including the Bible Societies. “It is to be feared,” he said, “that by false interpretation the Gospel of Christ will become the gospel of men, or still worse, the gospel of the devil.” Nevertheless, the Bible Societies had noted the increased interest in biblical scholarship by Roman Catholics, and in Bible study by scholars and laity. At a UBS-sponsored Conference of Church Leaders held in Driebergen, Holland, in June 1964, the participants, who hailed from all over the world, encouraged the preparation of common texts in Greek and Hebrew. These texts were to be prepared by all churches, including Roman Catholics. The group also encouraged the preparation of common translations of the Bible. Partly in response to this new spirit of cooperation, when work began on the second edition of the UBS Greek New Testament Nida invited Carlo Martini to join the committee. A New Testament scholar, Martini was serving at the time as professor and rector at the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Martini remained on the committee until he was called to be Archbishop of Milan and subsequently named a cardinal. The Bible Societies responded warmly to the new directions of the Roman Catholic Church and to the new attitudes that Abbott both articulated

2. Herbermann was Professor of Latin and Librarian at College of the City of New York. Work began on the encyclopedia in 1905; a first (fifteen-volume) edition appeared in 1913.

124


and personified. It is no wonder that, for his part, he developed warm friendships with many Bible Society leaders. This friendship and mutual respect was a key factor in the success of his mission. A series of friendly and useful consultations developed between scholars and specialists from the UBS and the Roman Catholic Church. One of the most significant had been at Crêt-Bérard in Switzerland in November 1964. As Holmgren recounts, this exploratory meeting “showed that no partisan prejudices existed among them and that common agreement on a basic Greek and Hebrew text was easily possible” (Holmgren 1968 Oaxtepec paper, UBS Background Paper on Roman Catholics). Eugene Nida was, of course, one of the Bible Society participants at Crêt-Bérard, as was Robert Bratcher. After the meeting Nida drew up a draft of possible principles for interconfessional translation projects. The draft went through several revisions as both Catholic and Bible Society authorities considered it, but no final draft emerged until a 1967 consultation in Rome. Nida demanded that the very best scholars in the Catholic Church be assigned to work with him. This seemingly bold request changed the dynamics of the meeting. Before there could be a final draft, a major problem demanded instant resolution: Roman Catholics and Protestants acknowledged slightly different canons of the Old Testament. The Catholic Old Testament included several books that most Protestants did not normally accept as Scripture. Roman Catholics refer to these books as the Deuterocanon. Protestants call the books of the Deuterocanon and three other books that are often featured as appendices in editions of the Latin Vulgate (1 and 2 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh) the Apocrypha. The differences in canon provided a particularly thorny problem, since the Bible Societies, for the most part, had not published the Apocrypha since the 1820s. A major exception was the ABS, which had helped churches in Eastern Europe by publishing the Bible with the Deuterocanon. ABS had helped these churches because in a number of countries it was illegal to publish the Old Testament without this material. Nida proposed that these disputed books be grouped as a separate section before the New Testament. Initially the Catholics resisted this quite strenuously. One night during the discussions Nida researched the history of these books and was able to show the meeting the next day that what he was proposing had been done before in Catholic tradition. All opposition melted, and the group accepted Nida’s proposal. Subsequently, Nida’s draft developed into a set of “Guiding Principles for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible” that was submitted to Catholic and Bible Society authorities. UBS leaders not only examined it themselves but also referred it to various evangelical church leaders from whom they feared some opposition. Despite this initial fear,


125

UBS leaders won overwhelming support for the document, and they released it on Pentecost Sunday, 2 June 1968. The Guiding Principles document dealt with an amazing array of differences in the Protestant and Roman Catholic traditions. The solution to the canon issue proved highly significant since it seemed the only way to satisfy both sides. In addition to placing the books of the Deuterocanon as a single collection before the New Testament, it was agreed that separate editions of the new Bible translations would be published, one without the Deuterocanon and the other with it included. As for the Greek and Hebrew base texts, there was no real difference, a fact that Abbott had already pointed out in his America article. Likewise, in matters of exegesis, mainstream Protestant and Catholic scholarship differed little. Since the Council of Trent (1547–63) the Catholic Church had required that Catholic Bibles contain notes, but no restriction limited the nature and number of notes that could be included. The Bible Societies’ policy of developing notes on alternative readings and renderings, explanations of proper names, indications of plays on words, historical and cultural backgrounds, and cross-references satisfied the Roman Catholic Church and was adopted in the guidelines. The guidelines outlined principles of organization for interconfessional projects that accorded team members equal status, allowed each person adequate time to review the material, and gave each the opportunity for input. One of its most important features gave the Bible Society translation consultants the responsibility for handling disputes and breaking deadlocks. Essentially, these consultants had the ultimate responsibility of reporting to all churches and the national Society on the quality of the work. Besides dealing with technical matters, the introduction of the guidelines created a climate of confidence. Now churches could enter into cooperation without feeling that the dogma or bias of one side or the other would negatively affect the translation. Under the guidance of the UBS consultants, the churches all used the same base texts, the same translation technique, and the same exegesis. By 1978, when he left the Vatican position, Abbott reported to the pope that joint work was either finished or well under way in 150 languages (Abbott, interview with author, 4 June 2001). When the guidelines were revised in November 1987, UBS reported on 350 projects that had gone forward cooperatively and borne fruit. In 2001, the figure came closer to 650. This was an astonishing accomplishment. Several things accounted for this development. The decision by Vatican II to energetically distribute and use the Bible in liturgy, evangelism, and catechism was almost unforeseen but highly significant. The Bible Societies and their Protestant constituents heartily welcomed and applauded this

126


move by the Catholics. Further, the Bible Societies’ scholarly, nonpartisan approach to the biblical texts and to translation certainly helped to foster cooperation and collegiality. From 1957 onward the Societies adopted another practice that would eventually contribute to this later cooperative work with Roman Catholics: providing nondoctrinal readers’ helps and notes in some of their editions, using guidelines that Nida had spelled out. These readers’ helps satisfied the Catholic requirement of having notes in Bibles. The goodwill among leaders of both sides and a strong sense of urgency were crucial to the success of this work. Everyone saw the necessity and benefits, and as they got to know each other, they also developed deep appreciation of each other and strong, Christian friendships (Walter Abbott, interview with author, 4 June 2001). Despite these positive factors, this interconfessional relationship would not have blossomed as it did if Nida had not been able to work out the appropriate language and approach to problems for the Guiding Principles document. Nida’s diplomacy and understanding proved decisive in this regard. His skill in articulating the issues and providing solutions meant that reaching consensus involved few disputes. Besides resolving the canon issue, Nida found neutral wording for solutions to exegetical issues, and he established the UBS translation consultants as the arbiters on all translation issues, thereby helping to prevent a situation where one church or another controlled the quality of the translation. Equally important, translation teams in the field could understand the Guiding Principles document. Its details and procedures made sense. UBS translation consultants organized and worked with hundreds of interconfessional teams over the years and found time and again that the Guiding Principles document provided the foundation needed for successful work. Nineteen years later Nida played an equally key role in the final revision of the Guiding Principles document. Experiences in the field had demonstrated that some details needed updating and modifying, especially as interconfessional work became the norm and attitudes toward cooperation and the Bible changed (for the better). Catholics and Protestants alike were less fearful that translations would be doctrinally slanted, for example, so they entered into the cooperative work more readily. Both groups began to see the advantages of addressing their non-Christian neighbors with a common Bible. Again, the UBS and Vatican leaders brought amazing goodwill to the negotiations. Cardinal Willebrands, a progressive leader of the Dutch church, had replaced Cardinal Bea, who had passed away in 1968. The UBS General Secretary at that time, Ulrich Fick, was as disposed to the interconfessional work as his predecessor had been. However, despite


127

friendly and careful exchanges of draft revisions, no decision on a final draft was reached in the first four years of discussion. Finally, somewhat in desperation, a contingent of four UBS staff members, including Gene Nida, went to the Vatican to meet with representatives from the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity.3 The delegation met with Father Jorge Mejia from Argentina, who was then General Secretary of the Secretariat, and others of his staff.4 The first day, each side outlined the issues they thought needed to be addressed and offered solutions, but they could not reach an agreement. That night Nida analyzed the issues and arrived at solutions to each one. He presented his ideas to the meeting the following day. Somehow he had found a way to unblock the problems, and within minutes, literally, both sides agreed to the revisions. After receiving approval in the following months from the UBS Executive Committee and the appropriate Vatican authorities, the revised document was signed in November 1987 with the title “Guidelines for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible.” In 1966, when Abbott had asked several national Catholic authorities if they were interested in working with the UBS in the 150 languages needing a Bible translation, almost all the bishops and leaders responded enthusiastically. In the United States, however, where the church had undertaken its own translation, the New American Bible, the leadership did not feel the need to work with the ABS on a new translation. They could, however, see the value in cooperating on translations for immigrants who spoke languages other than English. Abbott repeatedly pointed out that the American Bible Society’s translation, the Today’s English Version, was ideal for countries where English was spoken as a second language as well as for the immigrant population in the United States. His persistent efforts gave support to Nida’s successful negotiations with John Francis Whealon, Archbishop of Hartford, to grant an imprimatur to the third edition of the TEV translation published as Good News for Modern Man in 1978. When Abbott conducted this initial survey, one question asked, “What do you have, at present, concerning the Bible for your priests, for your people?” Sixteen bishops’ conferences replied that they had a Catholic Biblical Association. Two leaders, the heads of the Dutch and the German associations, requested a meeting with Cardinal Bea. Abbott suggested that they bring all sixteen diocesan associations together, a proposal to which Bea agreed.

3. Representing UBS were Ulrich Fick (UBS General Secretary), Eugene Nida, Jan de Waard (coordinator of the translation work in Europe and the Middle East), and Philip C. Stine (as global Translation Services Coordinator). 4. Mejia was named a cardinal in 2001.

128


At their meeting in April 1969 the associations formed what was initially known as the International Catholic Federation; in 1970 the group became known as the World Catholic Federation for the Biblical Apostolate. Abbott served as the first General Secretary. Bea had died a few months before this meeting, and Cardinal Willebrands, his successor, agreed that Abbott should lead the Federation for one year until a permanent General Secretary could be appointed. The Federation not only worked to promote Bible work among Catholics, but also proved to be the principal liaison with the UBS, particularly on matters of translation. Impact of Cooperation At the 1967 meeting in Rome of representatives of the Roman Catholic Church and the United Bible Societies, Cardinal Bea stated, “It does not seem to be an exaggeration to say that the possibility of our cooperation is one of the most important developments in contemporary Christian history.” In his address at the same meeting, Laton Holmgren, ABS General Secretary and Chairman of the UBS Executive Committee stated, In a sense, the unarticulated question the whole Church of Jesus Christ is asking us today is whether in the fulfillment of his command to preach the gospel in all the world, there will be a shameful competition or joyful cooperation. What we do here may indeed hasten the day when we can triumphantly proclaim to a skeptical world that there is indeed one faith, one gospel, one Lord of all! (Donnelly 1967)

Although these statements were made some thirty-five years ago, it appears that the optimism regarding the possibilities for interconfessional Bible translation was justified. Yale historian Lamin Sanneh has followed the developments closely. He links the interconfessional work with a developing world Christianity that is, in his judgment, the major characteristic of the church in the first part of the twenty-first century. By world Christianity Sanneh does not refer to an ecumenical movement or the development of one church. Rather, he refers to the religion grounded in the practical realities of people’s lives. He explains, What [interconfessional] Bible translation work did to prepare the ground for world Christianity, in fact, to give birth to the whole idea of world Christianity, was to insist that people should receive Christianity mediated through their languages and cultures. People realized that there is one God, there is one gospel, there is one Jesus Christ, but there are many cultures, many languages, many art forms, and many musical expressions. . . . Catholic emphasis on the incarnation rather than the atonement meant that ideologically in terms of rhetoric it was easy to pretend the Bible didn’t matter. On the other hand, the Protestant rhetoric of the


129

atonement and sola scriptura [‘Scripture alone’] gave the impression that nothing else mattered except the Bible. (Lamin Sanneh, interview with author, 28 Sept. 2000)

The interconfessional translation work brought the two concepts together, Sanneh suggests. The Catholic theology of incarnation worked to empower a culture, and the focus of the Protestants on the Bible alone with no commentaries also allowed for indigenous cultures to emerge. Thus, the translation effort worked to bring about a convergence of Catholics and Protestants. Sanneh says that Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches are being confronted centuries earlier with the phenomenon of world Christianity that transcends denominational boundaries. He suggests that this unearths questions having to do with indigenization, language, and culture. These are completely different from the issues that the Western Church confronted when the West converted to Christianity. “We are just in the beginning of this process of understanding world Christianity in a way that would profoundly affect the way we teach doctrine, the way we teach Church history, and even the way we teach the Bible” (Lamin Sanneh, interview with author, 28 Sept. 2000). He sees examples of this in the creation of Christian councils in many countries on which both Catholics and Protestants serve equally. He sees it also in the liturgical reforms and adaptations occurring within the Protestant churches in Africa that appeal to the African sacramental view of religion. The result brings them closer to the Catholic Church. He also sees it in the emergence of Bible study groups within the Catholic Church. Sanneh repeatedly points to Nida’s key role in this movement. Nida has helped us in many ways to appreciate the forces that went into the building, the creation of this new phenomenon of world Christianity. His outlook grew out of his devotion to the Bible translation work, but also, I think, out of his view of the American Bible Society, not only as a technical organization concerned only with the mechanical transmission and translation of the Bible, but as a fellowship of men and women across nationalities, across cultures, who from their work in Bible translation formed bonds of friendship and support and understanding. Those things themselves became very important for the new universal fellowship of the gospel that was being represented by world Christianity. (Sanneh, interview with author, 28 Sept. 2000)

Some Consequences Such cooperation did not, however, come without a price in some areas. Certain conservative, evangelical Protestant churches did not trust Roman Catholics, and consequently did not approve when Bible Societies

130


worked with Catholics on translation. They feared that Catholic theology would creep into the translations despite the best efforts of the UBS translation consultants. Further, they did not accept the Deuterocanon as Scripture and therefore condemned the Bible Societies for being willing to publish it, even though they could still obtain Bibles without these extra books from the Bible Societies. As a result, some Protestant teams refused to join interconfessional projects. In these cases the UBS often found itself giving assistance to two translations in the same language in order to uphold its pledge to serve all churches. In a few countries, especially in Latin America, the old hostilities persisted, and some of the national Bible Societies did not serve the Roman Catholics to any great degree. In more extreme cases, some churches withdrew their support from the Bible Societies and even refused to purchase Scriptures from them. This had financial implications since Roman Catholic financial support to the Bible Societies did not flow as the Societies had hoped. Father Abbott acknowledged that he felt cooperative efforts had failed in that area, but that the progress made in cooperative Bible translation had been overwhelmingly positive (pers. comm.). At the same time there are trends evident in the Roman Catholic Church that indicate some cooling of enthusiasm for the type of interconfessional work that has been developing. For example, in some parts of East Africa, Catholic bishops are focusing primarily on Catholic translations rather than interconfessional ones. A particular problem is that they do not accept the provision in the Guiding Principles document that the books of the Deuterocanon should appear together as a collection in front of the New Testament. But a more severe problem has to do with the whole concept of common- or popular-language translations based on the original languages. In March 2001 Pope John Paul II approved a document entitled Liturgium authenicum: On the Use of Vernacular Languages in the Publication of the Books of the Roman Liturgy. Later the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued the document, which gives detailed guidelines for translating texts of the Roman liturgy into vernacular languages (Mitchell 2002: 344). These guidelines will undoubtedly have a great impact on the translation of Scriptures as well. For example, the document demands that translators give priority to doctrine, theology, and fidelity to the linguistic form rather than to the meaning or cultural context. Further, it requires that translations of biblical passages be based on the Latin, with the Nova Vulgata Editio as a reference point. This Latin text represents a modern, though somewhat debated revision of the Latin Vulgate that the Church used for many centuries. This development is especially surprising because the Catholic Church has stressed the value of translating from the original languages of Greek and Hebrew since 1943 (Mitchell 2002: 351).


131

Crucially, the United Bible Societies must take note of these developments and work with the appropriate church leaders to ensure continued effective interconfessional work. It may be increasingly difficult. Orthodox Churches After World War II a significant number of Orthodox churches were in Communist-controlled countries. As a result, the Bible Societies had only limited and occasional contact with them. Elsewhere, however, conversations gradually began in the 1970s and 1980s, especially in relation to new translations that the Bible Societies were undertaking in Ethiopia and Greece. Nida and Eric North of the ABS spent a good deal of time meeting with representatives of churches in Eastern Europe, arranging for the production of Scriptures that would meet the needs of Orthodox churches. Similarly, the Bible Society of Egypt established a good relationship with the Coptic church. In the interaction with the Orthodox churches, the Bible Societies faced a major problem in the form of their policies on the source or base texts to be used in translation. In the agreements with the Roman Catholic Church, both in the original Guiding Principles document and the revised guidelines document of 1987, these base texts posed little problem. Traditional UBS policy called for using the most recent edition of the UBS Greek New Testament and the Masoretic Text as represented by the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia for the New and Old Testaments, respectively. Additionally, the Bible Societies relied on the findings of the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project for resolving difficult textual problems in the Old Testament. The UBS based its policy on its long association with Protestant churches for whom it published Scriptures and who provided a source of financial support. But essentially the Roman Catholic Church had reached the same position on texts. The principal difference between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants had to do with their use of the deuterocanonical books, which the Bible Societies had not published since the 1820s. Both UBS and Catholic scholars had agreed on the best texts, namely the Greek Septuagint (LXX) for almost all of these books and partial Hebrew text sources where those had recently come to light. As opportunities increased for Bible work in Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Orthodox churches challenged the Bible Societies’ policy on texts. After all, the Orthodox churches had quite different traditions regarding the base texts of the Bible. To serve all the churches in these countries, and not just the Protestants or Catholics, the Bible Societies would have to make accommodation for using these texts. In a real sense, there arose a question that no one dared articulate: What is the Bible? For most of their Protestant constituents and for the

132


Bible Societies themselves, the Bible consisted of the earliest forms of the books that the church had identified as its canon at an early period. This solution, however, overly simplified the situation. For the Roman Catholic Church, the Septuagint, including the deuterocanonical books, provided the canon of the Old Testament. For their part, the Protestant Reformers had rediscovered the Hebrew texts and found that the Hebrew canon lacked these deuterocanonical books. Luther placed them in brackets, but Calvin dismissed them. Thus, since that period most Protestants accepted the Hebrew protocanon, which lacked the deuterocanonical books, as their canon of Old Testament. They felt that to do otherwise, that is, to take other writings as “Scripture,” specifically the Greek versions or editions of Hebrew texts, left the impression that there was more than one word of God, which was for them an alien theological concept. Thus, accepting the Orthodox canons and texts posed a serious challenge to the Bible Societies’ concept of the Bible as well as to their very understanding of the inspiration of the Bible. The plural “canons” applies here because there exist in fact several different canons for the Old Testament among the Orthodox churches. In addition to those books recognized by the Protestants, there are several levels of books accepted as deuterocanonical. Some of these parallel the Apocrypha accepted by Roman Catholics, but some Orthodox churches also include books such as Ps 151 and 3 and 4 Maccabees. The Ethiopian Orthodox Bible even includes writings from the past one hundred years! Having several different collections of books in Orthodox Bibles merely served to emphasize the enormity of the issue faced by Bible Societies wanting to collaborate with Orthodox Churches in the translation and publication of the Bible. Most UBS staff did not fully grasp the magnitude of the problem. In 1993, somewhat naively, the UBS Executive Committee affirmed that in cases where the Orthodox churches would not accept the critical texts represented by the UBS Greek New Testament and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia as the base texts, the UBS would use the ecclesiastical texts for the New Testament and the Septuagint for the Old Testament. These texts would then be accepted as the base texts provided that the critical textual differences between the Greek New Testament and the ecclesiastical text and the semantically significant differences between the BHS and the LXX be identified in footnotes or endnotes.5

5. Critical texts are those that identify textual variants and decisions made by scholars that are preferred or more likely to be “original.” The UBS Greek New Testament is an example. The ecclesiastical texts are those that represent one tradition, one version, that the Church has accepted as the one they will follow. These do not normally reflect textual variants.


133

While in theory this seemed a solution, in practice this UBS policy did not satisfy many within the Orthodox churches. For one thing, some of the differences would require extremely long notes. More seriously, this policy assumed that the Greek New Testament and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia somehow represented the standard or best texts, thereby relegating the Orthodox texts to a somewhat lesser status. To serve all churches with the Scriptures they required, the Bible Societies would have to withhold such value judgments on the grounds that they were not conducive to cooperation or service. Clearly, if the Bible Societies published translations based on the texts used by the Orthodox churches, they would certainly encounter objections from many of their Protestant constituents. Yet, courageously, they began to explore ways to serve the Orthodox churches. Equally courageously, those churches began to meet with the Bible Societies. Such meetings were historic because the Orthodox churches viewed the UBS as exclusively Protestant. They felt that many Protestants did not consider them “Christian” and were seeking to proselytize them. The Orthodox churches also shared many of the older, pre-Vatican II Catholic positions about the dangers of the Bible being in the hands of people without the context of proper teaching. Moreover, it was important to them, too, that the Bible Societies deal with the official hierarchy of the Church, not with individuals, as was the Societies’ practice with Protestants. To address translation issues, the UBS organized workshops that examined such areas as Bible text and translation. In 1992, for example, Manuel Jinbachian, the translation coordinator for Europe and the Middle East for UBS, working with the Patriarchal and Synodal commission of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Bible Society, invited some forty Orthodox scholars from around the former Soviet Union to a two-week workshop in Moscow. The lecturers included several UBS consultants as well as Dr. Bruce Metzger from Princeton Theological Seminary, one of the editors of the UBS Greek New Testament (Metzger 1997: 74). A year later, a second workshop convened in St. Petersburg. As a result of these workshops, many of the participants became more willing to undertake new translations or revisions, and became more conscious of the need to help contemporary readers understand the differences between their own culture and that of biblical times. At the same time, the issues of base text surfaced, and the UBS began to evaluate its stance vis-àvis base texts. Other meetings, both formal and informal, followed. Many of these addressed the working relationship between the Orthodox churches and the UBS. The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew proposed that a working group be formed to explore key issues of joint work. The first formal

134


meeting between the Patriarch’s representatives, all of whom were Greek Orthodox, and UBS representatives, occurred in Istanbul in 1998. By February 1999 this group expanded into a consultation in Cyprus that brought together representatives of most of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox jurisdictions and the UBS staff and Bible Society General Secretaries who served in mostly Orthodox countries. As the two groups clearly enunciated the problematic issues, both began to appreciate the mutual commitment to the Bible. It was this common ground that gave a basis for their interest in finding new areas of fruitful collaboration (Simon Crisp report, UBS Europe-Middle East Regional Service Center). Later that year, in El Escorial, Spain, a second consultation addressed Bible translation and base texts. At its conclusion, the participants formed a working group to examine such areas as base texts, issues of confessional and interconfessional translation, exegetical issues, the language of translation, and translation principles. In addition, they asked the UBS to consider a number of policy matters, including producing a critical edition of the Byzantine text of the Greek New Testament and a formal translation of the Ecclesiastical text of Scripture for church use. Subsequent to these meetings, in March 2001 the Europe Middle East Region Area Board of UBS (EMEAB) appointed a UBS/Orthodox Dialogue Coordinating Committee with the responsibility of broadening and strengthening the ongoing dialogue between the UBS and Orthodox churches. The UBS/Ecumenical Patriarchate Working Party on Translation Issues, which has the specific task of developing “appropriate guidelines, protocols and practices for use in translation work,” reports to this committee (EMEAB minutes, March 2001). Both groups have a four-year term, until 2005. To date there has been no UBS/Orthodox equivalent to the UBSRoman Catholic Guiding Principles document, even in draft form. Nevertheless, the working group has the responsibility of clarifying the issues and of making proposals that could, in the end, form a basis for some equivalent kind of agreement. One key difference is that, whereas the pope, after a thorough process of consultation, can make decisions for the whole Roman Catholic Church, each of the Orthodox churches has its own leader. They fellowship with each other, however, and through the Ecumenical Patriarch, the churches receive recommendations and direction that will normally be adhered to by all. In the meantime, UBS consultants are working in several languages with translation teams that include the Orthodox. It is an excellent way to start a new era of Bible Society interconfessional cooperation. When a new Guiding Principles document is drafted, it will represent an even greater change in policy for the UBS than did the agreement with the Roman Catholics. This new agreement will not only necessitate the use of different


135

base texts and a different understanding of canon but will also, as a result, represent a new understanding of what the Bible is. Conversely, fresh translations in understandable language will give Orthodox readers access to the message of the Scriptures in new ways. Although the Scriptures have always played a major role in the liturgy and worship of the Orthodox churches, most of the translations are extremely difficult for the average believer to understand. The new translations that have been undertaken will significantly change that state of affairs. China For many years China closed its borders to Bible Society work. Under Communist rule, religious life was curtailed, and the importation of Bibles was officially forbidden. The 1966 Cultural Revolution made it impossible for the Bible Societies or other Christian groups to have any involvement in the country. The main effort of the Bible Societies consisted of broadcasting daily Scripture readings, some at dictation speed. These broadcasts had the support of the World Association for Christian Communication, and they did not violate the UBS policy against smuggling. Letters from several Chinese people indicated that many Christians appreciated the broadcasts, although the government objected to them as propaganda. These readings of the Scriptures generally ended with official denunciations of the Chinese government and even of many of the churches in China. Accordingly, it was necessary to persuade the Bible Societies not to continue their support of such readings. In 1978 Tan Zaixi, a student from central China studying at Exeter in England, attended a lecture Eugene Nida gave in London and met with him afterward. This lecture and discussion piqued Tan’s interest in translation and stimulated his research and reading. He subsequently wrote Nida on Translation, in Chinese, which was eventually published in 1984. This book introduced scholars in China to Nida’s approach to translation (Tan, pers. comm.). Even prior to the book’s release, Nida’s association with Tan helped give Nida’s name and work exposure in China. Consequently, in 1982 the university in Guangzhou invited Nida to lecture. He spent two months there, and upon his return home he sent the university three hundred books from his own library. Further, while Nida was in Guangzhou a scholar from Beijing heard him and later invited Nida to lecture there (Nida, pers. comm.). In addition to the books he sent from his own library, Nida also arranged for the UBS to send books to various libraries at Chinese universities for many years—and so the contacts multiplied. By 2000, Nida had already made thirteen trips to China and lectured at twenty-five universities, with additional invitations still pending.

136


On these trips Nida met with Bishop K. H. Ting and other leaders of the China Christian Council. While both men were forging a relationship, Nida’s wife, Althea, struck up a close friendship with Bishop Ting’s wife. Both women even undertook some work together. This friendship, no doubt, helped both men establish an even better working relationship. While in China, Nida apologized to the church leaders for some of the things the United Bible Societies and the Bible Society in Australia had done that had been construed as propaganda. Bishop Ting and the other leaders requested that the UBS stop the daily Scripture broadcasts. After vigorous debate, the UBS acquiesced. This act of goodwill paved the way for unforeseen partnering opportunities. In the early 1980s some of the restrictions on religion were eased, and it was once again possible to print Bibles on state-run presses. Eventually three million copies were printed (Robertson 1996: 203), but even this number was totally inadequate for the needs of the country. Thus in 1985 Bishop Ting approached the UBS Asia Pacific leaders about the possibility of working together to establish a printing press in China. The UBS moved quickly and committed to building the Amity Press in Nanjing. It involved the largest capital-spending project the Bible Societies had ever undertaken, eventually amounting to over $8 million. In a true show of fellowship and cooperation, thirty-seven Bible Societies contributed to this project. A printing press was presented in July 1987 to the Amity Foundation, the service organization of the China Christian Council, and production began shortly after. By 2001, more than 25 million Bibles had rolled off the press and gone into distribution throughout China. This extraordinary project, which has given 25 million people in China access to the Scriptures, represents only one offshoot of Eugene Nida’s skill at forming relationships and of his zeal to spread the Scriptures. Different Audiences Common- and popular-language translations of the Bible have given readers in hundreds of languages access to the biblical message in unprecedented ways. However, such translations only meet some of the needs of the churches. For example, in large and mature Christian communities there is also a need for translations that can exploit the full resources of the language. As these young churches grow, they develop theological vocabulary that, while not necessarily understood by non-Christians, is nevertheless used in liturgy. Because a higher level of language is appropriate for an increasingly literate society, scholars and theologians may well feel the need for translations that, while still understandable, reflect more closely the forms of the source texts. For these reasons, then, the Bible Societies must remain willing to support translation works that are


137

dynamically equivalent, use a higher level of language, and do not exclude technical theological forms. At the same time, the Bible Societies have also developed several major translations for young or inexperienced readers or readers with limited use of the language. The Contemporary English Version (CEV), for example, uses a level of language that both adults and children can understand and enjoy. The same is true of the translation in basic French (français fondamental ), which was published in 2000 as an interconfessional Bible entitled the Parole de Vie. The Bible Societies originally prepared this translation for people in West Africa with limited training in French but who, nevertheless, use it extensively. However, it is also being used in Canada and France. The Simple Spanish Bible (Traducción en lenguaje actual ) started out in the early 1980s as a project to provide Scripture selections for new readers. UBS consultant Dr. Edesio Sanchez and a team of writers with experience in preparing pedagogical materials set to work with the translators. The New Testament and Psalms were published in 2000 under the title A viva voz. The Bible without the deuterocanonical books was published in 2002 under the title Biblia para todos, and the Bible with those books is due out in 2004. In addition to using Traducción en lenguaje actual with young and new readers, the translation has become a helpful model for translators in indigenous languages in Latin America. For more than thirty years the Bible Societies have also helped new readers and assisted literacy programs with Scripture portions that are prepared at a level of language they can read and understand easily and that help them improve their reading skills. These kinds of programs form part of the Bible Society mandate to reach people in understandable formats. Beyond the Print Medium For a number of years the Bible Societies have grappled with the issue of the print medium. On the one hand, the Bible is a compendium of written documents, and a great deal of its message and meaning is tied up in that medium. The biblical writers used many literary devices to communicate their messages. The very structures they used are often integral to the meaning. The writer of the Gospel of Mark, for example, frequently interrupted one account with another that gave the desired interpretation to the interrupted account. Still, millions of people do not get most of their information through the print medium. In regions such as Africa, most people are illiterate, or if they can read it is not in their own language. In more developed nations such as in North America or Western Europe the problem is that many people can read but do not. They prefer, instead, to receive information from a screen, either by television, video, cinema, or computer.

138


How can these illiterate or aliterate people be provided access to the Bible? One solution has been to use the audio media: radio or audiocassette. Another has been to use the visual media: videocassettes, DVDs, CD-ROMs, or even films. However, these media do pose problems for the Bible Societies. Essentially, the Bible Societies’ position has been that these media can be used to communicate the biblical message and can help lead people into study and discovery of the Bible, but they cannot replace the Bible. The Bible’s full meaning and impact can only be communicated through the print Scriptures. With the trend toward the electronic media, the Bible Societies expect to increase their use of this media to communicate the biblical message, but these programs are not expected to replace the ongoing program of print Scriptures. Relevance At their October 2000 World Assembly held in Midrand, South Africa, the Bible Societies committed themselves to becoming more involved in programs that will help people engage the Bible and the biblical message. Although such programs are biblically centered, they may contain only small portions of Scripture, thereby representing a significant change in the traditional policy. Since such programs have not fallen within the Bible Societies’ area of expertise, they are entering into partnerships with other organizations that have specialized in study and engagement programs. One problem for contemporary readers of the Bible, of course, is that it is a document from a time and culture far removed from their own. Translations that have been prepared following the dynamic-equivalent approach help enormously with understanding, and extensive notes, as in study Bibles can also help. However, even these do not help readers who no longer see the relevance of the Bible for their own lives. This is, in fact, a major problem facing the Bible Societies. To address this issue, they have increasingly developed programs that use portions of Scripture based on themes. Examples include programs in Asia and Africa for adherents of other religions, programs for sports enthusiasts, and programs for people who have been the victims of terrorism and of physical or sexual abuse. Through such targeted programs and the use of electronic media, and through programs that help people to recognize the relevance of the biblical texts for everyday living, the Bible Societies are emphasizing their traditional conviction, that the Bible continues to be a source of a message of life and a call to transformation.

8. NIDA THE MAN AND THE SCHOLAR

Personal Abilities, Character, and Influences Of all Nida’s personal traits, surely his absolute commitment to having the Scriptures widely and easily read must rank as the most prominent. This fact remains fundamental to understanding Nida the man. In 1988, when looking back at his career up to that time and describing what his work had revealed to him, he wrote, Another important privilege was to realize that the message of the Holy Scriptures is certainly the most important and meaningful message for the modern day. To see how an intelligible, clear translation of the Scriptures could have a transforming effect upon a psychologically distraught hippie, upon a self-satisfied and smug intellectual, and upon a depressed and oppressed Indian community in the Andes, made me realize that there is no real substitute for this good news. (Nida 1988: 62)

Not only was Nida committed to the Bible cause, but he also had the skill and personality to communicate his ideas and passions effectively. Nida has always had amazing communication skills. Without these skills he would not have led the revolution he did. Time and again he found the most effective way to approach those who were unconvinced or skeptical. Despite his own evangelical base, he has been able to work with people from all theological and church backgrounds and at all levels of ecclesiastical hierarchy. Furthermore, Nida is an extremely well-rounded man. People who meet him are constantly amazed at his versatility and the variety of his interests and achievements. As a skilled carpenter he made much of the furniture in the home that he and Althea owned in Greenwich, Connecticut. A horticulturist, he grew some four hundred rose bushes at their Connecticut home. When he and Althea moved into a retirement center in Pennsylvania, he received permission from the managers to put in and maintain 350 rose bushes. More than thirty thousand fresh roses cut from these plantings went to all the residents in the community each year in daily deliveries. 139

140


For much of his career Nida was an avid and skilled photographer. The sight of Nida out walking through fields and villages with his Nikon, snapping pictures of the people and the environment was a familiar picture in itself. James Sanders recalls an experience during the work of the Hebrew Old Testament Committee. One summer afternoon while the Committee was meeting in St. Andrews, Scotland, they hired a fishing boat that took them to one of the islands nearby. As they all walked together around the island, Nida identified every plant and bird. His wide knowledge in botany, ornithology, and so many other fields completely captured the imagination of the group (James Sanders, interview with author, 29 Sept. 2000). During the summers that he worked with the Greek New Testament project, Nida demonstrated another talent: he taught Dr. Bruce Metzger’s sons to swim. Nida has always been a health enthusiast. Hiking is a hobby that he keeps up even now that he is in his late eighties, and he still manages to walk hundreds of miles each year. Keeping physically fit allows him to maintain an active lecturing and writing schedule and certainly accounts, in part, for his continued energy and zest for life. Human Relationships Some time after his first wife Althea had died in 1993, Nida met Elena Fernandez-Miranda at a translation conference. Ms. Fernandez-Miranda is a distinguished translator and interpreter. She is a lawyer but also holds an earned Ph.D. summa cum laude in French Literature, from the Complutense University. She and Nida married in 1997 and now live in Brussels, where she heads up a department in the Translation Service of the European Commission and carries responsibility for the work of 250 translators. Much of Nida’s success in his work stemmed from the kind of teams he had built and the way he created a spirit of service and friendship among them. The consultants depended on Nida for much of their wellbeing. When Nida began to build a team of translation consultants and assign many of them to locations outside the United States in the 1940s and 1950s, the ABS personnel manuals and regulations of that time did not adequately cover the day-to-day situations they faced. The minutes of the Committee on Versions (later Committee on Translations) show many ad hoc actions initiated by Nida in regard to health care, children’s education, travel, and salaries. Nida simply met with each person, considered the needs, and made recommendations for action needed. To the extent possible, he took the position that taking care of the needs of the staff did not cost the Society a lot of money but paid off in the goodwill generated. He taught others that staff dissatisfied with their conditions of service would not produce the best work.

Nida the Man and the Scholar

141

Nida is an extremely well-rounded man. People who meet him are constantly amazed at his versatility and the variety of his interests and achievements. He is a skilled carpenter and gifted horticulturist. For much of his career Nida was an avid and skilled photographer. The sight of Nida out walking through fields and villages with his Nikon, snapping pictures of the people and the environment was a familiar picture in itself. Children, plants, and cultural artifacts were frequent subjects of this careful observer as the examples on this and the following page demonstrate. © American Bible Society.

142


To an amazing degree his staff felt that, if there was something they needed or a problem they faced, they could approach Nida and be assured he would do his very best to assist them. Often Nida went beyond the call of duty and often involved himself in families and personal situations. Danny Arichea, for example, relates how early in his relationship with the Bible Societies the Nidas loaned the Aricheas the money to buy their own house in the Philippines. There was enough for a piano, too, which no doubt helped the whole family hone its musical skills. Miriam, their daughter, even considered music as a career. The Aricheas repaid the loan over several years, with no interest payments. Later, when the Arichea children attended school in the United States, the Nidas kept in touch with them and helped them out when they needed it (Danny Arichea, interview with author, 28 June 2000). Nida’s generosity crossed racial, ethnic, and religious lines. He supported a Congolese Presbyterian seminary student he had met, and, after his trips to China, offered encouragement and assistance to many Chinese scholars whether or not they were Christian. He also took an interest in a young Kenyan UBS scholarship student, Rachel Musimbi Kanyoro (née Angogo) while she was working on her Ph.D. at the University of Texas. Gene and Althea opened up their home to Musimbi and her fiancé and maintained a close friendship, helping the Kanyoros through many difficult personal decisions they had to make about careers and family. This continued even after Musimbi left the UBS for a leadership role in the Lutheran World Federation. Many other consultants and translators tell similar stories. They also relate that often it was Althea Nida who discovered their needs and concerns and who took an interest in them. Together she and Gene offered their support by their acts of friendship, kindness, and generosity. Nida’s complexity matched his generosity. He was passionate about his work, sometimes even consumed by it. At times his need to achieve his


143

objectives made him unaware that others—consultants, translators, and Bible Society people alike—did not always share his zeal for putting in eighteen-hour days or his willingness to work continually far away from family and friends. He expected this level of commitment and became disenchanted when it was not forthcoming. This rankled some and caused others to take a long, hard look at the nature of the work and the sacrifices that might be required. However, Nida could not have achieved what he did without such extraordinary commitment. Thus, his single-mindedness could be perceived as both a blessing and a detriment. Still, even those who disagreed with his approach continued to admire him for what he had accomplished and for what he was trying to do. Most of Nida’s colleagues agree that the work proved rewarding and highly enjoyable. Nida recounts how he once said to Eric North, “Thanks for letting me do all these things. It’s been fun.” North replied, “Frankly, we didn’t know what to tell you to do” (Nida remarks at the Similarity and Translation Conference, 31 May–1 June 2001). Nida saw a need and found ways to address it. He rejoiced in his work, and the work rewarded him. In addition, his joy was infectious. Every consultant Nida recruited echoes that sentiment. He helped all of them adopt his sense of mission, and he created an environment that made the work enjoyable. Principal Influences Nida assumed that translations should be natural and understandable, a position that goes back to his Greek study at UCLA. His teachers there would never allow the students to produce literal translations. He pointed out in a letter to John Ellington in 1991 that his teachers “insisted that to do so would not only indirectly do injustice to the original text but also would result in bad habits in the use of English” (1991 letter to Ellington). Furthermore, his study of Greek acquainted him with several excellent translations of Greek texts that showed good stylistic form in English and therefore more meaning than most English translations of the Scriptures with which he was familiar. A study of linguistics and anthropology at the University of Michigan provided a second major influence. As Nida explained it, “if one is to communicate effectively to people in a different language and culture, this means taking the cultural factors fully into consideration” (Nida remarks at the Similarity and Translation Conference). We do not misrepresent his work when we cite him for bringing a cultural approach to the field of translation. Nida drew on the existentialist philosophers, particularly Ludwig Wittgenstein, who held that the meaning of any word is a matter of what we do with our language. Knowing the meaning of a word can involve knowing to what objects (if any) it refers, recognizing whether the word is slang

144


or figurative language, knowing what part of speech it is, and also being aware of its connotative values. Essentially, then, to oversimplify somewhat, the meaning of a word stems from its use. Functional equivalence as an approach to translation depends on this idea. The concept of functional equivalence found some confirmation in theological developments of the period, especially in neo-orthodoxy. The Swiss theologian Karl Barth, for example, asserted that the starting point for theology rests not with humankind or human thoughts about God, but rather with God and God’s word. Revelation provided the foundation of theology for Barth, and he placed primacy on the word of God preached, written in Scripture, and revealed in Jesus Christ. Barth’s concern lay not with the historical Jesus but with the Christ of faith, the risen Christ who was testified to and proclaimed by the apostles. In regard to the word as Scripture, Barth argued that the Scripture contains the word but is not the word. Stressing Scripture as the container of the word, neo-orthodoxy emphasized the unity of Scripture and helped to precipitate a renewed interest in hermeneutics, the science of interpretation of the Scripture. Nida had read Barth’s work as well as the writings of other prominent theologians such as Rudolf Bultmann and Paul Tillich, though he never referred to them in his writings. As a member of one of the commissions of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States, Nida once met with Richard Niebuhr of Yale, an important American neo-orthodox theologian, to discuss developments in theology as they related to effective communication of the Christian message (1991 letter to Ellington). Nida also found encouragement for his approach in his studies of the way in which New Testament writers quoted the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, abbreviated as LXX) in contrast with the Hebrew. Judging from their writings, the Septuagint translators obviously placed more emphasis on meaning and contemporary relevance than they did on verbal inspiration (letter to Ellington). Political and Economic Climates In retrospect, it seems quite remarkable how world events and trends seemed to have little effect in shaping or influencing the translation work. Nida began traveling to field translators in 1944, shortly after joining the ABS, even though World War II was raging in many parts of the world. True enough, travel to major war-torn areas was certainly impossible, but he was able to visit translators in the Americas. As soon as the war was over, he traveled to Asia, the Pacific, Europe, and Africa. Throughout the era of anti-Communism, the Korean War, and the McCarthy era in the United States of the 1950s, as well as during the Vietnam War and independence movements in South Asia and Africa, and the civil rights movement of the 1960s in the United States, not to mention


145

during economic booms and recessions, missionaries continued to pour out of North America and Europe to translate the Bible. Nida worked with them all. Translation increased at a remarkable rate, and Nida’s team continued to grow as the Bible Societies attempted to give quality assistance to translators. Improved transportation in the form of commercial jets and improved roads allowed consultants to cover the work in large areas. The major change to translation during these years involved a shift to native-speaker translators in projects that the Bible Societies supported. This shift certainly occurred in part because of a prevailing spirit of independence in many regions of the world. But it occurred also in large part as a result of the dynamic equivalence translations Nida advocated that could best be produced by native speakers. He and the UBS encouraged churches strongly to take ownership of the projects in this way. Heroically, the Bible Societies continued to give all the necessary financial assistance to the translation program even when periods of economic decline caused their own donations to fall off and even though supporting domestic projects put increasing strains on church budgets. (In the past, the church missions had greater involvement and therefore supported a larger portion of the translation work.) Eric North’s commitment to Nida and to the translation program swayed the ABS on more than one occasion. Laton Holmgren said, “I cannot remember a request from Nida ever being turned down. North backed him completely on every step he proposed” (Holmgren, interview with author, Jan. 2001). The other Bible Societies, too, gave the growing work a high priority when preparing their budgets, and that policy continued in the UBS and at ABS after North retired. The translation program always received the money it needed to continue to give high quality assistance to translators. This policy had, however, a negative side. As the translation program boomed, the number of New Testaments and Bibles that had to be published increased. This increase often put a strain on Bible Society finances. Charles Baas, long-time treasurer of both the ABS and UBS, responding to the shortage of funds, complained at a particularly difficult meeting, “We are reaping the harvest of Gene Nida.” Others said quietly, “But what a glorious harvest!” The Scholar Nida’s reputation as a scholar gave credibility to his approach to Bible translation. This reputation was well deserved because he exhibited a breadth of scholarship in several disciplines that few scholars can match. He became a notable figure in linguistics, biblical studies, missiology, semiotics (the study of signs), lexicography, and eventually, translation studies, to name the major areas. It is quite remarkable, for example, for someone to be honored by both the Linguistic Society of America (LSA) and the

146


Society of Biblical Literature (SBL). Over the years, universities in several countries paid tribute to him with numerous honorary degrees. Nida not only mastered several fields but also, more significantly, had a knack for simplifying complex and sophisticated scholarship. He could extract the relevant information from some scholarly work and express it in a way that translators and students could understand and use. Only a thorough grasp of a subject allows one to reduce it to its kernels as Nida did. His approach to translation would never have caught on without this. Nida impressed translators and scholars from a wide range of academic backgrounds. His ability to bring together concepts from many disciplines and put them together in creative ways is legendary. Concepts from different linguistic schools, communication science, psychology, and semiotics all played some role in his basic approach to translation. He held bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Greek, but he also learned Hebrew and gained a sound knowledge of textual issues. He acquired a thorough grasp of biblical studies. In addition, Nida understood anthropology and cultural studies and psychology and was able to apply these studies to missions, cross-cultural communication, and Bible translation. Some suggest that this populist eclecticism lacked academic rigor. However, the fact is that he could not have manipulated the concepts in this way, putting relevant ideas together, had he not had a broad understanding of the fields involved. On many occasions members of his team have observed him listening to someone giving a paper on some topic or another. His whole body would be a picture of concentration until he had a good notion of where the speaker was going. Then he would sit back and relax as he began to process the information and think about how it might be relevant. When the speaker finished, Nida would be ready with his comments. First he would compliment the speaker for whatever insight he had derived, and then he would begin to show how the insight could be related to some other material in new and creative ways. The speaker was sometimes left wondering how he or she was expected to master yet another discipline. Nida was always able to see the larger picture when dealing with translation problems. At the same time, he was equally able to focus on the specific matter at hand. He brought to bear on each matter the enormous background of experience and knowledge that he had acquired. Linguistics In 1968 Nida served as the president of the Linguistic Society of America. The LSA presidency comes only to those who have made a distinctive contribution to the field of linguistics and who have significantly supported the activities and governance of the organization. Nida had done both. His


147

writings were widely read and used, and he had been active in committees of the organization.1 His 1943 dissertation at the University of Michigan, “A Synopsis of English Syntax,” was the first attempt to write a grammar of a major language using the Immediate Constituent Analysis. Typed and lithographed copies circulated among linguistics and English language students for years, which led to its eventual publication in 1960, seventeen years after he wrote it. Morphology: The Descriptive Analysis of Words, probably a more significant book, has similarly enjoyed a long life. First published in 1946, then substantially revised in 1949, it became the standard textbook on morphology in linguistics departments.2 It served introductory linguistics and grammar courses well into the 1960s, even when Chomsky’s transformational generative models and others that followed superseded the classic American structuralist approaches to language. The thrust of structuralist linguistics lay in describing the forms and patterns of a language, whereas transformational generative grammar focused on a small number of categories and rules that generated the infinite number of sentences of a language. However, familiarity with morphology and its treatment of word units and word formation was necessary even for this approach to grammar. Morphology also gave missionaries an invaluable tool that helped them learn and analyze new languages in the field as they prepared to work in Bible translation. The book also remained in use because it contained extensive data from a large number of languages. Teachers and students alike could draw on these examples for exercises in analysis even if they were using a completely different theoretical approach. These examples, of course, came from Nida’s work with translators in dozens of languages. One interesting note regarding Morphology is that the Oxford English Dictionary credits this book with the first use of the term sociolinguistics (Burchfield 1987). Already in 1949 Nida was concerned with the social context of language and its role in meaning.

1. On 9 January 2004 the Linguistic Society of America awarded Dr. Nida the Victoria A. Fromkin Prize for Distinguished Service, recognizing his more than sixty years of service in the field of linguistics. In doing so, they cited both the direction he had given to the Society in financial matters over the years and his promotion of the field of linguistics. The citation noted, “Dr. Nida joined LSA in 1939, was elected Vice President in 1960, and President in 1988. Since that time, he has served as a financial advisor to the LSA. . . . However, Dr. Nida’s service as a financial advisor to the LSA is only the tiniest bit of his contribution to the field as a whole. Throughout his years working first for the Summer Institute of Linguistics, then for the American Bible Society, and for the past 25 years in what can only technically be called his retirement, he has been one of the most effective spokespersons for the field of linguistics that the world has ever known.” 2. The term morphology describes the patterns of word formation in a language.

148


Remarkably, Nida produced most of his major contributions to the field of linguistics in about a ten-year period, from the time of his doctoral work at Michigan until 1952. During this time he was still teaching at SIL in the summers and working closely with SIL personnel in the field. In addition to the books he wrote, linguists read his many articles in Word, International Journal of American Linguistics, and Language. The articles dealt with grammatical problems, semantic elements, field-analysis techniques, sociolinguistics, lexicography, and translation. His prodigious output often introduced linguists to areas that were new to many of them. When his colleagues elected him president of LSA, they were at the same time recognizing the stature he had attained as a linguist. As Nida and the Bible Societies began to focus more on training native-speaker translators, there was less demand for tools of linguistic analysis. Missionaries needed to learn a language before undertaking translation, but native speakers needed more help with understanding the biblical text. So Nida turned increasingly to problems of semantic analysis, particularly on how to analyze and understand the meaning of the biblical texts. However, linguistics came again to the fore when Nida developed the approach to translation that emerged in Toward a Science of Translating and Theory and Practice of Translation. By then linguistics included consideration of semantic issues, which previously most linguists had disregarded in their analyses of grammar. Nida’s linguistic writings, however, treated translation methods and approaches or semantic issues such as componential analysis, analyzing the meaning of words by their semantic components. The Componential Analysis of Meaning (1975) gives one of his most extensive efforts in this area. Nida had never been quite comfortable with the “item and arrangement” approach to grammar he had used in his dissertation. With this approach he could describe thousands of possible English sentences, but he recognized that there must be some underlying principles and processes that could account for the many actual sentences (Charles Taber, interview with author, 11 Oct. 2000). In the second edition of Morphology Nida treated morphological processes, which although not a forerunner of generative grammar, shares somewhat the same spirit. In that second edition, he describes semantic processes that govern the construction of words. A 1952 article in The Bible Translator, “A New Methodology of Biblical Exegesis,” comes even closer to some of Chomsky’s later ideas. This article appeared five years before Chomsky’s Syntactic Structures and demonstrates how basic semantic relationships can be reflected in the surface structure in a variety of ways. For example, he suggests that one semantic category is process, but a process such as “command,” the underlying


149

semantic category, can be manifested in a language by nouns (e.g., “commandment”) or verbs (e.g., “I command you to go”; Nida 1952: 104–5). By the time he wrote Toward a Science of Translating, Nida had seized on Chomsky’s notions of deep and surface structure as an ideal way to handle the semantic analysis of a text. Words could be analyzed into various semantic components and sentences into short kernels expressing basic types of meaning. These kernels could then be transferred in the second stage of translation. The many semantic categories he had put forward now boiled down to a few basic types and several powerful rules that generated an infinite number of sentences (Nida 1952). Biblical Studies: The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Both the Greek New Testament project and the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project made major contributions to biblical studies and biblical scholarship. However, in these projects it was Nida’s genius in project organization that proved significant; he did not do the work itself. The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, however, turned out differently. Nida not only conceived the idea but also engaged in the work itself. Quite early Nida turned his attention to the semantic analysis of words in Greek and Hebrew, particularly in Greek. Most translators had one of the basic lexicons at hand, but increasingly Nida could see that lexicons only gave limited help. The problem was that words mean different things in different places. One of his frequently used examples involved the Greek word sarx. Although most dictionaries would give the meaning of the word as “flesh” in different places in the New Testament, it can mean “relatives,” “all things physical,” “human nature,” or “ethnic group.” In the past translators had often rendered sarx with the same term throughout a translation despite these differences. In dynamic-equivalence translation, however, translators would look at how sarx functioned in a particular passage and determine its meaning there. It was that meaning that would be transferred, not the word sarx. In 1972 Nida received a letter from a South African scholar, Johannes Louw, who was spending a sabbatical at Ohio State University working on discourse analysis of New Testament Greek under Professor Ilse Lehiste. Although Lehiste found Louw’s work acceptable, she suggested to him that the only person in the United States who could best evaluate it was Eugene Nida. She emphasized that Nida was the real expert in the field.3

3. I was unable to interview Louw in person. However, Louw responded to a detailed query by e-mail. The account here of the Greek-English Lexicon relies extensively on that response.

150


Dr. Nida reads from The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains in front of the portraits of two of the American Bible Society’s founding fathers, John Jay and Elias Boudinot, at the 1988 publication party held at ABS headquarters in New York City. Although both the Greek New Testament and Hebrew Old Testament Text Project were Nida’s brainchildren, he did not work on them directly. With The Greek-English Lexicon, however, Nida not only conceived the project but also engaged in the work itself. Seated to his left is his co-author South African scholar Johannes Louw and ABS General Secretary John Erickson. © United Bible Societies. Used by permission.

Louw knew little of Nida except that he was a linguist. Nevertheless, he wrote to Nida and asked if he could visit him to discuss his work. When Louw arrived at the New York office, Nida received him warmly and sat down to read his almost completed hand-written manuscript. He read page after page with no comment, showing no emotion on his face. Louw decided the great scholar could not possibly like it. After what seemed to Louw at least a full century, Nida sat back, looked him in the eye, and said, “I was thinking of a lexicon for the Greek New Testament based on semantic domains. What you did in this manuscript is naturally not lexicography but discourse analysis. However, I can see that your work could easily be shifted to be of value for what I have in mind.” Later, having seen Louw at work in South Africa, Nida revived the subject


151

of the lexicon for the Greek New Testament, “Would you be interested in joining me as a partner in producing this lexicon?” Thus began the lexicon project. Translators needed a lexicon that would help them determine the meaning of a Greek word in its many types of contexts, and Nida realized that no such resource existed. After Louw joined him, he also invited Rondal Smith, a Greek teacher at Lincoln Christian College in Illinois, to come aboard. The three would work individually for several months, then meet once a year for two months to compare notes and discuss what each was doing. Sometimes they met in Switzerland, at other times near Ventnor, New Jersey. After Smith left the project to accept another position with his church, Nida also spent time working with Louw in South Africa. The concept of the semantic-domain lexicon developed gradually over the years. The most difficult problem was that there was really nothing they could link on to. They had to decide on possible semantic domains simply by analyzing each word in its many Greek contexts. They usually found that the existing dictionaries were of little help because these tended to give one-word explanations or translations. As the group repeatedly stated, “Words are not meaning” (Louw, pers. comm.). Words are tokens used by a language to express some meaning. Gradually the three came to the understanding that meaning is a definition, while another word is a translation of that meaning in a particular context. Smith and Louw developed a great appreciation for Nida’s vast knowledge and for his immediate insight into problems they uncovered. Louw recalls a time when he and Smith were checking a word that neither had ever seen before. They asked Nida, who immediately said, “Oh, yes, this word has only one instance in Greek.” Then he told them what it meant. They checked a lexicon later and found he was right. After Smith left, Louw and Nida continued to meet every year until they finished the work. Louw’s university in South Africa was so impressed by what other scholars were saying about the project that they allowed him to work three days a week on it, a tremendous boon to its progress. In the final form of the lexicon, Louw, Smith, and Nida divided up the entire vocabulary of the New Testament into ninety-three semantic areas (domains). In each of these domains they discuss the meanings of the included terms, and show the differences in meaning between related words. Most words ended up falling into several domains. For example, sarx is discussed under categories such as “Body, Body Parts, and Body Products,” “People,” “Kinship Terms,” “Psychological Faculties,” “Nature, Class, Example,” and “Physiological Processes and States.” The lexicon then suggests which area is the most likely one for the occurrence of a word in a particular verse.

152


They were enormously aided by Karen Munson of the ABS staff. Herself competent in Greek, Munson typed the entire manuscript, pointed out where the two editors had not been clear, and oversaw the preparation of the enormously complicated manuscript and subsequent typesetting, and checked all page proofs at the printers in South Africa, where the typesetting was done. The result of these years of work produced The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. It is not only one of the most useful tools a translator has available, but it is also a widely acclaimed advance in lexicography. For example, the Society of Biblical Literature devoted a special session at its annual meeting to discuss the lexicon when it was finally published in 1988. Some biblical scholars have criticized this lexicon, and Stanley Porter outlines several reasons for this. Some scholars say it was created solely for translators, so they have not given it serious attention. These critics feel that the semantic domains are based too much on English and that extrabiblical material should have been considered. Porter, however, feels that the whole concept of semantic domains has much to offer biblical scholars. He writes, “The patterns of domain occurrences in the source language could provide the basis for structuring the translation of the receptor language, as well as aiding the creation of textual cohesion” (Porter 2001: 357). As for Louw’s original interest in discourse, he became more and more convinced through the course of the lexicon project that a word could only be understood if there was first a proper understanding of the discourse in which it occurred. Even then a word could have more than one meaning in the same context. Hence the constant need for good footnotes in a translation. After the successful launching of the Greek-English Lexicon, Louw and several other scholars began thinking about a similar work in Hebrew. Although Nida has given encouragement to the project, he is not directly involved in it. Nida continues to study various aspects of translation. His basic approach remains the same— functional or dynamic equivalence— but he focuses on finding ways to use concepts from semantics and semiotics (among others) in translation. He is in great demand as a lecturer all over the world. His energetic, entertaining, provocative, and highly informative lectures continue to inspire students of translation.

9. OTHER VOICES, OTHER WORDS

Within the world of Bible translation Nida’s approach rather quickly won the day. All but a few of the many hundreds of active Bible translation projects in the world followed the approach Nida had developed. And this has been the case at least since the 1970s. Dynamic or functional equivalence earned wide acceptance for a number of reasons, including the following. ✦

✦ ✦

✦

✦ ✦

The approach, which aimed for understandable translations, made sense to Bible translators who wanted their translations to be understood. The method was prescriptive, offering translators steps to follow. It was usable by people with a wide range of linguistic sophistication and could be taught to and used by translators with varying levels of education. Nida’s personal ability to present the approach and its advantages for communicating the meaning of the Bible. In addition to his prolific writings, he traveled for months every year for more than thirty years to all parts of the world to work with translators in the field. He was a dynamic communicator, interpreter, and promoter of the approach and its benefits, both to translators and their audiences. Nida’s early commitment to forming a team of highly skilled consultants who trained and advised translators. “Closest natural equivalent” translations could best be produced by native-speaker translators. Churches responded warmly to an approach that gave them a stronger sense of involvement and ownership than had been the case with expatriate-produced translations.

Not only Bible translation, however, profited from the work of Nida. The field of translation studies, emerging after World War II, and coming into prominence about the same time as a functional approach to Bible

153

154


translation, also owes a large debt to his approach.1 One scholar in the field recently said, “Eugene Nida set in motion trains of events and endeavors that all the translation studies people have moved along and will move along for years to come” (Theo Hermans, remarks at 2001 Translation and Similarity Conference, New York, 30 May–1 June 2001). Translation studies scholar Sherry Simon points specifically to an article by Nida, “Principles of Translation as Exemplified by Bible Translating (Nida 1959), that played a key role in establishing the field of translation studies. In the article, Nida made clear that the study of translation should proceed on a level equal with other social sciences. Nida made this case by putting forward principles that were relevant to all types of translation, and further, by using linguistics, he made it clear that translation functioned as a type of communication (Simon 1990: 113). Given the scope and influence of Nida’s approach, it would be surprising if scholars in the fields of Bible translation and translation studies did not engage the approach and ask probing questions. Both historically and biographically, this engagement and these questions provide important and often candid snapshots of how Nida’s peers have valued, used, and assessed his work. In reviewing this engagement, it is clear that some scholars had only a partial familiarity with the depth of Nida’s scholarship and the breadth of his field research. Other scholars started from conceptions of translation that differed from Nida’s. Still others raised questions because they did not share the same understanding of language and communication. Finally, for some, the questions had more to do with differing views of what the Bible is or what they believe is an appropriate motivation for translating the Bible.2 The remainder of this chapter describes the principal lines that the engagement and questioning has drawn. It documents how Nida’s work influenced not only the world of Bible translating but, far beyond that arena, the whole world of translation studies. Translation Studies To fully appreciate Nida’s contribution, it is necessary to respond to some generalizations that have been made by his critics. Some translation

1. Translation studies is concerned with approaches to translation both as theory and practice, including methods of training translators. It is sometimes referred to as descriptive translation studies. 2. For a recent discussion of the question “What is the Bible?” and the relationship of this question to Bible translation see Borg 2001: 3, 137; Achtemeier 1999: 99, 143; Prickett 1986: 24, 36, 242; and Nichols 1986: 43, 50, 53.

Other Voices, Other Words

155

studies scholars sought to define Nida’s translation approach as proselytizing. Bassnett, for example, wrote, “Nida’s translation work, splendid though it is, comes out of a specific purpose: the translation of a Christian text with the goal of converting non-Christians to a different spiritual viewpoint” (Bassnett 1998: 129). Another scholar writes of the “ethnocentric violence [that] is evident in the translation theories put forth by the prolific and influential Eugene Nida, translation consultant to the American Bible Society: here transparency is enlisted in the service of Christian humanism” (Venuti 1995: 21). By claiming that Bible translation functions one-dimensionally as evangelism, a few translation studies researchers seem willing to dismiss it as irrelevant for the rest of translation theory. In fact, however, a dynamicequivalent approach has much wider application to translation than simply to Bible translation. Indeed, it has influenced the work of other translators, for example, the skopos theorists Katarina Reiss, Hans Vermeer, and Christiane Nord who stress the importance of communicating information. Most translation studies experts would agree that Nida’s work merits serious consideration as a general theory, not just one about Bible translation.3 It is true that Nida’s overriding motivation, as that of the Bible Societies, had much to do with evangelism, in the sense of providing people with opportunities to hear or read the message of Scripture. Any evaluation of Nida’s work must comprehend that he dealt with the issues he did, and the way he did, out of a desire that all people might have access to the message of the Bible. But colleagues who thus minimize his contribution take too narrow a view and miss the wider implications of the approach. Such colleagues generally do not distinguish between how the Bible was translated prior to the time of Nida and the different approach to translations in vernacular languages that, thanks to Nida, have shaped this work in the latter part of the twentieth century. By ignoring the kinds and nature of the changes Nida helped bring about, they too simplistically identify his work with European colonialism (see, e.g., Niranjana 1992: 62, 63). A second generalization concerns Nida’s communication model for translation. Some colleagues have resisted what they see as a senderchannel-receiver model that they impute to Nida and other Bible translators. Michael Reddy (1979) and William Frawley (1987) have pointed out that the conduit metaphor (Reddy’s phrase) treats language as somehow a container that packages ideas and sends them across from one person to another. Frawley states,

3. On the application of functional equivalence to ancient Near Eastern texts outside the Bible, see Lindenberger 2003.

156

Let the Words Be Written The conduit metaphor creates the illusion of objectivity. It reifies meaning and gives it some kind of privileged, free-floating status, thereby allowing all linguistic exchanges to have equal participants. It equalizes exchange because the crux of the exchange is taken out of the participants and cast in terms of universal accessibility. The conduit metaphor reduces language to some sort of effortless gathering of objectified meaning by people who are ultimately all the same. (Frawley 1987: 136)

Similarly, others question Nida’s approach based on a specific understanding of language and meaning. They hold that it is impossible to speak of the meaning of a text, for example, since meaning “is an effect of relations and differences among signifiers along a potentially endless chain” (Venuti 1995: 17). Meaning is not something unified or fixed in a text but is contingent on relations and contexts (1995: 18). However, to reduce Nida’s communication model to a conduit metaphor or to claim he holds an outmoded view of language and meaning is too reductionistic a view of Nida’s approach (not to mention of what Bible translators actually do). Already in Theory and Practice of Translation (1969) he and Taber discussed how interpersonal communication takes place in a sociolinguistic and institutional context that shapes the meaning of the message and the response of the receptors. In much of his later consideration of semiotics, Nida argues that the communication model is primarily sociolinguistic, and that translation becomes a part of the field of anthropological semiotics (e.g., Nida 1976). A third generalization stems from some translations studies scholars who do not fully appreciate the nature and impact of modern Bible translations. While they may discuss how Luther’s translation influenced German language and culture, as did the King James Version the English language, they overlook, minimize, or discount the impact of Bible translations in African, Asian, or American languages and cultures, dismissing these translations as neo-colonial works. In reality, however, these translations have demonstrably heightened the self-identity of the receptor people and enriched and stabilized their cultures (see in particular ch. 2). A fourth generalization wants to pigeonhole Nida as merely a linguist, thus overlooking many other sides to his work. Obviously he is a linguist, making extensive use of linguistics in developing his approach. But the theory would have foundered had he relied only on linguistics or only on anthropology. His genius was to bring interdisciplinary, cross-cultural insights to bear on translation from a wide range of fields and field studies, including literary criticism, semiotics, communication theory, psychology, biblical studies, and missiology, in addition to linguistics and anthropology. He pioneered in a very real way a multi-disciplinary approach, laying the groundwork for much the same approach in translation studies, although


157

some current research in the history of translation does not dig deep enough or far back enough to uncover his contribution. The Right Time Historical realities account for the position that Bible translation enjoys in the history of translation as well as in modern translation studies. These same realities account for the influence that Nida’s approach has exercised on a number of the developments in these fields. Bible translators have shaped much of the thinking about translation in Western Europe (and later, North America) for the almost eleven centuries from Jerome to Tyndale to Luther. Apart from diplomatic or purely literary efforts, most translating turned out to be Bible translating. Further, because the Bible enjoyed such esteem, Bible translations underwent more scrutiny and debate than translations of other literature. And because of the different genres and kinds of materials in the Bible, and because the Bible contained important theological terminology, it posed difficulties that translators found more complicated to resolve than even those found in classical Greek and Latin literature. Not surprisingly, the methods used by Bible translators would influence translation work in other literature. Nida pioneered a comprehensive and practical approach to Bible translation. Others had considered significant issues in levels of meaning or types of translation, but no one prior to Nida had actually described theory and practice with such clarity and had made application so easy. Previous writers did not have Nida’s multifaceted perspective of linguistics, anthropology, and communications sciences, much less his vast field data and experience. Nor did they aim to train translators as he did. In a learned assessment of Nida, Stanley Porter acknowledges Nida’s contribution. Although he is critical of much of Nida’s work, he credits Nida with recognizing “the complexity of the nature of translation itself” and also with being aware of the process involved in translating. “These two issues have helped to set the agenda for discussion of translation for most of the last 50 years, and his theories continue to be utilized” (Porter 2001: 354). A UBS translation consultant assessed current developments in translation studies in this way: “The emergence of Translation Studies has moved us far beyond the understanding of translation as Nida conceived it. The multiplicity of perspectives and disciplines and the sheer number of researchers involved in recent times have each brought new insights and deepened the understanding of the subject” (Mojola 2000). True enough, but Nida’s work proved pioneering and foundational for much of what later took place as translation studies developed in the 1970s.

158


Contributions to Translation Studies In assessing Nida’s place in and contribution to the broader field of translation studies, a number of questions are worth addressing. ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

✦ ✦

How does Nida’s model compare to the three widely recognized models of translation? Is equivalence achievable or desirable? Where is meaning determined? What is the translator’s role in creating the meaning? Does the concept of faithfulness have a role in translation? Should a translation be fluent and transparent or remain in effect a foreign text? Does a translation perpetuate inequalities? To what degree is one’s cultural and linguistic set of values imposed on others in Bible translation? What is the role of linguistics in translation theory? Was Nida’s approach to linguistics sound theoretically?

Three Models Translation studies experts point to three models of translation that have defined the history of the discipline. Susan Bassnett and André Lefevere describe these three models in their 1998 work. They call the first the Jerome Model, named after Saint Jerome (ca. A.D. 331 to ca. 420), whose translation of the Bible into Latin, known as the Vulgate, established a norm for translation work, particularly, but not exclusively of the Bible, for well over a thousand years, or until about two hundred years ago. For Bassnett and Lefevere, a special concept of equivalence lies at the center of this model. Here equivalence means transposing a text from one language to another language, and doing so as equivalently and faithfully as possible. Faithfulness and equivalency come from using good dictionaries, a procedure that implies that anyone who can use a dictionary ought to be able to translate for this model. Word-for-word substitution, with minimal adjustments for the grammar and discourse of the target language, provides for the accuracy and equivalency of a Bible translation. This approach does not require us to train translators or even to pay them (Bassnett and Lefevere 1998: 2).4

4. The model may not accurately reflect Jerome’s understanding of what he was doing. Nida suggests that in fact Jerome supported sense for sense translation over word for word. In one of Jerome’s letters (Epistle 57.6), he writes “From my youth up I have always aimed at rendering sense not words. . . . A literal translation from one language to another obscures the sense.” Nida suggests that when Jerome argued for the opposite, he was engaged in theological controversies with Rufinus, who wanted very free translations (Nida 1964: 13).


159

Some people today still retain this approach to translation. At a recent meeting of the Asia Pacific Regional Committee of the UBS, one member questioned at length why a translation into Cantonese was taking so long and costing so much. “Look,” he said, “I read Greek and I speak Cantonese. Just give me a good dictionary and six months and I’ll translate the whole New Testament. There is no need for these people sitting around drawing huge salaries. The work can’t be that hard” (overheard by author). In the translation studies perspective of Bassnett and Lefevere, the Jerome model rests on a particular conviction about the nature of the Bible itself. This conviction, also held by many later translators, asserted that God had inspired the words, idioms, and grammar of Scriptures, so translators should retain these words, idioms and grammar to the maximum degree possible.5 The focus lies on form, not content or meaning. Bassnett and Lefevere note a shift in this conviction about how best to translate. They point to the Bible’s diminishing influence on Western society. [T]hinking about translation has been able to move away from the increasingly sterile “faithful/free” opposition, and has been able to redefine equivalence, which is no longer seen as the mechanical matching of words in dictionaries, but rather as a strategic choice made by translators. What has changed is that one type of faithfulness (the one commonly connected with equivalence) is no longer imposed on translators. Rather, they are free to opt for the kind of faithfulness that will ensure, in their opinion, that a given text is received by the target audience in optimal conditions. (Bassnett and Lefevere 1998: 3)

This shift matches precisely the kind of change that Nida brought about. For Bible translators, faithfulness remains a central issue because they want a translation to represent as closely as possible the original language of the Scripture texts. But Nida helped redefine faithfulness. For him, faithfulness meant placing the emphasis on the meaning of the forms in a particular context, that is, in the text where they occurred, rather than on the words or forms in and of themselves. Faithfulness also now meant moving translators to focus on the desired response of the readers. A second model is called the Horace Model after the Roman poet Horace, who lived from 65 to 8 B.C. (Bassnett and Lefevre 1998: 3–5). This

5. Note, however, that Jerome did not believe the translators were inspired. He supported fully a philological approach to translation (Nida 1964: 27). His fourth-century dictum verborum ordo mysterium est (“The order of the words is a mystery”) came to be understood to mean that the word order had a sacred character or deeper meaning that must be precisely preserved. But Jerome obviously did not consider himself to be restrained by his dictum in actual practice as he rendered sense not words (Epistle 57.6).

160


model calls for translators to be faithful to their readers. In particular, it is the responsibility of the translator to pay attention to the expectations that the intended readers hold. Different translations will therefore accomplish different things depending on audience preferences. Some texts convey information, others entertain, some persuade; and yet others are recognized as belonging to the “cultural capital” of a society. Translators need to know what a society’s expectations are, and consider the most appropriate form of translation accordingly. In many cases, a translation meets more than one of these intentions. Luther certainly meant for his readers to be informed when he prepared his German Bible translation, and he chose popular language as his medium for that reason. However, he, as generations of Bible translators since, also intended to be persuasive, and without a doubt his translation became a significant part of the “cultural capital” of the German-speaking peoples. Likewise in English, the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible not only helped shape the English language and entered into its “cultural capital” but also had political results. Bobrick notes that, after the KJV had become widely available and read, people could decide for themselves what it meant. Their free discussions about the authority of church and state fostered concepts of constitutional government in England, which in turn were the indispensable prerequisites for the American colonial revolt. Without the vernacular Bible—and the English Bible in particular, through its impact on the reformation of English politics—there could not have been democracy as we know it, or even what today we call the Free World.” (Bobrick 2001: 269)

Much recent work in translation studies has followed a Horace model, attending to issues of target cultures, languages, and readers. One European scholar, noting that examining actual translations has proved to be a useful way to study the interaction of cultures, has raised probing questions about Nida’s work in relation to culture. She asserts that Nida’s efforts amount to “Westernizing.” By that she means that Nida’s assumptions about culture derive from a very Eurocentrically biased anthropology and that a desire to convert people to Christianity motivated his work (Bassnett and Lefevere 1998: 129). Nida’s understanding of “culture,” however, drew on an American tradition of ethnography and sociolinguistics (a term he coined). By contrast, cultural studies in a European context relates more to the approach of the Frankfurt school, that is, a study of social institutions and how they manipulate society to create culture. As a result, scholars such as Bassnett, on the


161

one hand, and Nida, on the other, are really speaking about different things even though they use some of the same vocabulary.6 Nida rejected the claim that his approach used cultural insights to manipulate readers, repeatedly and pointedly writing against this misreading of his approach (see, e.g., Nida 1988). In most of his books on culture he describes how translators need to be (1) sensitive to the cultural values of the original biblical cultures in order to understand the texts; (2) aware of their own cultural suppositions, especially if they were missionaries, so they would not make wrong assumptions about how something would be understood; and (3) attentive to the culture of the target language since readers interpret what they read through the framework of their own culture.7 Fluency or Not? Bassnett’s and Lefevere’s third model is the Schleiermacher Model, named after the German philosopher and theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834). In 1813, he delivered a lecture entitled “On the Different Ways of Translating,” in which he articulated what he saw as the two basic approaches to translation: “Either the translator leaves the author in peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader towards him; or he leaves the

6. The Horace Model turns up in what is known today as the Manipulation School of translation studies. This expression of the model, also related to the Frankfurt School, examines how larger social institutions such as educational systems and governments use translation as a tool to manipulate a particular society to promote or create the kind of culture desired. They cite as examples governments supporting translations of national epics or churches supporting Bible translation. Most Bible translators would bristle at the notion that they are manipulating a text or audience. But they, and Nida, would agree that they aim to make the Bible accessible to readers in a meaningful way to the benefit and growth of the church. They want to ensure that the potentially life-changing message of the Scriptures is heard and understood. 7. Anthony Easthope accounts for a interesting move within modern translation studies that explains a shift from a literary to a cultural perspective, roughly from a Jerome to a Horace model. According to Easthope, three phases mark this shift. The first phase (where Easthope places Nida’s work up through 1970) involves a culturalist approach in which scholars attempted to think culturally and to define equivalence in cultural terms. Bassnett says that many people, finding this approach too pragmatic and unsystematic, turned to what Easthope terms a structuralist phase. Here attention went to “a more systematic approach to the study and practice of translation” (Bassnett and Lefevere 1998: 132) with an accent on systems and structures in language and translation. Currently, we find ourselves in a third phase, in which translation studies focuses on cultural pluralism, giving attention to an increased internationalization of cultural studies (1998: 133). In this third phase, semiotics has provided a helpful tool and, not surprisingly, a number of UBS and ABS translation personnel have focused on this discipline, as did Nida himself in works such as Signs, Sense and Translation (1984) and From One Language to Another (co-authored with Jan de Waard) in 1986.

162


reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author towards him” (cited in Lefevere 1977: 74). By the first method, the one that Schleiermacher favored, the translation must sound foreign. The translator intentionally retains the linguistic and cultural flavor of the original. It should not sound as if it were originally written in the target language. The second method strives for complete fluency in the translation. It does not sound foreign. Schleiermacher opposed this approach. Nida comes down firmly in favor of Schleiermacher’s second and rejected method. With Nida, the reader is left in peace, and the text is moved toward the reader. Dynamic-equivalent translations try to read as naturally as possible in the target language, but without losing sight of faithfulness or close equivalence. Fluency and clear understanding are the goals. Translation studies scholar Lawrence Venuti has suggested that in fact most contemporary translating in Anglo-American culture has opted for fluency (Venuti 1995: 21). He refers to this as the translator’s invisibility. Fluency is clearly a preferred method in the current American and English tradition, as demonstrated, for example, in a recent quote in the magazine of a prominent American university: “A translation is like health: if it’s good, you don’t notice it. But if it’s not (or some reviewer thinks it is not), it becomes very important and can ruin a whole book, just as even a minor health problem can ruin your whole life” (Forster 2001). Fluency poses a problem for Venuti: “By producing the illusion of transparency, a fluent translation masquerades as true semantic equivalence when it in fact inscribes the foreign text with a partial interpretation, partial to English-language values, reducing if not simply excluding the very difference that translation is called on to convey.” With regard to dynamic equivalence, he adds, “transparency is enlisted in the service of Christian humanism” (Venuti 1995: 21). For Venuti, a dynamic equivalent translation “overcomes the linguistic and cultural differences that impede it” (Venuti 1995: 22). But, equally, making a translation natural in the target language inevitably produces some violence to the source language culture and text. Some things are lost; others are skewed in favor of the target language. In short, in this view there cannot be true semantic equivalence. [T]he understanding of the foreign text and culture which this kind of translation makes possible answers fundamentally to target-language cultural values while veiling this domestication in the transparency evoked by a fluent strategy. Communication here is initiated and controlled by the target-language culture, it is in fact an interested interpretation, and therefore it seems less an exchange of information than an appropriation of a foreign text for domestic purposes. Nida’s theory of translation as communication does not adequately take into account the ethnocentric


163

violence that is inherent in every translation process, but especially in one governed by dynamic equivalence. (Venuti 1995: 22)

Inevitably a dynamic-equivalent translation shows partiality to a receptor language, and it may be true that a fluency strategy causes some loss and violence to the original source text. Still, careful and sensitive translators can see that what gets lost are details and subtleties of the source language and culture that they deem less important than the information content of the text, the primary concern of the Bible translator. For Nida, a “foreignized” text will simply not draw the desired response from readers.8 Translation studies scholar Sherry Simon (1996) raises questions about the focus that dynamic equivalence places on the receptors of a translation especially in light of the sexist language of the Bible. Because the biblical texts originated in a patriarchal society, the Bible itself not only has what we recognize today as sexist language, but also reflects a masculine viewpoint throughout. Simon suggests that Nida’s push to produce translations that speak clearly and fluently to contemporary readers, for example, using gender inclusive language, has reduced the prominence of that viewpoint. Simon sides with Bible scholar Phyllis Bird, who suggests that a translation should allow the modern audience “to overhear an ancient conversation, rather than to hear itself addressed directly” (Bird 1988: 91, cited in Simon 1996: 131). Rather than producing translations that sound as if the texts were written directly for the modern audience, translators have an obligation to represent the source text. Readers should be able to recognize that they have before them an ancient document whose foreignness, to use Venuti’s or Schleiermacher’s term, is retained. From the perspective of dynamic equivalence, of course, the primary goal for translating the Bible is to enable contemporary readers to read, hear, understand, and respond to its message in a way similar to that of the original readers. This goal requires that the text undergo a certain “domestication.” The text in translation should speak or communicate as clearly as possible in the contemporary readers’ language(s) and not appear as a “foreignizing” text. Two related issues often arise as points of discussion in modern translation studies: fluency (the commonality of human experience) and the notion that what can be said in one language can be said in any other.

8. It oversimplifies things to put Nida and Schleiermacher at opposite poles of a continuum, to make a simple contrast between dynamically and formally equivalent translations. For example, in a recent paper John Ellington shows that following Schleiermacher literally is not possible (Ellington 2001). All translators move back and forth along a continuum between the extremes as circumstances, language, and audiences require.

164


Venuti has pointed out that today scholarship focuses on the plurality of cultural experience, and that arguments for universality are considered highly anglocentric. But we oversimplify functional equivalence when we reduce it to an anglocentric theory. After all, Nida’s whole project goes back to field work in hundreds of languages and societies, work that aimed at correctly framing a modern understanding of ancient Greek and Hebrew texts, as his many publications showed.9 A final, related concern expresses itself in terms of the motivation of Bible translators and missionaries who desire to communicate their message in terms that are relevant to the receptors. It is said that Nida’s concept of dynamic equivalence in Bible translation goes hand in hand with an evangelical zeal that seeks to impose on English-language readers a specific dialect of English as well as a distinctly Christian understanding of the Bible. When Nida’s translators identify with a particular set of target language readers to communicate the foreign text, they simultaneously exclude other target-language cultural constituencies. (Venuti 1995: 23)

However, such a view does not take into account the common practice among Bible Societies to avoid individual Bible translators working in isolation. For example, since Vatican II, more than six hundred interconfessional Bible translation projects have gone forward under the 1968 agreement between the United Bible Societies and the Vatican. In each

9. With regard to the point of fluency, we can mention an interesting historical note. When Nida presented his new translation approach in Toward a Science of Translation, he first demonstrated how other scholars in the past had championed some of the same principles he now was articulating. In particular, he cited the eighteenth-century Scottish translator and scholar George Campbell (Nida 1964: 18–20). Campbell, from Aberdeen, published a translation of the Gospels in 1789. This translation enjoyed immense popularity. Between 1789 and 1834 there were fifteen editions in Britain and the United States (Venuti: 1995: 74). According to Campbell, a translator attempts to give a just representation of the sense of the original, to convey into his version, as much as possible, in a consistency with the genius of the language which he writes, the author’s spirit and manner, and to take care that the version has, “at least so far the quality of an original performance, as to appear natural and easy” (cited in Nida 1964: 18, 19). The following year, in 1790, Alexander Fraser Tytler (Lord Woodhouselee) from Edinburgh published The Principles of Translation, where he made many of the same points as Campbell. Campbell in fact accused Tytler of plagiarism, but the latter insisted he had come to the same conclusions separately. Tytler’s work became more influential than Campbell’s, however, because he dealt with a wider range of issues, in particular looking at secular or literary translation in addition to Scripture translation. Both Campbell and Tytler argued in favor of transparent, fluent translations. This approach held sway in Britain until well into the nineteenth century, when Schleiermacher’s call for “foreignness” in translations gained prominence.


165

case both Roman Catholic and Protestant translators worked together precisely to assure breadth of target language constituencies. Scholars such as Venuti aim at developing “a theory and practice of translation that resists dominant target-language cultural values so as to signify the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text” (Venuti 1995: 23). While this approach serves well audiences that expect to read foreignized texts, it does not meet the needs and requirements of most Bible translations, which aim at audiences that require domesticized texts. Also, from the point of view of Nida and many Bible translators, a foreignizing or Schleiermacher-type approach may not be suitable for texts that represent sacred Scriptures. Foreignization, in this view, treats the Bible as a literary classic and downplays its historical, cultural, and religious function as the word of God, which has come to generation after generation of people in domesticated and understandable mother-tongue translations. One can agree or disagree with scholars such as Venuti about the commonality of human experiences and whether or not they can be the basis for a translation approach. Such scholars are correct, however, about the Christian missionary motivation for translating the Bible. Rather than seeing this as a shortcoming, Nida would say, “But of course! That is why we translate.” Clearly, formal-equivalent translations cannot achieve the desired goals since they aim ultimately at presenting the “foreignness”—the literary form of a classic—rather than the clear communication of the word of God. Lamin Sanneh makes a point worth considering. By using a target language vocabulary for spiritual matters, Christianity from earliest times tacitly acknowledged God’s presence in those target languages and cultures. Christianity did not necessarily impose something foreign on a culture, but rather (see ch. 2) drew profoundly on the culture and life of all peoples everywhere to express its character and purpose. Christianity could take root and grow because the Bible entered as a domestic text, not as a foreign one (Sanneh, interview with author, 28 Sept. 2000). Equivalence One of the major preoccupations of translation scholars has been the concept of equivalence, which formed from the beginning a fundamental characteristic of Nida’s approach. While acknowledging that identical equivalence was not possible, he nevertheless taught that translators must find the closest possible equivalent (Nida 1964: 159). He describes two types. One is a formal equivalence, which focuses attention on the message itself, both the form and content. Clearly the Schleiermacher model opted for this understanding. Nida, however, argues for a translation that searches not merely for an equivalent gloss or structure but for an equivalent effect, which he calls a

166


dynamic equivalence. He states, “A translation of dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness of expression, and tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture; it does not insist that he understand the cultural patterns of the source-language context in order to comprehend the message” (Nida 1964: 159). Although Nida coined the phrase “dynamic equivalence” in his early writings, he later adapted the less divisive term “functional equivalence” in his later writings. Bassnett and Lefevere describe what they see as the “final disintegration of the once key concept of equivalence” (1998: 1). The assumption of translators twenty years prior, they suggest, was that there existed some sort of universally valid equivalence, but now “specific translators decide on the specific degree of equivalence they can realistically aim for in a specific text” (1998: 2). In fact, what they propose is not so different from Nida’s view that defined equivalence in terms of function and that militated against concordant translations. The equivalence that Bassnett and Lefevere reject is the kind commonly connected with their description of the Jerome Model (word substitution). But when they state that this Jerome Model determines what Bible translators have done, they seem unaware that Nida rejected exactly this kind of equivalence. In their view, a translator should opt for a kind of faithfulness that is optimal for the audience—and this approach resembles Nida’s very closely. Sherry Simon describes equivalence in terms similar to Bassnett and Lefevere. She writes, “Equivalence in translation, as contemporary translation theory emphasizes, cannot be a one-to-one proposition. The process of translation must be seen as a fluid production of meaning, similar to other kinds of writing” (Simon 1996: 12). For her the source texts themselves do not contain only one meaning, but derive their meaning from the culture itself. And in the translation, as she sees it, the translator has the role of determining the meaning in the receptor culture. Consequently, as the translator interacts creatively with the work, new meanings will emerge. For her, equivalence in the traditional sense is therefore no longer imaginable. For their part, biblical scholars have also challenged traditional concepts of equivalence, but from a somewhat different perspective. Stephen Prickett, for example, argues that we cannot be certain about the meaning of the biblical text, and therefore to search for a functional equivalence is neither possible nor desirable. He takes to task the preface of the Good News Translation, where the translators declare their role: “to understand correctly the meaning of the original.” “Such confidence,” Prickett states, “is rooted in a belief in the text itself as an objective entity over and above any debilitating niceties of cultural relativity and academic debate” (Prickett 1986: 6). For Prickett, however,


167

the search for the “correct meaning” is fraught with problems because the biblical text is so richly constructed with ambiguities. Prickett faults the Bible Societies and Nida for being too uncomfortable with ambiguity. Common language and literature are full of ambiguity and enriched by it, he contends, and there is therefore no need to remove it for readers (1986: 236).10 Culture and Cultural Studies Nida gave as a basic tenet that a text derives meaning from a culture. For translators this tenet directs them to understand both a source language culture and a target language culture in order to find equivalence in the translation. This conviction assumes a universality of human experience underlying the differing behavioral patterns and values of individual cultures. In Religion across Cultures Nida discussed the major categories of human behavior and how these manifested themselves differently in different cultures. The missionary and the Bible translator needed to do a comparative study in order to communicate effectively. Scholars such as Sherry Simon point out the extreme difficulty of this approach: “Translators must constantly make decisions about the cultural meanings which language carries, and evaluate the degree to which two different worlds they inhabit are ‘the same.’ . . . In fact the process of meaning transfer often has less to do with finding the cultural inscription of a term than in reconstructing its value” (Simon 1996: 138). Most Bible translators, especially those who attempt to achieve dynamic equivalence translations, could offer vivid examples. Take, for instance, an anthropological description of a worldview within an African culture, a worldview describing the forces and powers at work in that world along with the ways that people attempt to control and make sense of their environment. That description would quickly show that there are no direct correlations between most Greek and Hebrew terms for spirits and deities and the vocabulary of the African language. Is translation of the Bible therefore impossible? Simon thinks so. She cites the anthropologist Evans-Pritchard who studied the Nuer people extensively, and who reached the conclusion that “the interior categories of the Nuer religion remain inaccessible to the outside observer and therefore recalcitrant to translation” (1996: 139).

10. For more of this view of Nida’s approach, see Prickett 1986: 10, 13, 24, 33, 35–36, and similarly Nichols 1986: 44, 48, 50, where the writers question, for instance, the possibility of recovering the original intention of an author and the original response of a reader. Both authors stand within the Schleiermachian tradition of translation, a position that accounts for their discomfort with fluent and domesticated translations.

168


Traditionally, however, missionaries and Bible translators have, according to Simon, found equivalence. But she suggests that this says more about the ideology of the translators than the reality of the people for whom they were translating. Translators, both biblical and literary, have learned that when there are no equivalents, they have to find ways to make adjustments to vernacular terms. For the Turkana of northern Kenya there is no concept that parallels any of the biblical understandings of God. Translators therefore took the word for the supernatural, a very general word, and then added the qualifier “great” (van der Jagt 1990: 149, 150). But only further teaching by the church will eventually give sufficient context to enable Turkana readers to grasp something of the biblical sense. Not even the translation can create the new meaning in Turkana on its own, though it represents an essential step in the process, as 1990 studies edited by the present author and colleague Ernst Wendland pointed out. In those studies, the writers who essentially espouse a dynamic equivalence framework for their work agreed with Simon. One wrote: “In order to determine meaning, therefore, and ensure its transfer adequately, the translator must engage with the values of the text. The translating project is essential to this transaction; it activates the implicit cultural meanings which are brought to bear” (Stine and Wendland 1990: 140). Linguistics in Translation Reflecting a trend away from a purely linguistic approach to one that includes cultural studies, scholars such as Bassnett and Lefevere or Simon chide translators who have relied heavily on linguistics. They point out a limitation of linguistic research that reflects a field whose efforts from Bloomfield to the generative grammarians concentrated on the sentence level or below. This limitation clearly applies to Theory and Practice of Translation. It is also true, however, that the dynamic-equivalence approach and model proved broad enough to naturally encompass the later work of linguists and translators in discourse analysis which became a part of both the analysis and restructuring steps. Cultural studies scholars also expressed concern that linguists with an interest in translation generally focused on language and meaning within a source and target language without considering the translation process itself or the ways that meaning was actually created and constructed with the broader cultures. For their part, linguist-translators such as Nida and J. C. Catford emphasized that translation consisted of a communicative event and that the communication took place through language (Catford 1965). Meaning in the source text could be determined and communicated through the translation. This view contrasts with that of Lefevere and those who argue that meaning is culturally constructed, not something fixed in the text, and


169

is mediated through the translation in the target language. Nida, however, was clear in stating that meaning was only realized in a text, that is, in a particular context. With regard to linguistics, Mona Baker points out an obvious fact: language is the raw material of translation, and a discipline which studies language in a systematic way has much to offer the translation scholar. She describes how linguistics has been used in two different ways. Catford, for example, explored how linguistic theory could relate to translation and developed a coherent theoretical account of the linguistic aspects of all kinds of translation (Baker forthcoming). His interest centered on what could be done in translation given what we know about how language works (Baker 2000). Nida, on the other hand, wanting to help translators in practical ways, turned to linguistics for his analytic tools. Although he focused on Bible translation, not literary or technical translation, he built a general theory that was not language-specific, but would serve translators working in any language. A great deal of linguistics has no significant bearing on translation at all, but almost all translation scholars, regardless of their orientation, rely to some degree on key features of linguistics. Nida’s contribution simply pioneered an effort to bring linguistics resources to bear on Bible translation.11 Baker believes that although “linguistic approaches to translation have had their limitations in the past,” they have sufficiently broadened their range of study so as to “continue to be among the most productive approaches to the study of translation, simply because some level of linguistic analysis must, at the very least, form the starting point of any study of translation” (Baker forthcoming). Stanley Porter has wondered whether the dynamic-equivalence approach rests on adequate theoretical foundations (Porter 2001: 356). For example, the notions of kernel sentences and deep and surface structures that Nida adapted from Chomsky were subsequently superseded in generative linguistics. Later generative grammarians have shown that it is probably impossible to recover the meaning of a sentence or text from deep structure. Nevertheless, Porter maintains that Nida’s model for translation theory continues to merit attention.

11. It is worth repeating that Nida did not rely uniquely on linguistics. As his significant contributions accumulated over the years, it became a totally multi-disciplinary approach drawing on anthropology and cultural study, semiotics, psychology, communication studies, and biblical studies.

170


Beyond the Bible Nida developed his approach specifically for Bible translation, but because of the wide range of text types in the Bible and the cultural, linguistic, and historical differences between the Bible and contemporary cultures, his theory had much wider application. Nida points out that no other field of translation surpasses Bible translation in (1) the range of subject matter (e.g. poetry, law, proverbs, narration, exposition, conversation); (2) linguistic variety (directly or indirectly from Greek and Hebrew into more than 1,200 other languages and dialects); (3) historical depth (from the third century BC to the present); (4) cultural diversity (there is no cultural area in the world which is not represented by Bible translating); (5) volume of manuscript evidence; (6) number of translators involved; (7) conflicting viewpoints; and (8) accumulation of data on principles and procedures employed. (Nida 1964: 4)

Principles and procedures that help Bible translators work through these problems can certainly be applied, and have been, to both literary and technical texts. Simon suggests that Nida’s enormous pedagogical skills and his ability to formulate clear general and functional principles helped develop these wider applications (Simon 1990: 113). She points out that Nida’s concern for the social and institutional contexts for translation reflected a pragmatic and generalizing approach to translation. Moreover, his work served to highlight for others the importance of these contexts as they defined the work itself. Today, however, Simon notes, most scholars aim less at a general theory of translation than at correctly recognizing the socio-cultural specificity of the practice of translation (Simon 1996: 118). The Creation of Meaning and Institutions The alleged “colonial” motivation of Bible translators deserves some additional comment. Several scholars have argued that translations have perpetuated unequal relations between people, races, languages, and cultures. Tejaswini Niranjana, for example, says, “Translation as a practice shapes, and takes shape within, the asymmetrical relations of power that operate under colonialism” (Niranjana 1992: 2). Specifically, “Missionaries, therefore, functioned as colonial agents in the formation of practices of subjectification, not only in their roles as priests and teachers but also in the capacity of linguists, grammarians, and translators” (34). Good translations, she points out, were traditionally thought to be those that preserved meaning, but poststructuralist scholars have argued that there is no such thing as pure meaning. The relation between the signified and the signifier is not in some constant relation, but is continually being reshaped. Thus, they contend that it is almost impossible to agree on


171

the meaning of a text since meaning is shaped by the context in which it is made and by the motivation and context of the translator. “The notion of fidelity to the ‘original’ holds back translation theory from thinking about the force of a translation” (Niranjana 1992: 58). Niranjana asserts that translators even have to invent the original meaning in addition to the meaning they create in the translation.12 In stressing the colonial motivation (conversion) for Bible translation, she thinks that translators shape the meaning of the Bible text and then impose that meaning on the source language and culture. In this view, translating amounts to a power play. Even if we accept Nijranjana’s poststructuralist connection between translation and colonialism, we would have to say that the results are quite the opposite from those she predicts. As translations appeared in the languages of the colonized peoples in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, they planted the seeds of colonialism’s destruction. After all, these translations relied on and used the indigenous vocabulary for spiritual terms. Culture after culture found its self-identity as a direct result of having access to the Bible and a consequent development of indigenous, vernacular literature. Bible translations helped people throw off the shackles of colonial domination; they were not the instruments of continued imperialism. This process accelerated as Nida and the Bible Societies pushed to have more understandable and natural translations that reached wider audiences, and as they put translation work in the hands of native speakers. Furthermore, even though the missionary translators carried enormous amounts of Western cultural baggage with them when they evangelized and translated—in Africa, arguments raged about whether to allow drums in the church or what to do about baptizing polygamists—Nida clearly stated his goal for Bible translation. He aimed at making the “truths” of the biblical culture relevant in the indigenous culture, and to remove as much as possible the European/American cultural influence. Rather than destroy or colonize the indigenous culture, Nida aimed to reaffirm it and allow it to Christianize from within. This positive and negative role of churches in the shaping of translation has also drawn the attention of translation studies experts, Simon for example. She writes that religious authorities have always understood translation as an act of interpretation, historically giving their official approval to the translations that reflect their own position (Simon 1996:

12. This idea resembles a thesis of Lefevere (1992), who argued that translators create an image of the source and that this image is slanted and manipulated by the translation. Lefevere also suggests that translations routinely replace the originals, and that has been true of much Bible translation. In many languages, a translation certainly becomes “The Bible” for its readers (Lefevere 1992).

172


111). Tyndale and later English translators, for instance, knew that in choosing “elder” instead of “priest,” “love” over “charity,” or “washing” over “baptism” they were deliberately challenging the authority of the Catholic tradition and the Vulgate Bible (1996: 131). This observation is correct, as counterexamples show: translations that are not officially sanctioned can lead to violent reactions. The execution in 1536 of William Tyndale, who prepared the first translation in English, or the violence in Athens when a new Greek translation was prepared in the early twentieth century provide two instances. Both translations directly challenged the church’s authority. For scholars such as Simon, “each new translation is necessarily a confirmation of, or a confrontation with, a pre-existing version” (1996: 112). The translator of a new translation cannot avoid making certain ideological or esthetic affiliations. He or she must decide whether to render the translation “as artifact or message, as document or voice, as historically situated or as eternally meaningful.” The translator also has to ask what is the aim of the translation and to what dogmatic position it is answerable (112). From this translation studies point of view, it is actually impossible to follow traditional Bible Society policy and publish Bibles that are not “interpretive.” In reality, the Bible Societies’ focus on dynamic equivalent translations gives approval to one particular interpretation and only reaches particular kinds of readers. Nida would surely agree with this perspective, at least to some extent. He constantly emphasized that the translator has to consider for whom he or she is translating, although in saying this he had in mind how translators adjust the level and style of language according to the audience. But he also pointed out that a formally equivalent Bible translation itself represented a particular understanding of the Bible. It stood for a theological interpretation that valued the words as inspired. He frequently argued that publishing Bibles with no textual notes perpetuated this unfortunate interpretation. Has the United Bible Societies’ strong support of dynamic equivalence translations exercised a form of colonialism, as translation studies experts such as Simon and Niranjana would suggest? That depends on one’s point of view. However, we should note that Nida and Taber argue that any language needs at least three translations to fully serve the needs of the church (Nida and Tabor 1969: 31). These translations would use different levels of language and have different functions, for example, liturgy, study, or evangelism. The fact that for thirty years the Bible Societies have focused almost entirely on common language translations should not lead to criticism of either Nida or of dynamic equivalence. In their enthusiasm to produce translations that made the Bible clear and understandable and which thereby gave millions of readers access to the biblical message, the Bible Societies tended to overlook the fact that as an approach, dynamic


173

equivalence allows for, even calls for, more liturgical translations13 as well as the common-language ones. There are obvious benefits of dynamic equivalent translations. For example, they open up the possibility for indigenous theologies and more independent churches. Still, they can also limit the possible interpretations and completely obscure some of the cohesive elements of the biblical texts. Further, as Nida recognized, common language translations may not always serve the liturgical needs of the churches. It would seem very important for the Bible Societies to encourage churches to consider thoughtfully a variety of approaches to translation and the value of multiple translations in many more languages. But this becomes a matter of available time, budgets, and personnel. In reality, it is very difficult for local language communities to produce multiple translations. A Nida School? Some translation studies colleagues underestimate the extent to which Nida’s approach constantly evolved over the years. Theory and Practice of Translation (1969), the cited foundation of the dynamic equivalence approach, is really only one milepost in the continued development of his approach to translation. In particular, he continued to expand his research in semiotics and sociolinguistics. And he expected translation consultants and other scholars to continue to develop both his model and others as well. Theory and Practice of Translation is not all there is to Nida. A further misconception relates to the way Nida’s theory came about and developed. Crane (1972: 40), cited in Hermans (1999: 11), offers a pattern for the ways that new ideas, theories, and paradigms frequently emerge and spread in the scientific community. Because this pattern contrasts with what happened in Bible translation, it is worth repeating in summary here. ✦

✦ ✦

First, interesting hypotheses and methodological approaches attract like-minded researchers, who reach some consensus on key issues. Soon a small number of individuals develop a theoretical apparatus, set priorities for research, and train students. Next there is an exponential increase in publications and recruits, allowing the central theses to be elaborated and tested.

13. A liturgical translation is one whose text is concordant to a large degree with the language of worship.

174

Let the Words Be Written ✦

✦

As the novelty of the approach wears off, the rate of innovation declines, theoretical and methodological anomalies appear, and some members drop out. Finally, the leading researchers develop more specialized interests, factions develop, and this may result in new directions for the theory or the emergence of completely new paradigms. (Hermans 1999: 11)

In the case of Bible translation, Nida seems to have been alone in looking for a better approach. At the time no consensus existed among any group of scholars, and not many others were seeking to do the same thing until much later in the 1970s and 1980s. Even then, it was personnel from SIL, not from UBS, who actively led the way. Interestingly, even these SIL scholars essentially built on Nida’s foundation and worked within his general framework of understanding of how translation should be approached (see Beekman and Callow 1974; Barnwell 1975; Larson 1984). Further, Nida’s theory arose out of praxis. Rather than looking for a theory and then developing a method based on it, Nida always dealt with and learned from very practical problems that translators faced in the field. As he wrestled with these problems for over a quarter of a century, he began to develop an approach. Eventually he was able to articulate a theoretical basis for achieving what was needed based on his practice and observation in the field. Nida recruited a body of translation scholars who helped promote the approach, but they did not develop new theories or expand the existing theory. Rather, in the bulk of their writings they worked out the practical details of using Nida’s basic approach. How should key biblical terms be translated? How much and which implicit material should be made explicit? What areas of sociolinguistics were most helpful to Bible translators? What were features of discourse that were essential to understand in order to achieve dynamic equivalence? Still, as they wrote on these and other topics, with few exceptions, they were extending and filling out Nida’s basic approach, not developing a new theoretical framework. More recently some Bible translation scholars, seeing the need to expand Nida’s theoretics, have begun to look outside the sphere of Bible translation for theories and approaches that might be useful. Over the years, however, most have continued to work within the framework of dynamic equivalence, giving as their reason a continued conviction, grounded in field experience, that the resulting translations are the kind needed in most parts of the world. Because Bible Society translation scholars continued to work within the dynamic- or functional-equivalence model, they did not actively participate as much as might have been expected in the continued development of the field of translation studies.


175

Prescriptivism One leading reason why Nida’s method found such wide acceptance was that it offered Bible translators all over the world a definite procedure to follow in the translation process. And many Bible translators were looking for just such a procedure. On the other hand, a descriptively oriented translation studies approach challenged this prescriptive side of functional equivalence. It claimed that following prescribed steps limits the vision of the translators to understand fully the contexts and the forces that shape and develop meaning. It is true that a good translator in the end must be a creator, able to look at the wide range of contexts that shape the meaning of the source text and that will shape the newly created text, the translation. But learning to translate creatively is helped by the discipline of the analytic steps within a dynamic equivalence method. After all, these procedures assist a translator to come to a deeper understanding of many of the characteristics of the texts and many of the elements that help give it meaning. But from the beginning, as many of Nida’s early team members recall, Nida cautioned them to use these procedures creatively, not follow them slavishly. Good translators can learn a basic approach from dynamic equivalence, but they will inevitably have to draw on it as a resource rather than a series of rules they must rigidly follow. Biblical Studies Several biblical scholars have turned their attention to the changes in Bible translation that took place in the latter part of the twentieth century. James Barr, for example, has looked closely at the implications of modern English translations for the church (Barr 1994). Concerned in particular with the effect that the presence of multiple translations has on spiritual attitudes and theology, he makes an important point that echoes Sanneh: from the beginning Christianity was founded on translation. Christianity never attempted to preserve the actual words of Jesus, and everything we have is already a translation. “[T]hat means, on the one hand, that we have only an adequate, and never a perfect, impression of what was said. On the other hand, it means that an adequate impression is truly adequate; it is sufficient to bring us in touch with the living voice of God and with the truth that God has revealed” (Barr 1994: 278). The work of Raymond C. Van Leeuwen merits attention as well. He represents those with essentially theological concerns for the form of a text. For scholars who see the Bible as true and infallible, the Bible’s very words themselves are inspired, and it is translation itself that is a problem. Van Leeuwen states, “Translations interpose a fallible human interpretation between us and the infallible word.” Dynamic or functional equivalent translations are particular problems because they “often change the language,

176


images, and metaphors of Scripture to make understanding easier” (Van Leeuwen 2001: 30). Van Leeuwen says that just as God is “other,” so we should be willing to attempt to understand the “otherness” of the Bible and make the effort to overcome the foreignness of the Bible. Dynamic-equivalence translations pose a danger because “they shape the Bible too much to fit our world and our expectations. There is a danger that the Bible gets silenced because we have tamed and domesticated it” (30). In fact, he says, such translations “prevent the reader from inferring biblical meaning [emphasis added] because they change what the Bible said ” (30). Van Leeuwen gives as an example Col 3:9–10: “You have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man.” He suggests that what Paul says here is plain but that what he meant is not. To understand the meaning, readers need to study the context of the passage and other writings of Paul as well as available commentaries and study Bibles. According to the author, the “old man” refers to Adam, the first man, and the “new man” refers to Christ. However, translations such as the New International Version, which use “old self” and “new self,” or the Revised English Bible, which has “old human nature” and “new nature,” place the emphasis on the self, not on Christ. Thus Van Leeuwen concludes: “The translator who removes biblical metaphors to make the text ‘easier’ for readers may defeat the purpose of the Holy Spirit, who chose a metaphor in the first place” (31). This conclusion is remarkably similar to Prickett’s and Nichols’s, who argue against translations that try to give one clear meaning rather than letting readers struggle with an original form that may be ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations. Van Leeuwen says that when dynamicequivalent translations such as the NIV or TEV offer abstract interpretations they deny the church “access to what the Spirit actually said ” (emphasis added). He calls these translations “closed” because they discourage the process of wrestling with what the Scripture actually says. “When translations decide questions like this for us, they may prevent us from a Spirit-led fuller understanding of God’s Word” (Van Leeuwen 2001: 33). This approach to translation, then, would emphasize faithfulness to what is said or written in the original rather than ease of understanding. But readers must be willing to struggle with the text until they understand it better. A Final Word Where would Bible translation (and translation studies) be today if there had been no Eugene Nida? Charles Taber, who co-authored The Theory and Practice of Translation with Nida, recently suggested that there would be two camps (Taber, interview with author, 11 Oct. 2000).


177

Nida shows the Rev. Laton Holmgren, ABS General Secretary, a copy of On Language, Culture, and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida. This volume, published by Mouton, the distinguished international publisher of books on linguistics, was edited by Matthew Black (one of the editors of the Greek New Testament) and William A. Smalley (one of Nida’s UBS colleagues). It was published to commemorate Dr. Nida’s sixtieth birthday in 1974. © American Bible Society.

One would continue the pre-Nida practice, the Schleiermacher model of formally equivalent translations, and the other would be given to “free” translations ranging perhaps from the first Living Bible to the Cotton Patch Version. What Nida contributed was a theory that accepted neither. Using communication sciences and linguistics—and several schools of linguistics at that—and using cultural anthropology, he developed a method that relied on several disciplines and that gave a theoretical underpinning to it. The basic principles that translators followed flowed from the theory and fit within defined parameters. Many gifted translators in the past explained why they translated as they did. Martin Luther and J. B. Phillips come to mind, but neither of them developed a theoretical base for their work, nor did they develop an approach others could follow. SIL produced many gifted linguistic scholars, including, for example, Kenneth Pike and Robert Longacre, but none of them before Nida developed a theory and practice of translation. SIL scholars such as Callow, Beekman, and Barnwell who have done extensive

178


theoretical and practical work essentially are following Nida’s basic approach to translation. Thanks to the translation theory and practice of Nida, both Bible translation and translation studies have been immeasurably enriched, challenged, and profiled in ways that not even Nida could have imagined. His work stimulated new approaches to research, production, training, and evaluation. Its effects are seen today as new generations of translators emerge to study Nida’s work, debate his approach, push its boundaries, and contribute as Bible translators to the communication of God’s word, and as translation studies experts to the communication of culture, understanding, and values around the globe.

POSTSCRIPT

The story of Eugene Nida continues to unfold. Nida travels extensively around the world, crisscrossing the globe, teaching and training yet another generation of Bible and literary translators and enchanting the many hundreds of listeners who attend his lively lectures. His travels take him especially to Spain and China, where renewed interest not only in Bible translation but in the translation of all kinds of literature has led people to the person and work of Gene Nida. Publications continue to roll off his desk; not long ago he mentioned to a colleague that he had several books on press. Not bad for an octogenarian. During his recent travels, Nida came to New York City where, on 31 May 2001 he was honored by the American Bible Society at an International Conference on “Fidelity and Translation” held at the Society’s headquarters. Following a series of personal tributes, Nida was presented with a copy of a formal proclamation issued by the American Bible Society Board of Trustees honoring him for his historic and influential contribution to the Bible cause. The president of the American Bible Society, Dr. Eugene B. Habecker, then announced that in Dr. Nida’s honor, and in tribute to his profound contribution over five decades to biblical scholarship and Bible translation, a new institute was being created by the American Bible Society: the Eugene A. Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship. As of 1 July 2001, this new scholarly arm of the American Bible Society began its work. The Nida Institute embodies the old and the new at the American Bible Society. In its Translations Area it continues the Society’s heritage and core competency in Bible translation, theory, and practice. With responsibility for the Library and Archives, the Institute oversees one of the world’s primary collections of printed Bibles and facilitates its use in historical scholarship and research. A newly formed Research Area conducts and interprets interdisciplinary research, connecting such fields as biblical studies, communications, and social anthropology. Finally, an Education/ Learning Area develops educational resources for a variety of audiences ranging from grade school students to scholars, exemplifying the Society’s commitment to the use and engagement of Scripture. Throughout its nearly 190-year history, the American Bible Society has maintained its commitment to the translation and distribution of Scripture 179

180


while upholding the highest standards of scholarly integrity. Today the Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship upholds that tradition and is committed to continuing the work of Eugene Nida, both independently and collaboratively. However, it is also launching toward new and varied goals that will ensure that fresh ideas, innovative research, and multidisciplinary scholarship will continue to be the hallmark of its work far beyond the twenty-first century.

Facing page: Nida’s reputation as a scholar is well deserved because over the course of his career he has exhibited a breadth of scholarship in several disciplines that few scholars can match. He became a notable figure in linguistics, biblical studies, missiology, semiotics, lexicography, and translation studies, to name the major areas. It is quite remarkable, for example, for someone to be honored by both the Linguistic Society of America and the Society of Biblical Literature. Over the years, universities in several countries have paid tribute to him with numerous honorary degrees. © United Bible Societies. Used by permission.

Appendix: First-Time Translations into New Languages Century 300 B.C. 200 100 -0A.D. 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800

Languages Added 1 0 0 1 3 1 4 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 3 4 6 3 15 11 13 446

1900

1,424

2000

85+

Decade

Languages Added

1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

7 26 42 26 29 51 71 38 59 97 100 102 97 146 80 142 258 290 175 34 85

Cumulative Totals 1 1 1 2 5 6 10 12 12 14 15 17 17 19 22 26 32 35 50 61 74 81 107 149 175 204 255 326 364 423 520 620 722 819 965 1,045 1,187 1,445 1,735 1,910 1,944 2,029

This data is taken from North 1938 and updated by the library of the American Bible Society, who maintain a cumulative database of new translations of the Scriptures into the languages of the world.

182

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, Walter. 1959. The Bible Is a Bond. America, 24 October, 100–102. ABS Committee on Versions Minutes (later the Committee on Translations), various years. New York: American Bible Society. Achtemeier, Paul J. 1999. Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of Christian Scripture. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson. Arichea, Danny C. 1990. Theology and Translation: The Implications of Certain Theological Issues to the Translator’s Task. Pages 40–67 in Stine 1990. Aristotle. 1991. On Rhetoric. Translated by George A. Kennedy. New York: Oxford University Press. Baker, Mona. 2000. Linguistic Perspectives on Translation. Pages 20–26 in The Oxford Guide to Literature in English Translation. Edited by Peter France. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baker, Mona. Forthcoming. Linguistic Models and Methods in the Study of Translation. In Übersetzung—Translation—Traduction. Edited by Armin Paul Frank, Norbert Greiner, Theo Hermans, Harald Kittel, Werner Koller, José Lambert, and Fritz Paul. Berlin: de Gruyter. Barnwell, Katharine. 1975. Bible Translation: An Introductory Course in Translation Principles. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Barr, James. 1994. Modern English Bible Versions as a Problem for the Church. QR 14:263–78. Barrett, David B. 1968. Schism and Renewal in Africa. Nairobi: Oxford University Press. Barthélemy, Dominique, ed. 1982–92. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. 3 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Barthélemy, Dominique, A. R. Hulst, Norbert Lohfink, W. D. McHardy, H. P. Rüger, and James A. Sanders. 1973–80. Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. 5 vols. New York: United Bible Societies. Bassnett, Susan. 1998. The Translation Turn in Cultural Studies. Pages 123– 40 in Bassnett and Lefevere. Bassnett, Susan, and André Lefevere, eds. 1998. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.

183

184


Beekman, John, and John Callow. 1974. Translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Bird, Phyllis A. 1988. Translating Sexist Language as a Theological and Cultural Problem. USQR 42:89–95. Black, Matthew, and William A. Smalley, eds. 1974. On Language, Culture, and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida. The Hague: Mouton. Bobrick, Benson. 2001. Wide as the Waters: The Story of the English Bible and the Revolution It Inspired. New York: Simon & Schuster. Borg, Marcus J. 2001. Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but Not Literally. New York: Harper. Brower, Reuben A., ed. 1959. On Translation. Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature 23. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Browning, Robert. 1992. Greek Diglossia Yesterday and Today. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 35:49–68. Burchfield, Robert W., ed. 1987. A Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Catford, John C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Gravenhage: Mouton. Christian Herald. 1978. The Challenge of Bible Translation. February, 42–47. Cove, John J. 1999. Cultural Relativism in the Americanist Tradition: From Anthropological Method to Indigenous Emancipation. Pages 108–20 in Valentine and Darnell. Crane, Diana. 1972. Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Darnell, Regna. 1999. Theorizing Americanist Anthropology: Continuities from the B.A.E. to the Boasians. Pages 38–51 in Valentine and Darnell. Donnelly, John P. 1967. Agreement on Common Bible Guide. Appendix G1 of ABS History. New York: American Bible Society. Easthope, Anthony. 1997. But What Is Cultural Studies? Pages 3–18 in Studying British Cultures: An Introduction. Edited by Susan Bassnett. London: Routledge. Ellington, John. 2001. Schleiermacher Was Wrong: The False Dilemma of Foreignization and Domestication. Paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting. Denver, Colorado. 17–20 November. Fiske, Edward B. 1966. Move Made Here on a Joint Bible. New York Times, 16 November, 34. Forster, Elborg. 2001. The Art and Craft of Translation. Johns Hopkins Magazine (February). No pages. Cited 30 July 2004. Online: http://www .jhu.edu/~jhumag/0201web/. Frawley, William. 1987. Text and Epistemology. Advances in Discourse Processes 24. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Bibliography

185

Herbermann, Charles G., et al., eds. 1917. The Catholic Encyclopaedia. 15 vols. New York: Encyclopedia Press. Hermans, Theo. 1999. Translation in Systems: Descriptive and SystemOriented Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Holmgren, Laton E. 1968. Inch by Inch. Address given at the UBS Regional Conference of the Americas, Oaxtepec. 8–13 December. Jagt, Krijn van der. 1990. Equivalence of Religious Terms across Cultures: Some Problems in Translating the Bible in the Turkana Language. Pages 131–53 in Stine and Wendland. Kee, Howard C. 1974. The Linguistic Background of “Shame” in the New Testament. Pages 133–48 in Black and Smalley. Larson, Mildred L. 1984. Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to CrossLanguage Equivalence. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America. Lefevere, André. 1977. Translating Literature: The German Tradition from Luther to Rosenzweig. Assen: Van Gorcum. ———. 1992. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. New York: Routledge. ———. 1998. Chinese and Western Thinking on Translation. Pages 12–24 in Bassnett and Lefevere. Lindenberger, James M. 2003. Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters. Edited by Kent Harold Richards. 2nd ed. SBLWAW 14. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, with Rondal B. Smith and Karen A. Munson, eds. 1988. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2 vols. New York: United Bible Societies. Metzger, Bruce Manning. 1997. Reminiscences of an Octogenarian. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson. Midrand World Assembly. 2000. The Identity and Ethos of the UBS, the Direction from Midrand. Reading, U.K.: United Bible Societies. Mitchell, William. 1987. The Old Testament and the Andean Peoples. Pages 123–32 in Current Trends in Scripture Translation. Edited by Philip C. Stine. Bulletin of the United Bible Societies 148/149. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies. ———. 2002. Liturgium Authenticum . . . Towards a True Liturgy. BT 53:343–52. Mojola, Aloo Osotsi. 2000. Rethinking the Place of Nida’s Theory of Translation in the New Millennium, or Scripture Translation in the Era of Translation Studies: A Critical Assessment. Paper delivered to the UBS Triennial Translation Workshop, Malaga, Spain. June. Murray, Stephen O. 1999. The Non-eclipse of Americanist Anthropology during the 1930s and 1940s. Pages 52–74 in Valentine and Darnell. Nichols, Anthony. 1986. Dynamic Equivalence Bible Translations. Colloq 19:45–53.

186


Nida, Eugene A. 1943. A Synopsis of English Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. published in 1960, Norman, Okla.: Summer Institute of Linguisitics. Revised and reprinted in 1966, The Hague: Mouton. ———. 1946. Morphology: The Descriptive Analysis of Words. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Completely new edition printed in 1949, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ———. 1947. Bible Translating: An Analysis of Principles and Procedures, with Special Reference to Aboriginal Languages. New York: American Bible Society. ———. 1952. A New Methodology in Biblical Exegesis. BT 3:97–111. ———. 1954. Customs and Cultures: Anthropology for Christian Missions. New York: Harper & Brothers. ———. 1958. Marginal Helps for the Reader. BT 9:1–21. ———. 1959. Principles of Translation as Exemplified by Bible Translating. Pages 11–31 in Brower. ———. 1960. Message and Mission. New York: Harper & Row. ———. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1968. Religion across Cultures: A Study in the Communication of the Christian Faith. New York: Harper & Row. ———. 1975. Componential Analysis of Meaning. The Hague: Mouton. ———. 1976. A Framework for the Analysis and Evaluation of Theories of Translation Pages 47–91 in Translation: Applications and Research. Edited by Richard W. Brislin. New York: Gardner. ———. 1984. Signs, Sense, and Translation. Cape Town: Bible Society of South Africa. ———. 1988. My Pilgrimage in Mission. International Bulletin of Missionary Research 12:62-65. Nida, Eugene A., and Charles R. Taber. 1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Helps for Translators 8. Leiden: Brill. Niranjana, Tejaswini. 1992. Siting Translation: History, Post-structuralism, and the Colonial Context. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. North, Eric M. 1968. The Beginning of Technical Examination at Headquarters of Translations Submitted for Publication by the American Bible Society. Appendix F of Erroll Rhodes, (American Bible Society) Historical Essay 16, part VI-A, Text and Translation, Principles and Problems, 1931–1966. ———. 1974. Eugene A. Nida: An Appreciation. Pages vii–xx in Black and Smalley. ———, ed. 1938. The Book of a Thousand Tongues: Being Some Account of the Translation and Publication of All or Part of the Holy Scriptures

Bibliography

187

into More Than a Thousand Languages and Dialects with over 1100 Examples from the Text. New York: published for the American Bible Society by Harper & Brothers. Noss, Philip A. 1981. The Oral Story and Bible Translation. BT 32:301–18. Nothdurft, Ivan H. 1979. The American Bible Society and Roman Catholicism, 1816–1979. ABS Historical Essay 23, part 7, vol. 1. Owen, John. 1816. The History of the Origin and First Ten Years of the British and Foreign Bible Society. London: Tilling & Hughes. Porter, Stanley E. 2001. Some Issues in Modern Translation Theory and Study of the Greek New Testament. CurBS 9:350–82. Prickett, Stephen. 1986. Words and The Word: Language, Poetics and Biblical Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reddy, Michael. 1979. The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language About Language. Pages 284–324 in Metaphor and Thought. Edited by Andrew Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Report of the Driebergen Conference of Church Leaders, 1964, Bible Societies and Churches. Report on United Bible Societies Consultation, Cyprus, 1–3 February 1999: National Bible Societies and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. Crawley, U.K.: United Bible Societies. . Reports of the British and Foreign Bible Society with Extracts of Correspondence. 1811. Vol. 1, 1805–1810. London: British & Foreign Bible Society. Reyburn, William D. 2001. Marching through Babel: Memoirs of a Bible Translator. Unpublished manuscript. Robertson, Edwin H. 1996. Taking the Word to the World: Fifty Years of the United Bible Societies. Nashville: Nelson. Sanneh, Lamin. 1987. Christian Missions and the Western Guilt Complex. ChrCent April 8:330–34. ———. 1989. Translating the Message. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis. ———. 1990. Gospel and Culture: Ramifying Effects of Scriptural Translation. Pages 1–23 in Stine 1990. Scroggs, Robin. 1993. Can the New Testament Be Relevant for the TwentyFirst Century? Pages 272–85 in Scroggs, The Text and the Times. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress. ———. 1995. The Bible as Foundational Document. Int 7:17–30. Shenk, Calvin E. 1993. The Demise of the Church in North Africa and Nubia and Its Survival in Egypt and Ethiopia: A Question of Contextualization? Missiology 21:131–54. SIL International Annual Report 1998. Dallas: SIL International. Simon, Sherry. 1990. La traduction biblique: Modèle des Modèles? Traduction, Terminologie, Redaction 3:111–20.

188


———. 1996. Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission. New York: Routledge. Smalley, William A. 1991. Translation as Mission: Bible Translation in the Modern Missionary Movement. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press. Steven, Hugh. 1999. Doorway to the World: The Mexico Years: The Memoirs of W. Cameron Townsend, 1934–1947. Wheaton, Ill.: Shaw. Stine, Philip C. 1980. Cohesion in Literary Texts: A Translation Problem. Journal of Literary Semantics 9:13–19. ———. 2000. Translating the Gospel. Pages 57–65 in The Impact of the Word on the World: The Bible from Print to Computer (1450–2000). Edited by Alan F. Jesson and Mario Cignoni. Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali. Rome: United Bible Societies. ———, ed. 1990. Bible Translation and The Spread of the Church: The Last Two Hundred Years. Leiden: Brill. Stine, Philip C. and Ernst R. Wendland, eds. 1990. Bridging the Gap: African Traditional Religion and Bible Translation. UBS Monograph Series 4. Reading, U.K.: United Bible Societies. Taylor, Robert T. 1978. Wings for the World: A Short History of the American Bible Society. Plainfield, N.J.: Logos. UBS Council Minutes, various years. Reading, U.K.: United Bible Societies. UBS Executive Committee Minutes, various years. Reading, U.K.: United Bible Societies. UBS Standing Committee Minutes, various years. Reading, U.K.: United Bible Societies. Unnik, W.C. van 1974. The Interpretation of Romans 12:8. Pages 169–86 in Black and Smalley. Valentine, Lisa Philips, and Regna Darnell, eds. 1999. Theorizing the Americanist Tradition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. 2001. We Really Do Need Another Bible Translation. Christianity Today 45/13:28–45. Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge. Waard, Jan de, and Eugene A. Nida. 1986. From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating. New York: United Bible Societies. Wendland, Ernst R. 1990. The Foundation of Religious Belief: Key Aspects of the Chewa and Tonga World-View. Pages 65–129 in Stine and Wendland. Wonderly, William L. 1968. Bible Translations for Popular Use. London: United Bible Societies.

INDEX OF PEOPLE AND SUBJECTS

Abbott, Walter, 119, 120, 121–22, 125, 127, 130 ABS (American Bible Society). See American Bible Society (ABS) Africa, 6, 16, 48, 55, 85–86. See also East Africa; North Africa; South Africa; West Africa; specific countries Aland, Barbara, 113 Aland, Kurt, 113, 114 American Bible Society (ABS) and BFBS, 54–55, 54–56, 56 Committee [on Translations] Minutes, 84 Committee on Versions minutes, 31, 33, 75, 77 General Administration Committee minutes, 78 history, 19 and interconfessional projects, 4, 121–29 and manuscript examination, 19 mission of, 18–19 and Nida, 4, 5, 30–34, 77, 179 and training programs, 52 Translation Committee, 30, 73, 112 and translation standards, 4 and UBS, 15, 100–101 American Standard Version, 83, 105 analysis stages, 42–44, 57–58, 148 anthropology, 16, 22, 35–37, 41, 52, 96–100. See also cultural studies Apocrypha, 124, 132. See also Deuterocanon (deuterocanonical books)

Arichea, Danny C., Jr., 6, 60, 70, 95 n. 8, 142 Aristotle, 70 Asia, 6, 64. See also specific cultures audio-visual media, 137–38 Authorized Version. See King James Version Baas, Charles, 55, 145 Baker, Mona, 8, 71, 169 Bambara language, 13, 59–60 Barnwell, Katharine, 174, 177–78 Barr, James, 14, 107, 175 Barrett, David B., 16 Barthélemy, Dominique, 116, 117 Bassnett, Susan, 100, 155, 158–61, 166, 168 Bea, Cardinal, 119, 128 Beekman, John, 174, 177–78 Belew, M. Wendell, 80–81 Bengali Bible, 16 Bible. See New Testament (NT); Old Testament (OT); study Bibles; specific versions Bible for Today’s Family, 90. See also Contemporary English Version Bible societies and China, 135 and churches, 110–11 and dynamic-equivalence approach, 52–54 and evangelism, 155 formation of, 18–19

Page numbers in bold indicate photographs.

189

190


Bible societies (continued ) and guidelines, 20–21, 124–26, 127, 134 and manuscript examination, 19–21 and meaning, creation of, 172 and native translators, 62 and note or comment policies, 64–66, 105, 125, 126 reorganization of, 100–101 SIL compared with, 23–24, 109, 110–11 and source text issues, 131–32 and study Bibles, 66–67 and traditional translations, 18–19, 60, 105, 109 Bible Society in Australia, 136 Bible Society of Egypt, 131 Bible studies, 175–76 Bible Translating (Nida), 35, 36, 38 Bible translation dissemination of approach to, 7, 10 history of, 157 and meaning, creation of, 170–73 and practical approach to, 58, 157 and preparation issues, 7, 8, 148 and priorities, 45 revolution in, 2 Bible Translations for Popular Use (Wonderly), 83, 84 Bible Translator, 31, 39, 65, 84 n. 2, 93, 94, 101, 109, 110, 148 Biblia de Estudia, 67 Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS ), 116, 131, 132, 133 Biblia para todos, 137 Bird, Phyllis A., 163 Black, Matthew, 113, 114, 177 Bloomfield, Leonard, 28 Bobo Dioulasso, 60. See also Burkina Faso Bobrick, Benson, 108, 160 Borg, Marcus J., 154 n. 2 Boswell, Freddy, 22 Boyd, James Oscar, 30 Bradnock, Wilfred, 54, 55, 79 Bratcher, Robert, 60, 61, 79–80, 81, 108 Brazil Bible Society, 6

Brazilian Portuguese language, 6 British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) about, 18–19, 20, 35 and consultants, 91 and economic issues, 54 and manuscript review, 21, 35 n. 5 and Nida’s approach, 54–56, 60 and note or comment policies, 21, 64, 65, 105 Rules of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 35 and scholars for translation, 54 and team building for field work, 75 and translation standards, 21 and UBS, 100–101 Brower, Reuben A., 37 Browning, Robert, 25 Buddhist (Thai) culture, 50 Burchfield, Robert W., 147 Burkina Faso, 13, 49, 60 Bwamu language, 13, 49 Cakchiquel language, 22 Callow, John, 174, 177–78 Cameroon, 44–45, 48–49, 55, 87 Campbell, George, 164 n. 9 Camp Wycliffe, 27, 28, 72. See also Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) Carey, William, 18 Caribbean islands, 64 Catford, John C., 5, 168 Catholic Encyclopedia (Herbermann), 123 Cebaara people, 1–2 Chimborazo language, 16 China, 27, 135–36 Chomsky, Noam, 39, 148–49, 169 Christian and Missionary Alliance, 17 Christian Herald, 7 Christianity, 11, 14, 106–8, 128–29. See also specific churches churches and Bible translation projects, 11–15, 110–11, 171–72 early church, and translations, 12 and indigenous theologies, 6–7, 60–62, 173

Index of People and Subjects churches (continued ) Orthodox churches, 25, 131–34 theology of, 6, 14, 15–17, 59–60 colonialism, 17, 170 comment policies, 21, 64–66, 105, 125, 126 common language translations, 63–64, 105–6, 130, 173 communication issues, 4, 37–38, 155–56 componential analysis, for Bible translation, 43–44 Componential Analysis of Meaning (Nida), 148 consultants, 71, 77, 85–89, 91 Contemporary English Version, 85, 89–90, 137 Coptic church, 131 Cotton Patch Version, 177 Cove, John J., 97 Cowan, George, 22 Crane, Diana, 173 Cressman, Annie, 81 Crisp, Simon, 134 Critique Textuelle de L’Ancien Testament (Barthélemy), 117 Culshaw, Wesley, 91 cultural issues and Bible translation, 50, 96–97, 106 and communication, 4, 37–38 and ethnic identity, 16, 17 and relevance, 138 and transformation of cultures, 15–16 and women, role of, 15, 16 cultural studies, 98–100, 160–61, 167– 68. See also anthropology Customs and Cultures (Nida), 29, 52, 96, 97, 98–99, 99–100 Darnell, Regna, 97 Dead Sea Scrolls, 116 Deuterocanon (deuterocanonical books), 67, 124–25, 130–32 de Waard, Jan. See Waard, Jan de discourse issues, 48–49, 84–85 Dogon people, 17

191

Donnelly, John P., 128 dynamic equivalence approach and acceptance of, 153 and ancient Near Eastern texts, 155 n. 3 and BFBS, 54–56, 60 and Bible societies, 52–54 and communication issues, 155–56 and conduit metaphor, 155–56 and difficulties accepting, 40 fluency and clear understanding issues, 162, 163 and Nida, 40–45, 50–51, 173–74 and Scriptures, nature of, 59–64 and sociolinguistics, 40, 41, 46, 83– 84, 147, 156 and theology, effects on, 59–60 East Africa, 64, 130. See also Africa Easthope, Anthony, 161 n. 7 Ecuador, 16 education of translators. See translation studies Ellington, John, 143, 163 n. 8 emancipation politics, 6, 16 Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians (Carey), 18 equivalence issues, 165–67. See also dynamic equivalence approach; formal equivalence approach Erickson, John, 150 Ethiopian Orthodox Church, 25, 131 ethnic identity issues, 16, 17 Eugene A. Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship, 179–80 Europe, 64 Europe Middle East Region Area Board (EMEAB), 134 evangelism, 155 exegesis issues, 108–10 Faye, Waly, 6 Fernandez-Miranda, Elena, 140 Fetzer, Marie, 86 Fick, Ulrich, 110, 126, 127 n. 3 field work about new approach to, 7, 32–34

192


field work (continued ) in Mexico by Nida, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, 35 and Nida, 32, 34–35, 73–74, 179 and team building by Nida, 74–75, 77–78, 90–92 and tools for, 8, 32 and training translators by Nida, 77 and translation issues, 34–35 Firth, James R., 5 Fiske, Edward B., 122 fluency and clear understanding issues, 162–63, 164 n. 9 formal equivalence approach, 18–19, 60, 105, 163 n. 8, 170–71, 177 Forster, Elborg, 162 “Framework for the Analysis and Evaluation of Theories of Translation” (Nida), 41 Français Courant, 64 Frawley, William, 155–56 Fries, Charles C., 29 From One Language to Another (Nida and Waard), 41, 51, 161 n. 7 Fry, Euan, 80 Fulfulde language, 48–49 functional equivalence approach. See dynamic equivalence approach Gabon, 55 Gbaya language, 44–45 generative grammar, 39 Girdlestone, R. B., 20 Gleason, H. A., 88 Good News Bible (GNB ), 64 n. 1, 67, 69, 82. See also Today’s English Version Good News for Modern Man, 56, 67, 69, 82, 127 Good News Study Bible, 67 Good News Translation (GNT), 64 n. 1, 67, 69, 80–83, 166. See also Today’s English Version grammatical analysis, for Bible translation, 39, 42–43, 148 Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (Louw et al.), 149–52

Greek language and NT, 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 111, 112–15 and OT, 11 Greek New Testament (GNT ), 3, 8, 49, 77, 102, 112–15, 114, 117, 123, 131, 132, 133, 134, 140, 149, 150 Greek Orthodox Church, 25, 131, 134 Greenfield, William, 20 Greenlee, Harold, 77, 113 Griaule, Marcel, 17 Griset, Evelyn, 27, 28 Guatemala, 22 Guide for Translators, Revisers, and Editors (Nida), 35 guidelines for Bible translations, 20–21, 124–26, 127, 134 “Guidelines for Interconfessional Cooperation,” 127 “Guiding Principles for Interconfessional Cooperation” (Nida), 124–26 Habecker, Eugene B., 179 handbooks, translator, 95–96 Hebrew Old Testament Text Project (HOTTP), 3, 115–17 Herbermann, Charles G., 123 Hermans, Theo, 154, 173, 174 Hills, Margaret T., 30 Holmgren, Laton E. and BFBS, 55, 56 Bible translation, and fellowship in world Christianity, 128 on communication skills of Nida, 70, 71 on consultant skills of Nida, 71 economics, Nida and effects of world, 145 and Good News for Modern Man, 82 on Nida’s concept of resident consultants, 77 photograph of, 177 on relations with Roman Catholics, 123 and Today’s English Version, 82 on UBS and Roman Catholic Church, 124 and Versión Popular, 81–82

Index of People and Subjects Horace Model, 159–60, 161 nn. 6 and 7 Hughes, Joseph, 19 Hulst, A. R., 116 Ilocano language, 6 Immediate Constituent Analysis, 30, 39 India, 16 indigenous languages, 6–7, 13, 60–62, 123, 173. See also specific languages indigenous theologies, 6–7, 60–62, 173 indigenous translators, 52, 59–60, 61– 62, 80 informants, contributions of, 16–17, 29 n. 1, 35, 53, 60–62, 88 institutes, translation, 94–95, 179–80. See also Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) interconfessional translation projects, 119–28, 164–65 and Abbott, 122 and ABS, 3, 4 and Nida, 4, 71 and notes or comment policies, 121 n. 1 and Parole de Vie, 134, 137 principles for, 124–26, 127 and problems with, 129–30 and study Bibles, 67 and UBS, 4, 66, 102, 134, 164 and world Christianity, 128–29 International Catholic Federation, 128 International Greek New Testament Project, 112, 113 Islam, 14–15 Jagt, Krinj van der, 168 Jerome Model, 158–59, 161 n. 7 Jerusalem Bible, 116 Jinbachian, Manuel, 133 John Paul II, 130 John XXIII, 119 journals, 4 Judaism, 14 Junack, Klaus, 114 Karavidopoulos, Johannes, 113 Kee, Howard C., 70

193

Khoisan language, 53 King James Version, 21, 64–65, 79, 80, 82, 117, 156, 160 Koine Greek. See Greek language Lambert, José, 10 Language (Bloomfield), 28 Language (periodical), 148 language levels, 136–37 languages, Bible translation and development of written, 5–6, 15–16 Larson, Mildred L., 174 Latin America, 6, 16, 22, 64, 122–23, 130, 137 Latin Vulgate, the, 25, 124, 130, 158, 172 Lefevere, André on Easthope approach to translation studies, 161 n. 7 on equivalence issues, 166 and Horace Model, 159, 160 and Jerome Model, 158, 159 on linguistics approach in translation, 168–69 and Schleiermacher Model, 161 on translators, 171 n. 12 Leo XII, 123 lexicon issues, 3–4, 46–47 Liberia, 55 Lindenberger, James M., 155 n. 3 linguistics and conduit metaphor, 155–56 development of discipline of, 22, 28 and Immediate Constituent Analysis, 30, 39 and lexicon issues, 3–4, 46–47 and monolingual demonstration, 88 and SIL, 109 and sociolinguistics, 40, 41, 46, 83– 84, 147, 156 and transformational grammar, 39 translation, and approach using, 168–69 Linguistic Society of America (LSA), 29, 145, 146, 147 n. 1, 180 linguists, 4, 96 n. 9 Liturgium authenicum, 130

194


Living Bible (LB ), 51, 177. See also New Living Translation (NLT) Loewen, Jacob A., 88 Lohfink, Norbert, 116 Longacre, Robert, 177 Louw, Johannes P., 149–52, 150 Luther, Martin, 132, 160, 177 Lutheran Bible Translators, 62 Mali, 17, 59–60 Manipulation School of translation studies, 161 n. 6 manuscript examinations, 19–21 Markham, Robert P., 113 Martini, Carlo M., 113, 114, 123 MacHardy, W. D., 116 McKinney, John, 17 media, and Bible translation, 137–38 Mejia, Jorge, 121, 127 Message and Mission (Nida), 99 Methodist Church, 6 Metzger, Bruce Manning, 111, 112, 113–14, 114, 133 Mexico, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, 35 Midrand World Assembly, 138 Miskiro language, 78 Missiology, 87, 98 missionary movement, 4, 12–13, 18–19, 60–62 missionary translators, 16–17, 25, 30, 62 Mitchell, William, 16, 23, 130 Mojola, Aloo Osotsi, 157 Morphology (Nida), 29, 147, 148 morphology issues, 28, 31, 97, 147, 148 Moulton, Harold, 54 multiculturalism, 98 multitranslations issues, 20, 52, 62–63, 172, 173 Mundhenk, Norm, 54, 72, 86 Munson, Karen A., 113, 152 Murray, Stephen O., 97 National Bible Society of Scotland (NBSS), 19, 65, 101, 113 native languages. See indigenous languages

native translators. See indigenous translators natural language translation approach, 51–52, 165, 177 Netherlands Bible Society (NBS), 19, 55, 65, 75, 87, 100, 101, 113 New American Standard Bible, 116, 127 New English Bible (NEB), 44, 106, 116. See also Revised English Bible (REB) New International Version (NIV), 67, 107, 176 New Living Translation (NLT), 51. See also Living Bible (LB ) Newman, Barclay, 58, 59, 73, 88–90, 95 n. 8 “New Methodology of Biblical Exegesis, A” (Nida), 39, 148 New Testament (NT) Cebaara language, 1–2, 7 and Christians, 11 and Greek language, 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 111, 112–15 and source text issues, 111 and translations by early church, 12 Nichols, Anthony, 167 n. 10 Nida, Althea Lucille Sprague, 31, 32–34, 33, 63, 73, 88 n. 4, 136 Nida, Eugene A. See also dynamicequivalence approach; semantic issues and ABS, 4, 5, 30–34, 77, 179 and analysis stage, 42–44, 57–58, 148 on anthropological approach, 96–97, 100 anthropological data, and Bible translation, 35, 37, 41, 52 and application of approach of, 170 Bible Translating, 35, 36, 38 on Bible translation, 170 and Camp Wycliffe, 28, 72 on characteristics of language, 41 and China, 135–36 churches, and Bible translation projects, 110 and commitment, 139, 142–43

Index of People and Subjects Nida, Eugene A. (continued ) and common language translations, 105, 106, 173 and communication issues, 37–38, 61, 69–73 Componential Analysis of Meaning, 148 and consultants, 71, 77, 85–89 and cultural issues, 106, 171 and cultural studies, 98–100, 160–61 Customs and Cultures, 29, 52, 96, 97, 98–99, 99–100 and economics, 4, 144–45 education of, 8, 27, 29, 143 and Eugene A. Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship, 179–80 and evangelism, 155 and fellowship in world Christianity, 129 and field work, 32, 34–35, 73–74, 179 “Framework for the Analysis and Evaluation of Theories of Translation,” 41 friendship and generosity, 142 and grammar, 148 and Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 149–52 Guide for Translators, Revisers, and Editors, 35 “Guiding Principles for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible,” 124–26 on HOTTP, 116 influences on, 143–44 and integrity of each text, 107, 108 and interconfessional projects, 4, 124–26 and interdisciplinary approach, 8, 10, 58, 156, 169 n. 11 and journals, 4 and linguistics, 8, 28–30, 146–49, 168, 169 n. 11 and marriage, 31, 140 on meaning, creation of, 172 Message and Mission, 99

195

Nida, Eugene A. (continued ) and method for teaching Bible translation, 58 and Mexico field work, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, 35 and morphology, 28, 31, 97, 147, 148 Morphology, 29, 148 and multitalents, 139–40 and multitranslations, 52, 62–63, 172 and native translators, 52, 62 and natural language approach, 51–52 “New Methodology of Biblical Exegesis, A,” 39, 148 and note or comment policy, 65–66 From One Language to Another, 41, 51, 161 n. 7 and oratorical skills, 10 and OT translations, 107, 108 and politics, effects of world, 144–45 and practical approach to Bible translation, 58, 157 “Principles of Translation,” 37, 38 and priorities in Bible translation, 45 and receptors issues, 52, 58 and relationships, 140, 142 Religion across Cultures, 99, 167 on Ross, 77 Schleiermachian Model compared with approach of, 162, 163 n. 8, 167 n. 10 and scholarship, 145–46 and semiotics, 41, 58 Signs, Sense, and Translation, 41, 161 n. 7 and SIL, 28, 30, 32 and sociolinguistics, 40, 41, 46, 47, 58, 108, 148, 156, 160, 173 “Synopsis of English Syntax, A,” 47 and team building for field work, 74–75, 77–78, 90–92 on term “dynamic equivalence,” 41 Theory and Practice of Translation, 39, 40, 42, 43, 48, 50, 52, 53, 54, 84, 85, 88, 148, 156, 168, 175

196


Nida, Eugene A. (continued ) and theory of translation, 40 n. 5, 41, 58 Toward a Science of Translating, 40, 42, 84, 148, 149, 164 n. 9 and training translators for field work, 77 and translation process, 57 and travel, 32–33, 179 and UBS, 4, 101–3, 127 n. 3 and USBGNT, 114, 115 on Waterman, 77 on Wonderly, 77 and writing skills, 72–73 Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship, 179–80 Nida on Translation (Tan), 135 Nigeria, 47 Niranjana, Tejaswini, 155, 170, 171 NIV Study Bible, 67 North, Eric M. on ABS translations, 30–31 on guidelines, 36 on Nida, 10, 29, 31, 32, 74, 143 on Reina-Valera Spanish Bible, 83 North Africa, 13, 131. See also Africa Noss, Philip A., 44 note or comment policies, 21, 64–66, 105, 121 n. 1, 125, 126 Nothdurft, Ivan H., 121 Nova Vulgata Editio, 130 Old Testament (OT) and Greek language, 11–12 Hebrew Old Testament Text Project (HOTTP), 3, 115–17 de Waard and translations of, 107 and Nida, 107, 108 and Septuagint, 11–12, 106–7, 131, 132, 144 and source text, 112 “On the Different Ways of Translating” (Schleiermacher), 161 On Translation (Brower), 37 Orthodox churches, 25, 131–34 Papua New Guinea, 61

Parole de Vie, 137 Paul VI, 120 Peacock, Heber, 13–14, 61–62, 83, 85–86 Pentecostal Church, 122–23 Philippines, 6 Phillips, J. B., 8, 177 Pike, Kenneth L. and development of new approach, 27, 28, 29, 72 and linguistics, 177 and monolingual demonstration, 88 n. 4 and tools for field work, 8 Platt, W. J., 55 popular-language translations, 63–64, 105–6, 130, 136 Porter, Stanley E., 152, 157, 169 Portuguese language (Brazilian), 6 poststructuralism, 170, 171 Practical Anthropology, 52, 72, 87, 97– 98 Preliminary and Interim Report of the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 117 prescriptivism, 175 Prickett, Stephen, 166–67 Principles of Translation (Tytler), 164 n. 9 “Principles of Translation” (Nida), 37, 38 printing presses, 18 print media, 137, 138 Protestant Church, 122–23, 124, 125, 129–30, 131–33, 164–65 Quechua language, 75, 87 receptors issues, 52, 58, 163, 164 Reddy, Michael, 155 Reina-Valera Spanish Bible, 83 relevance issues, 138 Religion across Cultures (Nida), 99, 167 Report of the Driebergen Conference of Church Leaders, 66 Revised English Bible (REB), 176. See also New English Bible (NEB)

Index of People and Subjects Revised Standard Version (RSV), 82, 116 Reyburn, Marie Fetzer, 86, 87 Reyburn, William D., 80, 84 n. 2, 85–87, 101, 102, 108 Rhodes, Erroll, 67 Robertson, Edwin H., 102, 103, 136 Roman Catholic Church, 25, 66, 71, 119– 28, 129–30, 164–65 Ross, Ellen, 75, 77 Rüger, Hans-Peter, 116 Rules of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 35 Rutgers, Herman, 94 Sanchez, Edesio, 137 Sanders, James A., 116, 117, 140 Sango language, 88 Sanneh, Lamin and Bible translation, 15 Bible translation, and fellowship in world Christianity, 128–29 and ethnic identities, 17 on fellowship in world Christianity, 129 and indigenous literature, 16, 17 and indigenous translators, 13, 14 and missionary translators, 98 and multiculturalism, 98 and natural translation approach, 165 on Nida’s role in Bible translation, and, 129 and women, role of, 16 Sapir, Edward, 28, 29 Schleiermacher, Friedrich, 161, 164 n. 9 Schleiermacher Model, 161–65 scholars for translation, 3, 4, 54, 108– 10 Scriptures, nature of, and dynamicequivalence approach, 59–64 Scroggs, Robin, 11 Seerer language, 5–6 semantic issues analysis, 29, 39, 148–49 categories, 39, 42 equivalence, 162

197

semantic issues (continued ) semantic-domain lexicons, 3, 150–51, 151, 152 units, 39, 43, 44, 58, 84 n. 2 Senegal people, 5–6 Senghor, Léopold Sedar, 6 Senoufo people, 1 n. 1. See also Cebaara people Septuagint, 11–12, 106–7, 131, 132, 144. See also Old Testament (OT) Shenk, Calvin E., 13 Signs, Sense, and Translation (Nida), 41, 161 n. 7 Simon, Sherry on applications of Nida’s approach, 170 on cultural issues, 167 on equivalence issues, 166, 168 on linguistics approach in translation, 168 on meaning, creation of, 172 on receptors issues, 163, 164 on translation studies, 38, 154 Simple Spanish Bible (Traducción en lenguaje actual ), 137 Smalley, William A. and discourse issues, 48, 84–85 on missionary translators, 12, 19 on Nida’s writing skills, 72 on Roman Catholic Church, 25 on translation theory, development of, 5 Smith, Rondal, 151 Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), vii, 146, 152, 180 sociolinguistics and dynamic equivalence approach of Nida, 40, 41, 46, 47, 58, 108, 148, 156, 160, 173 and principles for Bible translation, 83–84 South Africa, 102, 138, 149, 150, 151, 152. See also Africa Sprague, Althea Lucille. See Nida, Althea Lucille Sprague Steven, Hugh, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 71 Stevenson, Roland, 91

198


Stine, Philip C., 50, 84 n. 2, 127 n. 3, 168 study Bibles, 66–67 Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) Bible societies compared with, 23– 24, 109, 110–11 and Camp Wycliffe, 27, 28, 72 churches, and Bible translation projects, 110 and linguistics, 109 and missionary translators, 62 and Townsend, 5, 22, 24, 27 and translation program, 4, 22–23 “Synopsis of English Syntax, A” (Nida), 47 syntactic issues, 47–48 Sytactic Structures (Chomsky), 39, 148 Taber, Charles R. and analysis stage, 42–44 biography of, 88 on characteristics of language, 41 and common-language translation, 105, 106 and integrity of each text, 108 on linguistic model, 39, 52 and multitranslations for major languages, 52, 172 on Nida, 51, 73, 148 on theological church and effects of native translators, 59–60 Theory and Practice of Translation, 39, 40, 52, 73, 88, 156 on translation theory, 176–77 Tamil Bible, 16 Tan Zaixi, 135 Tarahumara people, 29 Taylor, Ken, 51 Taylor, Robert T., 32, 55, 101 Telegu Bible, 16 text issues. See also Greek language and ancient Near Eastern texts, 155 n. 3 and Greek text, 3 and the integrity of each text, 107, 108 source text, 112, 131–32 Thai Buddhist culture, 50

Theory and Practice of Translation (Nida and Taber), 39, 40, 42, 43, 48, 50, 52, 53, 54, 73, 84, 85, 88, 148, 156, 168, 173 Ting, K. H., 136 Tippett, Allen, 98 Today’s English Version (TEV), 56, 64, 69, 80–83, 105, 107, 127, 176. See also Good News Translation (GNT) and Good News Bible (GNB ) Tonga people, 50 tools for translation, 7, 8, 148 Toward a Science of Translating (Nida), 40, 42, 84, 148, 149, 164 n. 9 Townsend, Cameron, 5, 22, 24, 27, 28 Townsend, Elvira, 27 traditional translation approach, 18–19, 60, 105, 163 n. 8, 170–71, 177 Traducción en lenguaje actual, 137 transformational grammar, 39 translation institutes, 94–95, 179–80. See also Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) translation studies, 5, 10, 80, 154–61 translation theory development of, 5 and missionary translators, 25 and native translators, 25 and Nida, 39, 40 n. 5, 41, 58, 162 and Simon, 170 Taber on, 176–77 translator handbooks, 95–96 Triennial Translation Workshops, 92–94 Trinitarian Bible Society, 60 Trusso, Alfredo, 121 Turkana people, 168 Tyndale, William, 172 Tytler, Alexander Fraser, 164 n. 9 Ubi Primum (In the First Place), 123 United Bible Society (UBS) about, 100–102 and ABS, 15, 100–101 and The Bible Translator, 94, 101 and China, 136 Executive Committee, 122, 127, 128, 132

Index of People and Subjects United Bible Society (UBS) (continued ) and Greek New Testament, 112–15 and multitranslations, 20, 173 and Nida, 4, 101–3, 127 n. 3 policy development of, 102–3 and Protestant Church, 133 and Reyburn, 87 and Roman Catholic Church, 119–28 and scholars for translation, 3 University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), 8, 27, 28, 143 Unnik, W. C. van, 7 Van Leeuwen, Raymond C., 7, 175–76 Venuti, Lawrence, 51 n. 8, 155, 156, 162–63, 164 vernacular. See indigenous languages Versión Popular, 64, 67, 81, 82–83, 84, 103 Vööbus, Arthur, 113 Vulgate, the, 25, 124, 130, 158, 172 Waard, Jan de and approach of Nida, 40 n. 5, 41 and integrity of each text, 107, 108 From One Language to Another, 41, 51, 161 n. 7 and OT translations, 107 and UBS, 127 n. 3 Waterman, Henry, 77 Wendland, Ernst R., 50, 168 West Africa, 13, 17, 48, 53, 88, 137. See also Africa

199

Whealon, John Francis, 127 Whiteman, Darrell on communication skills of Nida, 70, 72 on Customs and Culture, 98, 99–100 on difficulties with acceptance of Nida’s new approach, 40 on linguistic training for translators, 109 on native translators, 61, 62 on Practical Anthropology, 97 Wikgren, Allen, 113, 114 Willebrands, Cardinal, 126, 128 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 143–44 women’s issues, 15, 16 Wonderly, William L., 63, 77, 83–84, 95 n. 8 Word International Journal of American Linguistics, 148 workshops. See translation studies World Catholic Federation for the Biblical Apostolate, 128 Wright, Leila, 72 written languages, 5–6, 15–16 Wycliffe, John, 27 Wycliffe Bible Translators, 22 Yala language, 47 Yu, Rosario, 89 Zimmer, Rudi, 6 Zulu Bible, 55

Let the Words Be Written: The Lasting Influence of Eugene A. Nida (Biblical Scholarship in North America) (Biblical Scholarship in North America)

Presidential Voices (Biblical Scholarship in North America)

The Agates Of North America

Poplar Culture in North America

Witchcraft in Early North America

Rivers of North America

Lignites of North America

Bulbs of North America

The Invasion Within: The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America (Cultural Origins of North America)

Conjuring Culture: Biblical Formations of Black America (Religion in America)

Status of Pollinators in North America

Bible trouble: queer reading at the boundaries of biblical scholarship

Indian herbalogy of North America

Warpaths: Invasions of North America

Moths of Western North America

Moths of Western North America

Gastroenterology Clinics of North America

Surgical Clinics of North America

Urologic Clinics of North America

Charophytes of North America: A Guide to the Species of Charophyta of North America, Central America, and the West Indies

The Jesuits In North America In The Seventeenth Century

The Zuni (Indians of North America)

The Mythology of Native North America

The Teton Sioux (Indians of North America)

The Zuni (Indians of North America)

The Blackfeet (Indians of North America)

The Iroquois (Indians of North America)

The Navajo (Indians of North America)

A Field Guide to Mammals: North America north of Mexico

The Cherokees (Indians of North America)

The birds of eastern North America

Let the Words Be Written: The Lasting Influence of Eugene A. Nida (Biblical Scholarship in North America) (Biblical Scholarship in North America)

Presidential Voices (Biblical Scholarship in North America)

The Agates Of North America

Poplar Culture in North America

Witchcraft in Early North America

Rivers of North America

Lignites of North America

Bulbs of North America

The Invasion Within: The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America (Cultural Origins of North America)

Conjuring Culture: Biblical Formations of Black America (Religion in America)

Status of Pollinators in North America

Bible trouble: queer reading at the boundaries of biblical scholarship

Indian herbalogy of North America

Warpaths: Invasions of North America

Moths of Western North America

Moths of Western North America

Gastroenterology Clinics of North America

Surgical Clinics of North America

Urologic Clinics of North America

Charophytes of North America: A Guide to the Species of Charophyta of North America, Central America, and the West Indies

The Jesuits In North America In The Seventeenth Century

The Zuni (Indians of North America)

The Mythology of Native North America

The Teton Sioux (Indians of North America)

The Zuni (Indians of North America)

The Blackfeet (Indians of North America)

The Iroquois (Indians of North America)

The Navajo (Indians of North America)

A Field Guide to Mammals: North America north of Mexico

The Cherokees (Indians of North America)

The birds of eastern North America

Recommend Documents