What if you were the one?

For those interested, there are some great biographies of Bible translators working with such groups as we are discussing. The first one I list here is the best for someone trying to understand tribal translation work. My wife and I just finished reading it in our family devotions. Anderson translated the NT for the Folopa people group in New Guinea. Anderson gives step by step accounts of how various word choices were made. The Folopa had already been evangelized by a native missionary, but did not understand many key concepts.

Anderson, Neil with Hyatt Moore. In Search of the Source. Orlando: Wycliffe, 2006.

Fell, Doris Elaine. Lady of the Tboli. Chappaqua, NY: Christian Herald Books, 1979.

Larson, Mildred and Lois Dodds. Treasure in Clay Pots. Dallas: Person to Person Books, 1985.

Scovill, David L. The Amazing Danis. Xulon Press, 2007.

Shetler, Joanne with Patricia Purvis. And the Word Came With Power. Portland: Multinomah, 1992.

Stringer, Margaret. Jesus Led Me All the Way. Xulon Press, 2014.

Tripp, Martha Duff. Jungle Jewels & Jaguars. Traverse City, MI: Harvest Day Books, 2008.

 

I heard somewhere that also Ruth is often translated first. think because it is a story also short book thus can be translated quicker. i think there were other reasons too but can't remember.

 

I think I've read the same thing somewhere.

 

Two reasons. John is in the Greek New Testament and John 20:31, ". . . But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

I can understand why the Hebrew Genesis might be chosen first. Now there is the Greek LXX of Genesis. It has a few notable differences from the Hebrew text readings.

 

For an illiterate tribal group that has never heard of the Bible or the Gospel, translation sounds extremely premature. Laying some groundwork with preaching and interpretation would seem called for first.

And well before that, learning their language and culture, which should precede the work in any case, unless there is a lingua franca to work with. Still would want to know their culture, though.

Paul writes of preaching and hearing as God’s method, and is what he used.

11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” --- Romans 10:11-15

 

I agree that we should give the Gospel as soon as possible. However, you do realize you have to learn the language, right? And you have to learn the right words for Christian doctrines and concepts, right? And then you have to disciple them, right? And that involves teaching them the doctrines of Christ, right? And that is the Scriptures, right?

 

The people would be out of luck cause I can't translate anything. I know just enough Greek to be dangerous and absolutely no Hebrew.
I also don't know Rohingya.

 

Since all of those questions were rather obviously pre-answered in my post, that response seems to be aimed at something else. But what?

There seems to be a conflation of translation and interpretation going on in it somewhere.

Surely you are not saying that an illiterate person must have his language written down and he learn to read it before hearing the Gospel or being discipled, are you?

In any case, do we agree that both the target language and culture should be understood for either good interpretation or good translation?

As a final thought, this instruction by Paul to Timothy seems particularly apt here:

"And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others." —2 Timothy 2:2

 

Well, the translation of just the NT for such a people group takes ten to twenty years, so you'd have plenty of time. ;)

About the Rohingya, they are an interesting case. No one yet has remarked on the statement I made in the OP about their written language. There are currently four different scripts!

 

I was in a big hurry when I wrote that. Mea culpa.

The thing is, evangelism and language learning (the prerequisite to Bible translation) can take place simultaneously. It is not a choice of one or the other.

Of course not. Many illiterate people have come to Christ. The thing is, a church planting movement must have the Bible, or at least portions of it, to prosper. In historical cases where evangelism has taken place with no Bible translation done, the effort has eventually failed: the Nestorians in China (7th-8th century) and Japan (8th century), etc.

So, discipleship can take place to a certain degree without Bible translation, but ultimately Bible translation is the key to a sustained movement

Absolutely. And the two are mutually supportive.

Amen and amen!

 

Yes, I briefly looked at their case. Sounds like a nightmare for anyone born into that situation. On the one hand, seems no one wants them. On the other, there seems to be a competition to script their language. It all sounds rather political.

 

Yes, I thought we were in basic agreement. Because church leadership takes time to develop, and translation is a necessary part of that, the work takes extreme effort and thus commitment. Without Scriptures in their own language, the effort ultimately cannot be sustained.

God bless those who are called to go, go, and stick it out. :Thumbsup :Thumbsup

 

Politics of one kind or another is a part of Bible translation.

I know a translator working to learn a minority language of a certain Islamic country with the goal of giving them their first ever NT. Obviously, though, this person has to work from a secret location outside the country.

In the meantime, for the reader who has not yet Googled the Rohingya, they are a persecuted minority from Myanmar. The government there refuses to give them citizenship, and would like to see them all dead, so many have fled to other countries: the US, Bangladesh, etc.

Folks, pray for Myanmar. We have a contact within the country, and a civil war is going on. Our contact calls the government troops terrorists, because they kill, rape and pillage indiscriminately.

 

Slightly off topic of the translation subject, but...

Is it the Buddhist majority then who are the persecutors of the Rohingya, and is the hatred and persecution because of their religion, race, culture, or possibly some combination of all of these? Or something else?

 

It's complicated, but yes. The Buddhist majority does persecute the Muslims (the Rohingya) and Christians (the Karen people). In this case, there was an army coup recently which took over from the duly elected government recently. As I understand it, there is socialist/Communist influence or leadership in the army, which has gone wild putting the country into chaos. (The pandemic didn't help.)

I think the persecution is due to religion and simply the army's thirst for power.

 

Absolutely. Along with the rest of the people there, Christian missionaries in Myanmar are having a hard time with the chaos. Ross and Cathy Hodsdon spent a lot of time there translating scripture into several indigenous languages. With Ross in Glory, Cathy doesn't travel as much and we're glad she wasn't in Myanmar when the coup occurred.

 

Interesting to see the Rohingya as a subject of discussion. There has been a distinct difference between how Rohingya refugees have been received by our state over the last few years and the Chin/Zo refugees coming over because of the coup. The latter are of the same ethnicity and generally the same religion as the Christian majority here. The Rohingya, sadly, are not, and seem to be stranded in Bangladesh. So near yet so far from the gospel. This thread prompted me to find out more. I had no idea that they lack a complete Bible.

Rohingya Language | Joshua Project
An Open Letter from a Christian Rohingya Refugee - IMB

 

I know of a Bible translation effort in the States planning to get started. There is a big population of Rohingya people in Milwaukee.

Somewhere in Scandinavia a team has started working on the OT (Ruth, I think), but I disremember what country. Sweden, perhaps?

 

The word 'forget' and its kin is a far better word choice. According to Merriam Webster 'forget' has been used since before the 12th century. The word 'disremember' has been in use since 1805, and it's considered "provincial and archaic."

 

Ah, but a good translator can be both when he wants, especially a professor. :Wink