(photo credit: esperanzatolentino.wordpress.com)
Which kind of translations make more impact?
This is a good question. It is also a complex issue and more than one set of parameters comes into play. That is, there’s more going on here than “literal vs meaning-based.” Long ago David Landin did research in Bolivia to see which indigenous Bibles were being used there 10 years after completion. Answer: the ones with the hymns in the back. And in those, it was the hymns that were being used, not the translations themselves.
One key factor that has proven true over the years is whether or not the local church leaders (pastors, evangelists, teachers) choose to use a new translation or not. If the local and regional church leaders do not show support for a translation, it will likely fade into obscurity. This is why nowadays many projects begin by contacting local and regional, even national church and denominational leadership in order to hear from them what kind of translation is most desired by them for their people. And continued conversation with these leaders is fostered all along the life of the translation project.
In recent years the possibility of media scriptural products and translations “going viral” has also arisen. Whether these can succeed in an environment where local church leaders have not given explicit support is something I would like to hear about. Surely having some support from local believing institutions would be a plus in a lot of cases. Creating unhealthy competition amongst groups is generally not desired nor is it a good testimony of Christ’s love, so cooperation in any project should be encouraged. But again, life and people are complex. No easy answers.
As for “literal vs. meaning based,” it would be good to reconsider that this is also not a simple binary choice. There are degrees on this scale, so really the question is what degree of naturalness and comprehensibility are most desired for local use by local people in their present situation. WHO is the target audience and what are their needs and desires for native scripture translation? Further, how do you as a group project that this also may change in the coming few years? I’ve observed several very “meaning-based” drafts made 15 to 20 years ago that are so simplistic (to achieve clear meaning) that now their target audience would find them embarrassing, as the church in the meantime has been heavily discipled (in the LWC) and no longer needs so much implicit information be made explicit. The local translation team, which is a new one in the meantime, is having to rethink the question of style all over again, perhaps tending now much more to following decisions made for the LWC version that is increasingly familiar to many of them as they have become educated and discipled.
Remember that the reasons for success or failure are complex. Let’s keep looking at what is working in our regions and in other places in the world. And let’s keep watching this space to keep this dialog open!
Jenny Giezendanner