Feature Articles

Any book worthy of the title “Bible” in any language must be translated with utmost care so that its promoters can honestly tell the people, “These are God’s words in your language.” In previous issues, we dealt with two vital ingredients of a faithful translation. (1) The translators and the supporters must first settle the text issue. A pure Bible is never derived from a corrupt text. (2) Because we believe that the Bible was inspired and preserved verbally, we insist on a verbal translation. (We must translate words as opposed to thoughts.) That settles the issue of the technique. The third vital ingredient in a faithful translation is the translator. What qualifications must his résumé contain?

A Bible translation project requires at least three vital ingredients: the text, the technique, and the translator. We dealt briefly with the issue of the text in our article, “The Bible of the Martyrs” (Fall 2012 issue). For the New Testament, it is our conviction that the traditional (received) text is superior to the critical text. A skilled translator using the best technique while using the wrong text will at best produce a well-translated, corrupt Bible. The majority of Bible translations done around the world today (and for more than a half century) are done, in our opinion, using both the wrong text and the wrong technique. This wrong technique is commonly called “dynamic equivalence.” Other terms used for it are “meaning-based translation,” “cultural equivalence,” “functional equivalence,” and “thought for thought translation.”

While hundreds of languages have not one syllable of Scripture, English speakers get a new Bible almost yearly. The names change, but the New Testament versions can be put into two groups based on their underlying Greek text. One group is derived from what we call the Received Text or Textus Receptus (TR), and the other from the Critical Text (CT). The TR represents the Greek text that was used and preserved by the early churches and comprises the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, over five thousand two hundred of them. The CT was compiled in the later part of the nineteenth century by textual critics Westcott and Hort from a handful of manuscripts, numbering about forty-five; it is based primarily on one called manuscript B, or Vaticanus. Before this time, Vaticanus was hidden from the world and used only as the basis of the Catholic Bible. The reformers and Baptist-type groups used only the TR, a text viewed as vile by Westcott and Hort. The TR is the Bible of the martyrs. It was translated into many languages during the great era of missionary endeavor.

The work of Bible printing and distribution by local Baptist churches is proof that God’s churches can work together. For a long time, we got our Bibles from the Bible societies or secular printing companies. That all changed due to a great extent to Donald M. Fraser, founder of the Bearing Precious Seed ministry. Dr. Fraser was born August 18, 1926, in Toronto, Canada. His father, Bill Fraser, was a Scottish immigrant and an early fundamentalist who worked with T.T. Shields in Toronto and J. Frank Norris in Texas.

Don graduated from Texas Christian University with a double major in history and religion. He became the president of Cardat Leather Goods (which later became Radio Shack). However, he also had a strong conviction that we are commanded to give God’s Word to those who don’t have it so that they can be obedient to the faith (Romans 16:26). Brother Fraser surrendered to be a missionary and made a survey trip with a veteran missionary into the mountains of Mexico. He asked, “Where are the people’s Bibles?” It troubled him to hear that they were too poor to buy any. He returned home and began raising money for Scriptures. Along with his wife, Sybil, he began sending New Testaments to Mexico and other places such as Ghana and Ivory Coast. Don also visited churches and encouraged the members to personally get involved in giving to this project. He shared his convictions and vision with anyone who would listen and had an unusual ability to motivate others. In fact, the full measure of his success in ministry is not so much what he personally accomplished, but what others have done because they were directly influenced by him.

A missionary and his native helper were translating the New Testament. The verse they were working on was not clear to the missionary, but he hoped that his helper could somehow translate it anyway. He told the helper, “It might mean this. Or maybe it means that. Or it may mean this other.” Frustrated, the helper finally said, “Look, you just tell me what it means, and I’ll tell you how to say it in my language!” The problem was that the translator had not done his exegesis homework. Exegesis is defined as exposition, explanation or interpretation.

Proper exegesis is necessary in both Bible teaching and Bible translation. In teaching we can say, “I think this is what God is saying.” In translation, however, we are saying, “This is what God said.” Translation is an awesome task! Someone might say, “That’s too risky! I’ll play it safe and not get involved in translation.” Yes, it may be safe, but that leaves people groups in darkness without the light of God’s Word!

Daniel and his friends who were taken captive and carried to Babylon probably thought they were going there as hostages, but we can see that they were really missionaries. Daniel was especially used to deliver a cross-cultural message for God.

The king chose them because of their nobility, their intelligence, and their good looks. Daniel chapter one describes them, “Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.” The king liked them with all these outstanding qualities, but he said, “Before I will use you, you must learn our language and culture.” A missionary may be well trained in theology and homiletics. He may be very spiritual and feel the call of God on his life. He may present himself well in the churches and communicate his burden effectively so that he raises financial support sufficient for overseas living. But when he arrives on the field, all of his spirituality and training means nothing to the people. If he has a message for them, they want it spoken clearly in their tongue and culture. After all, isn’t that we expect of a preacher? Would we attend a church where the pastor spoke with a distracting accent and had little understanding of our customs and way of life? This pastor might be somewhat embarrassing to us, regardless of how well-intentioned and sincere he was.

Missionaries are often required to fill out questionnaires before they are given a meeting at a church. The pastor wants to know, and rightly so, what the missionary believes and practices. Some important questions, however, are seldom asked: Are you and your wife prepared spiritually and emotionally for the mission field? Are you prepared to face and win the battle of the culture shock that destroyed many before you? What specialized training have you had in linguistics, and language and culture learning? Are you going to be able to learn the languages you need in order to reach the people on your field? Pastors of “our stripe” will invariably ask: What do you believe about the King James Bible? The issue of the Bible is very important to us, amen? We certainly are not interested in supporting a missionary that doesn’t know where he stands on the Word of God for the English-speaking people, right?

Both the Old and New Testaments command us to love our neighbor. Jesus even tells us to love him as we love ourselves. The story of the Good Samaritan clearly teaches us that we do not choose our neighbors. The Lord defines “neighbor,” not as the person who lives near us, but as the person that needs our help. Dr. Don Fraser, founder of the Bearing Precious Seed ministry, taught us that loving our neighbor means that if we have something our neighbor needs, then we should desire that he also have what we enjoy. Of course, he was referring mostly to the written Word of God. We English speakers have the entire Bible: every book, every chapter, every word. If we have neighbors without a Bible, including those with no Bible translated into their language, certainly we should desire that they have at least a portion. We should not only desire this, we should demand it! We should do all in our power to make it happen. How could I say I love my hungry neighbor and watch him waste away while I gorge myself on rich food? This would be hypocritical love, not helping love! It has been estimated that ninety-five percent of all Bibles and Christian literature are printed for the relatively few people that speak English. There is a famine in the world, and many of us are having a spiritual feast. We toss some Christian crumbs and scraps to a few people, but can we say that we love our neighbor?

The task of learning a new language has been compared to a canary trying to drink from a fire hydrant! The flood of strange sounds, together with a new culture, can be very overwhelming to the newly arrived missionary. Even familiar sounds are often placed in strange combinations that his mouth has never pronounced. Nevertheless, effective communication demands that he learn a new language, maybe more than one, and that he learn it well.

Understanding how something functions—a machine for example—makes it easier to use. This is certainly true of languages. No language consists of sounds thrown together in a chaotic manner; they all have order or structure. In other words, a language has systems. Just as an automobile has an electrical system, a fuel system, a power train system, a cooling system, and so on, languages also have systems. A mechanic can isolate and fix a problem in our car because he understands how all these systems are designed to function. A linguist discovers and describes the systems of a language. This science of Descriptive Linguistics has been used by some for many years but very rarely by Baptist missionaries. We have erroneously believed that Bible training, spirituality, and the call of God are all that a missionary needs for successful ministry. Yes, the right message is vital, but before he can deliver it, he must learn the language and culture. Let’s consider the value of linguistic training before language learning.

To effectively communicate the Word of God, the missionary must speak and understand the language. Since the meaning of words is bound and hidden in the culture, the missionary should diligently study the culture just as he studies the language. It is a serious mistake to assume that another’s culture is the same as ours. It never is. Another error is thinking that all we need do is proclaim truth, and our truth will somehow push all the falsehood out of the minds of our congregation. This is wishful thinking. Often our truth is only mixed with their error, resulting in pagan beliefs with a Christian veneer. We call this syncretism. There is a school of thought (a growing one we hope) that advocates applying principles of cultural anthropology in learning culture just as we apply principles of linguistics in learning speech.

As the young missionary outlined his plans to win souls and baptize and teach believers, he said, “When I turn the work over, it will become an indigenous church.” He has the right idea, but his use of the word become, and the mindset that goes with it, may prevent him from realizing his goal of seeing the church continue to grow and prosper without outside help.

An indigenous church is one which thrives naturally in the native culture; it is governed, financed, and propagated by native Christians, not outsiders. It is free to follow the New Testament and not necessarily the example of the sending church of the missionary that built it. The question is not how large or strong the church is while the missionary is present, but rather, what happens when he and his resources leave. Will the work fail? Will another missionary need to step in to keep it going? Missionaries, just as military leaders, should go in with an exit strategy. It is a serious mistake to think a church will somehow become indigenous; it must be born indigenous.

The speaker at a pastors conference requested, “If you have a missionary from your own church who is either on deputation or is on the field, please stand.” Out of a congregation of one hundred fundamental Baptist pastors, only seven stood! And that was twenty years ago! Is something wrong when only one in fourteen of our churches produces a missionary for the foreign field? Someone said once, “We have time and money for what is important to us.” If churches do not have missionaries, it is probably because producing missionaries is just not very important to them. But suppose a church does care about its missionary barrenness—what can it do? Let me give three suggestions: