The First Nations Version[1] is “An indigenous Translation of the New Testament” that provides an Introduction ([ix]-xiii), including “Why the Name First Nations Version?” (x), “Partnering Organizations,” “Church Engagement,” “The Translation Council” (x-xi), “Other Native People Involved” (xi), “Consultants and Support” (xi-xii), “Community Checking and Feedback” (xii), “Reader Aids” (xii-xiii). These are followed by a “Prologue” that gives an overview of the Old Testament, including introductory sample translations from Genesis, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Daniel ([xv]-xviii).

Throughout the New Testament text, commentary or explanatory notes are inserted and indicated by a left-justified grey vertical bar to the left of each note. For example, “Spear of Great Waters (Pilate) was the local governor representing the People of Iron (Romans). He had the power to decide who would live and who would die.” This note explains to whom Creator Sets Free (Jesus) was taken by “the tribal elders, the scroll keepers, and the Grand Council” (Mark 15:1b). Also, throughout the FNV footnotes are supplied that include Literal translations (e.g., 1 Corinthians 14:22) and Old Testament references for 1 Corinthians 15:3 and 4). Further, “To Help The Reader with the historical and cultural context” [2] A “Glossary of Biblical Terms” is supplied. For additional information one is invited to visit: www.firstnationsversion.com and www.facebook.com/firstnationsversion.[3]

[From InterVarsity Press] Terry M. Wildman (Ojibwe and Yaqui) is the lead translator, general editor, and project manager of the First Nations Version. He serves as the director of spiritual growth and leadership development for Native InterVarsity. He is also the founder of Rain Ministries and has previously served as a pastor and worship leader. He and his wife, Darlene, live in Arizona.

The Translation Council “was selected from a cross-section of Native North Americans. Elders, pastors, young adults, and men and women from different tribes and diverse geographic locations were chosen to sit on the council” (x-xi). Also, “to minimize bias” the Council included “a diversity of church and denominational traditions” (xi). The “Translation Council humbly submits this new translation of the Sacred Scriptures as our gift to all English-speaking First Nations people and to the entire sacred family, which is the body of the Chosen One” (ix). This translation “is not a word-for-word” rendering, “but rather … a thought-for-thought translation, sometimes referred to as dynamic equivalence” (ix).

Now let us examine a few samples from the First Nation Version and other translations.

The Lord’s Prayer

⁹ Pray then like this:

“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.^[a]
10 Your kingdom come,
your will be done,^[b]
on earth as it is in heaven.
¹¹ Give us this day our daily bread,^[c]
12 and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
¹³ And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil^[d]” (Matt. 6:9-13 ESV. [See linked footnotes for additional translation notes]).

The Way to Pray

“9 … when you send your voice to the Great Spirit, here is how you should pray:
‘O Great Spirit, our Father from above, we honor your name as sacred and holy. 10 Bring your good road to us, where the beauty of your ways in the spirit-world above is reflected in the earth below.
11 “Provide for us day by day—the elk, the buffalo, and the salmon. The corn, the squash, and the wild rice. All the things we need for each day.
12 “Release us from the things we have done wrong, in the same way we release others for the things they have done wrong to us.
13 “Guide us away from the things that tempt us to stray from your good road, and set us free from the evil one and his worthless ways. Aho! May it be so (Matt. 6:9-13 FNV)!

“Our Father in heaven” (Matt. 6:9a ESV) is translated in the First Nations Version as “O Great Spirit, our Father from above.” Besides, “Great Spirit,” other names for God are used in the FNV, such as “… Creator, Great Mystery, Maker of Life, Giver of Breath, One Above Us All, and Most Holy One” (xiii).

For many White North Americans, their staple food is bread. But for Indigenous North Americans traditional basic foods include “the elk, the buffalo, and the salmon. The corn, the squash, and the wild rice” (6:11b-c FNV). Such a rendering of this portion in Matthew 6:11 illustrates an example of the “dynamic equivalence” (ix) principle in operation. Bannock is “a type of bread made with wheat flour, shaped into round, flat cakes and fried or baked” and that was used “(originally in indigenous Canadian cooking).”[4] So, bannock is another staple or basic food that might be considered in Matthew 6:11 (FNV).

Compare:

“Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to [sic] him and eat with him, and he with me” (Rev. 3:20 ESV).

 “I stand before the entrance of your tipi, asking you to welcome me in, I will sit down with you, and we will share a good meal together” (Rev. 3:20 FNV).

Kudos to everyone involved in producing this unique “dynamic equivalence” translation of the New Testament! To anyone—especially a non-Indigenous person—who takes seriously one’s need to understand and communicate better to First Nations or Indigenous people in North America, the reviewer highly recommends utilizing the First Nations Version of the New Testament.

 PR

Publisher’s page: https://www.ivpress.com/first-nations-version

Dedicated page: https://firstnationsversion.com/book/first-nations-version/

Read an interview with the FNV editor, “Terry Wildman on the Making of First Nations Version, a New Indigenous Bible Translation.”

Notes

[1] First Nations Version: An Indigenous Translation of the New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2021.
[2]  Op. cit., [475]
[3]  Op. cit., [485]
[4] Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages (Accessed: Nov. 17, 2022).
[5] Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages (Accessed: Nov. 19, 2022).

Abstract

Theological education, even when using indigenous languages, can be uninspiring to African people if its implicit underlying pre-suppositions remain European. Use of European-languages as educational media minimises the likelihood of deep connection with African ways of life, but often has the pragmatic plus of being accompanied by outside funds. A preference for use of outside languages in formal contexts in Africa arises in part from African people’s desire to protect their own tongues and ways of life from outside ‘attack’. These and other observations that point to a disconnect in translation between African and European languages speak powerfully to Bible translation concerns. They suggest that translation should be facilitated locally, and not be processed through Western pre-suppositional screens. They point to a need for Bible translators to spearhead a wider movement in which Christian mission from the West engages local contexts and languages, especially in theological education. The wider missionary body could benefit greatly from a more extensive dissemination of linguistic expertise that is currently captive to Bible translation communities. Dissemination of such will encourage more people to advocate for the use of indigenous language Bibles, and in turn begin to facilitate an escape from the linguistic naivety represented by the hegemony of European languages in theological education in Africa.

Introduction

Many Westerners implicitly assume that they are able to effectively engage with African issues, or at least are effectively able to connect to the engagement of African issues, using English.[1] In Anglophone Africa especially, I estimate that 99.999% of engagement between African people and Western people occurs in Western languages. Few seem to adequately consider the full ramifications of this extremely one-sided arrangement. Even some Westerners who are familiar with African languages do their serious inter-cultural engagement using English.

My engaging in discussion of African theology using African languages in indigenous contexts revealed a surprising issue: discussion easily becomes thoroughly uninspiring. The reason for its being for me at times so uninspiring seems frequently to reflect my inability at connecting with the worldview concerned. Even while using an African language, my own thinking remains deeply rooted in my own British way of life. Hence I easily approach issues from a ‘wrong’ angle; one that fails to engage at depth with where my African colleagues are coming from. I have been forced to conclude that understanding that arises from an unfamiliar pre-suppositional base can result in a fundamental disconnect. Realising that this was so for myself forced me to ask; could it be that African people are similarly uninspired by Western scholarship? In other words, is African people’s interest in the globalised English language educational system primarily pragmatic (it brings in the dollars) when actually there is a radical disconnect between it and who and what they are?

The possibility of such radical cultural-linguistic disconnect has serious implications for Bible translation. Should the ‘disconnected’ be the ones guiding bible translation? How can one, in the light of such disconnect, encourage Bible use and theological education in indigenous languages? Does a Western missionary’s following arise from the dollars that they carry? Are the Bible translations into African languages that are guided by Westerners implicitly ‘Western’? Is SIL, by concentrating linguistic expertise into Bible translation, denying the wider missiological world a vital set of insights? These are some of the questions that I address in this article.

Translation choices continue to be a major issue for the church. While preparing this review, news showed that the choices made in a further update to the NIV has led to a prominent denomination expressing disappointment with two large Christian publishers. As a professional translator, I obviously care about the choices translators make. However, as a believer, I care much more for my brothers and sisters in Christ.

There is no doubt that the translation issue covered in the article covered by this review is an important one: what should Bible translators do with concepts and phrases that might cause offence? What if a cultural or linguistic understanding of a Biblical phrase could prevent a barrier to someone receiving Christ? How far should translators go in their work to present the Word of God in a language people understand?

The specific example in this article is by no means an easy one. For many Muslims, the phrase “Son of God” paints the picture of God having physical sexual relations with Mary, an idea which is an anathema both to them and, I would imagine, to the vast majority of Evangelical Christians. We all understand that the Biblical writers are here intending to paint a picture of Jesus conception by the Holy Spirit and His intimacy with the Father.

The phrase “Son of God” therefore, is clearly a critical Biblical concept. It means far more than a purely linguistic analysis of the words would suggest and plays an important role in Biblical theology. Few could deny that knowledge of Christ and His purpose is not complete without a deep understanding of what is going on whenever this phrase is mentioned. It remains to be seen whether the proposed replacement “the Beloved Son who comes (or originates) from God” could ever fully stand in its place.

On the other hand, the results of making this change have been astounding. In a single network of house churches that have used a translation that has adopted this phrase, hundreds of Muslims have accepted Christ as their saviour. If Jesus is right that you recognise Christians by their love for each other (John 13: 35), do particular phrases in Bible translations really matter? Surely, perfect love and not perfect theology is the mark of the true Church.

The arguments could easily rage in either direction and as a reviewer, I find myself pulled both ways. This is not a topic that offers an easy route to neutrality. Whatever stance one takes, important and Biblically sound arguments exist in contradiction.

Perhaps this is actually the issue: we take sides more easily than we give love. This kind of behaviour is not new, Paul had to rebuke the Corinthian church for taking sides behind one preacher or another (1 Cor 1: 12-21). There may well have been real and perhaps even important theological differences between Paul, Apollos and Peter but Paul is keen to remind the church that our common faith in Christ is greater than our differences.

We might make a similar point about the tendency to back one Bible translation strategy over another. As I have written elsewhere (The Pneuma Review, vol. 12 no. 3., Summer 2009, pp. 24-43), there are real problems and issues with every strategy. Something goes wrong no matter how we translate the Word: this why almost all pastors and theologians warn against only using a single translation for study. We need the wisdom of multiple counsel.

For church leaders, preachers and even ordinary Christians, choosing a Bible translation can be a difficult task. This is made even more difficult for those who study translation in order to make an informed decision. It is unfortunate that discussions of Bible translations tend to be centred on personal opinions (for example Taylor 2007) or discussions over the techniques used to overcome small-scale linguistic problems (for example Fee and Stuart 2002, Neff 2002 and Hill 2006) rather than on objective facts.  However, to be in a position where they can make a truly informed choice, pastors and leaders would need to have some sort of reliable guide as to what they can expect in the translation as a whole. Based on recent translation research and my own professional experience as a translator, this article will suggest an approach based on the intended purpose of each Bible translation. It will show that it is this approach, and not the traditional approaches that spark the “free vs. literal” debate, that has the potential to help church leaders and preachers to make informed, objective decisions on the translation or translations they choose to use.

The Traditional Approaches and their Weaknesses

Historically, most Bible translation scholars have described their work in relation to two main translation schools. Fee and Stuart, in their book, How to Read the Bible for all Its Worth (SU, 2002), arrange nine translations of various dates along a line with “Literal” at one end and “Free” at the other (Fee and Stuart 2002: 36)¹. For them, “literal” translation is “the attempt to translate by keeping as close as possible to the exact words and phrasing of the original language, yet still make sense in the receptor language” (ibid, p. 35). Translators working using the “free” approach, on the other hand, would agree with Dr. Mark L. Strauss (2004: xx) who says that “translation is first and foremost about meaning, not form.” The goal of free translation is to get as close as possible to the ideas and meaning of the original and to express these in a manner more closely resembling modern-day speech. The following sample of possible translations of a simple question in French illustrates the differences between these two approaches.

French: Comment vous appelez-vous?
English 1: How yourself calls you?
English 2: What do you call yourself?
English 3: What is your name?

In this example, English 1 represents the version most likely to be generated if someone with knowledge of French grammar were to look each word up in a dictionary and translate the sentence accordingly. English 2 represents the version most likely to be generated by a translator using the “literal” approach—as few changes as possible have been made to the grammar of the sentence while still making sense in English. The verb “to call” has also been retained as the literal, dictionary translation of the verb “appeler.”

English 3 represents the “free” translation approach. In this case, more attention has been paid to the normal expectations and phrasings of English than to the grammar of the original. None of the words in English 3 can be found in any form in the original but this version has the advantage of being the version that most native English speakers would be familiar with.

In this simple example we can see that literal translation has the advantage of giving us an insight into the grammar of the original and the meanings of the individual words used. However, the disadvantage of this approach is that it is likely to generate translations that contain phrasings that are unfamiliar and do not reflect normal English use (Fee and Stuart 2002: 35; Strauss 2004: xix; Fee and Strauss 2007: 34). Free translation, on the other hand, has the advantage of offering translations that read more naturally. The disadvantage of this approach is that it makes it more difficult for readers to gain access to the patterns used in the original language (Van Leeuwen 2001: 30, Strauss 2004: xix, Fee and Strauss 2007: 57).

An example of the problems with either approach in Bible translation is found in how four different translations have handled 1 Kings 2:10. In this example, the first two translations can be roughly seen as traditional, literal translations with the second two representing the free approach to translation to differing degrees.

NKJV: So David rested with his fathers…
ESV: Then David slept with his fathers…
NLT: Then David died and was buried with his ancestors.
TM: Then David joined his ancestors.

It is clear from comparing these four translations that we have a phrase that can be loosely translated into English as “David died.” The NKJV and ESV, in order to translate literally, have tried to keep as much of the original Hebrew phrasing as possible. While their choice of phrasing may be clear enough for those who are used to reading the Word, they have turned a phrase that would have been natural and easy to understand to the original readers into a phrase that is foreign and, in the case of the ESV especially, can easily be interpreted in a sense that is completely different to that intended by the original author. In the two free translations, on the other hand, the phrase either had to be extended to include both elements of the Hebrew image, as in the NLT, or recreated to express these elements and keep the same meaning as the original, in the case of The Message. This verse, therefore, clearly illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches.

Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss, How To Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 170 pages, ISBN 0310278767.

This is the third “how to” book that Gordon Fee has written. The first two books were How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth and How To Read the Bible Book By Book, both of which were coauthored with Douglas Stuart, Fee’s former colleague at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. For this third book Fee has teamed up with Mark Strauss. Fee and Strauss are both New Testament scholars and both have been involved in the work of bible translation.

In some places in the world a book like How To Choose a Translation for All Its Worth would not be needed. There are places where a variety of bible translations are not available; in fact some people groups only have one translation of the bible (or select Scripture portions). In the United States, and other English speaking countries, this is not the case; there are a lot of different English bible translations from which one can choose. The wealth of translations that are available is a blessing, but it can also be a problematic, it causes many believers to ask the question “which one is the best?” The problem is compounded by the fact that not everyone agrees on which translation is best or the most faithful to the biblical text. One of the more obvious indications of this is the “King James Only Debate.”

In this book Fee and Strauss explain some of the challenges faced by bible translators as well as the different philosophies that guide translators in the making a translation. The book is divided into four parts. Part one is “The Task of Translation.” Under this section the authors address the need for translation and the meaning and task of translation. Part two is titled “Making Words Work.” In this section they address the subject of translating words, giving special attention to figurative language-such as idioms, metaphors and poetry; they also address the problem of translating the Greek genitive. Part three is “Translation and Culture.” In this section they deal with cultural issues related to translation and the issue of using gender inclusive language in bible translation. Part four is titled “The Bible in English” which gives a short history of English translations of the bible. In this section the authors also set forth the strengths and weakness of some of the more well-known English translations and give their recommendations for the best translations.

This book contains some very helpful information. One thing that the authors make clear is that no one translation has it all, that is; there is no perfect bible translation. Every translation is by its very nature already an interpretation. Translators read the biblical text, either in Hebrew or in Greek, and then seek to find appropriate words in English to convey the meaning of the text. This is not always easy because sometimes there are not words that are exact equivalents. In cases where there are exact equivalents translators, at times, do not use the exact equivalent because doing so would make the translation difficult, if not unintelligible in English. Bible translations typically fall into one of two categories. Form equivalents seek to be very literal while functional equivalents are more concerned with trying to convey the sense of the text rather than a word-for-word translation. Bible readers are divided over which is the better translation to use. The authors demonstrate that even the literal translations are not always really literal. Fee and Strauss think that the best translations are those that convey the meaning of the text they say: “Accuracy in translation relates to equivalent meaning, not equivalent form” (page 27). In their view, this is what being faithful to the biblical text is.

Editor Introduction: Postmodernism, The Church, and The Future

Can postmodernism tell us something about how the church is to function, how we tell the story of Jesus, and how the Spirit works in our lives?

Postmodernism, The Church, and The Future
A Pneuma Review discussion about how the church should respond to postmodernism

The wind (pneuma) blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit (pneuma).
John 3: 8

Can Jacques Derrida, a Jewish philosopher who confesses that he “rightly passes for an atheist,” possibly make any meaningful contribution to the understanding of Christian proclamation in the postmodern context?¹ After all, is Derrida not the prophet of humanistic relativism or, worse, the Antichrist of textual meaninglessness? He most certainly approaches texts with the genuine suspicion that they are not always as objectively transparent as conservative readers may take them to be. He insists that a close reading of texts will always disclose places where they deconstruct themselves by calling into question their own assertions.² Furthermore, he contends that every attempt to interpret the meaning of a text results in yet another instance of hermeneutics, which is to say, that interpretation always begets more interpretation. Of course, the authorized keepers of orthodoxy, those who defend religious certainty and objective biblical knowledge, fear that if one never escapes hermeneutics, but endlessly struggles with multiple interpretations without ever discovering the stability of cold, hard facts, then theology succumbs to only relativism and intellectual chaos. Certainly such Derridean suspicion should find no place in Christianity, in a religion predicated upon Jesus’ Great Commission to go forth and proclaim the truth of divine salvation. Consequently, Derrida’s “atheistic” philosophy must represent all that is religiously reprehensible in postmodern culture and cannot but be the enemy of Christian faith and proclamation.

Jacques Derrida (1930-2004).
Image: Wikimedia Commons

Yet the depiction of Derrida specifically and of postmodernism generally as merely the most recent expressions of secular relativism and anti-religious pluralism might well be a misinformed caricature. I personally believe that to be the case. I disagree quite strongly with those who identify Derrida’s approach as destructive of Christian faith, hope, and love and as dismissive of the potentiality of language to communicate divine grace and theological knowledge. Indeed, nothing in his philosophy of language prescribes a rejection of God, truth, or meaning. As John Caputo, one of Derrida’s most careful and creative readers, states it, his postmodern perspectives display an “armed neutrality” toward personal faith and religious sensitivity.³ Derrida remains neutral with reference to the content of belief, neither affirming nor denying specific doctrines, while maintaining an armed diligence toward every human pretension to final and certain knowledge, toward the pretentiousness of becoming doctrinaire. That is to say, Derrida reminds us that we are finite creatures constantly seeking to comprehend existence from within the limited structures of that existence and, therefore, should constantly remain open to different interpretations and alternative experiences. Caputo goes so far as to label Derrida’s position as “religion without religion,” that is, as a genuinely religious position but not one reduced to a particular organized religion.⁴ It might well surprise his detractors when they discover that Derrida himself writes about a personal religion of which no one truly knows.⁵ He calls himself a person of prayer,⁶ argues for the necessity of faith,⁷ writes beautiful essays on forgiveness,⁸ speaks of the possibility of divine grace,⁹ and establishes much of his critical philosophy on close and respectful readings of both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures.¹⁰

Proclaiming and Naming an Unnamable God

In many of his major works, Derrida carefully examines various biblical passages ranging from Genesis 22 (the sacrifice of Isaac) to Revelation 22 (the significance of Jesus’ second coming) and contends that one encounters a constant struggle in the Bible with the limitations of words and the impossibility of ever exhaustively explaining who God is and how God works in reality.¹¹ The variety of biblical texts indicate for Derrida that theology, that is, words (logos) about God (theos) that seek to define God in appropriate ways, can never confine God within the restrictions of human concepts or rational principles. His position closely tracks that of Paul Ricoeur who notes that Scripture names God in multiple ways.¹² For example, consider God’s own revelation of the divine name to Moses in Ex. 3:14. God responds to Moses’ request for the divine name by calling himself “Yahweh,” which means “I am that I am.” But this “name” is not a noun but a verb; it is a name that is no name, a “name” that leaves God nameless, as beyond the signifying power of any one sign. If this is the covenant name for God, the personal or proper name for God, then God’s name, Yahweh, means “the one who cannot be named.” One must confess, therefore, that every profession of God inherently speaks about God as the Unspeakable One and seeks to name God as the Un­namable One.¹³