All Comments for: Translation Tiff | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > September

Christianity Today, September, 2008 |

Translation Tiff

Some Jamaicans aren't eager to see a Bible in the country's majority language.

Jocelyn Green | posted 8/14/2008 08:37AM

The Bible Society of the West Indies and Wycliffe Bible Translators have sparked a national controversy by beginning to translate the Bible into patois, Jamaica's Creole language.

While English is Jamaica's ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

Tomas

Posted: August 16, 2008 2:28 PM

A very old issue. Can a multilingual person "really understand" Scripture in a non-mother tongue? Nobody knows. I am bilingual, and don't notice a significant difference between scripture in English or Spanish. Others report differently. Wycliffe is a multimillion dollar agency dedicated to "reaching" a tiny sliver of humanity (Christian or not). Is it "worth it?" Nobody knows. Former member of Wycliffe Bible Translators

Steve Skeete

Posted: August 15, 2008 3:06 PM

I can think of at least a dozen reasons why a translation of the Bible in Jamaican Patois would not be such a great idea. Space will only allow five or six of these. Here goes. First, I agree with the Jamaican Prime Minister that such a project "signifies an admission to failure" to properly learn and teach English". The chief promoters of dialect are primarily those who speak English fluently. Second, people are not considered "literate" if they are unable to write, read, or speak in their native language? Third, in addition to the above, illiteracy is regarded as one of the major cause of poverty and under-development? Fourth, The inability to speak one's native language is a hindrance to personal and social development. Fifth, "dialect" in Jamaica, as in most of the Caribbean, is a spoken and not a written exercise. Most who speak it are unable to read it when they see it, since it has neither fixed grammar or vocabulary on which all the "experts" agree.

Ed Lauber

Posted: August 15, 2008 12:51 PM

Those who argue that patois is incapable of communicating the deeper truths of Scripture need to realize that the same was said of English when John Wycliffe was doing the first translation of the Bible into that language. They also need to know that what they are saying about English is what the critics of that day were saying about Latin. It seems to me that a good part of the discussion is pitting prestige against communication. Depending on which one of those is a higher value, people are for (+ communication) or against (+ prestige) the translation. Maybe those who are willing to be humble will get the blessing of hearing God speak to them.

Jill	Posted: August 15, 2008 10:50 AM

I actually am from Jamaica, and I am certain that every person that is literate, undoubtedly can read a Bible written in standard English. There is no "shame and snobbery for this dialect" as wtitten in the previous comment. If you can read a standard English Text, or are just basically able to read period, why would you need a Bible written in patois? Furthermore (and this is not just mine or anyone else's opinion, it is a fact), written Patois is notoriously difficult to read and comprehend. This is a good article, as it brings this subject to the public's attention. However, it will be a waste of resources if this is actually pursued.

Raymond G

Posted: August 15, 2008 9:51 AM

I am very happy for this kind of publicity for my local minority (majority in our case) language. Big up Christianity Today. Once again thank you very much. You have been and continue to be a blessing to me and my friends. I understand Standard English for the most part, but this project as I see it is a most precious necessity. I want to thank all the financial donors who made this project possible. Great is your reward in heaven. Ray Boltz was right: You will cry when you see what your finances have helped to achieve. I know that some people don't see the need for God's Word in our language but so many of us as young people anticipate it. We can't wait for it to be finished. Indeed this will prove to us that God cares enough about us to speak to us in the language which we understand best. God bless you.

t.	Posted: August 15, 2008 5:03 AM

Jesus spoke like a Galilean. We all speak with accents and with regional variations. If the bible is a message from God, a letter to all nations about his majesty and righteousness and embracing love it must be communicated in a way people will readily identify with. It is the message which is important to people rather than the letter. The letter kills but the spirit brings life. Let people taste the spirit in a way that is close to their hearts.

David Phillips

Posted: August 15, 2008 1:35 AM

Thank you, Fred. Translation was a pillar of the Reformation: "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical (Mat_5:18); so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them (Isa_8:20; Joh_5:39, Joh_5:46; Act_15:15). But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them (Joh_5:39), therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come (1Co_14:6, 1Co_14:9, 1Co_14:11, 1Co_14:12, 1Co_14:24, 1Co_14:27, 1Co_14:28)..." Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647

Raquel Dillett, Atlanta, Ga.

Posted: August 14, 2008 10:17 PM

Are we clear why there is a discussion for or against a patois translation? Could it possibly be there resides a bit of shame or snobbery for this dialect? For it is indeed a language--a language understood by thousands of people born out of strong character and history. It is of great import, therefore, to study how languages surface and over time are constantly re-tuned and fashioned into every day lexicon. To know English is wonderful as it is with any other language embraced by thousands or millions of people. And, it too was a language that has changed in many characteristics--both orally and textually. Remember our Lord listens to them all; as such, he would not dismiss a prayer in Jamaican Patois for one in English! Therefore, any translation of the Bible is a worthy one in order to edify the body of people who are either new or old believers in Christ.

Raquel Dillett, Atlanta, Ga.

Posted: August 14, 2008 10:17 PM

Isaiah Tor

Posted: August 14, 2008 7:44 PM

The question here is not of utility in translation, or of merely making the Bible more understandable to the patois speaking Jamaicans. We are concerned here with the ministry of God's word, to give sense to the Bible, the words of the Lord Jesus, to minister the word of God to the mind set on the spirit, even as Paul in 1 Corinthians specifies that whilst the "spirit prays" the mind must not be "unfruitful" (14:14). Ministry of the word is directed to the spirit of men (John 6:63), but it must of necessity pass through the gateway of the mind. If translating the Bible into patois helps the Jamaican believers to better understand the Lord's word, that the fruit of the Spirit would be produced in them, why should there be any opposition. Furthermore we know the Lord Jesus as the Lamb of God redeemed us out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation (Rev. 5:9) - is not patois a tongue as referred to by the Lord's word here? The translations of the Bible are for such a gospel!

Chief Apostle Cauline, UK

Posted: August 14, 2008 5:17 PM

Why stop at Jamaican Patios what about all the other islands. I really do not see the point, the whole purpose of Patios was to be able to speak in a manner which hid what was being said from the colonial masters of the day. Jamaica and Jamaicans are well able to cleave to the Word of God from the heart as it is written in English, if they can read. For they will have been taught to read in English. If they cannot read what difference does it make to them if they have a bible in Patios. I speak Patois but I certainly cannot read it without effort. Don't make it even more difficult for Jamaicans to read and meditate on the word and thus show themselves approved. In closing $1 Million could be far better spent in bringing the lost to salvation.

Larry

Posted: August 14, 2008 4:21 PM


The church of the aposltes did quite well with just the Greek Bible. There were hundreds of indigenous languages, but Greek was spoken throughout the Roman Empire.

Paul Wilkinson

Posted: August 14, 2008 4:21 PM


It's too bad that this translation project touches off so many issues that are political in nature. But I have a question: Why in the article is English spelled with a capital E, but patois is given a lower case P?

Diana

Posted: August 14, 2008 3:02 PM

I am a Jamaican and have been following the debate on the translation of the Bible into Patois. Hearing the scriptures in one's own language is wonderful and makes the Bible and personal in a way few things will but hearing scriptures in Patois is very different from reading scriptures in Patois. I have spoken Patois all my life but had difficulty reading poems and stories we were given in school that were written in Patois and I had very good grades in school. My mother, an average Jamaican with basic education, while she spoke Patois perfectly with great flair and animation could not read words written in Patois. Even our teachers in school did not give great exposure to short stories and poems written in Patois because so much time was spent trying to decifer what the written words actually meant before they could be read aloud comfortably. Patois spelling is based primarily on the sound of the word and different areas in Jamaica pronounce words differently. I agree with Jrlee.

Frantz

Posted: August 14, 2008 3:00 PM

The translation, especially the need for it, must come from the people. If the people of Jamaica speak their dialect form of English but rather use the standard British English in their literature, this should be respected. But if the people who speak this particular form of English see the need to have the Bible in this language or dialect of English, then this is their decision and must be respected. Are there Jamaicans that cannot read and understand Standard English as used in literature by publishers in Jamaica? The UK, especially England, has many varieties of pronunciation of English, but there is one standard literary English. In the USA you find around 11 "dialects" of English found in conversation (colloquial English), but no one insists in having Bibles that meet each of those "dialects" or colloquial forms of English. Spending so much money in a Bible translation that no one will use in congregations, is not a wise use of the finances provided by so many churches.

jrlee

Posted: August 14, 2008 12:54 PM

In the French Creole islands of the Eastern Caribbean - Dominica, Martinique, Saint Lucia - and of course in Haiti, translations of the Scriptures have been made into Creole (patois) and are available. Many of the same comments as are being voiced in the Jamaican situation had been made. The challenge ultimately is to get the average person to read the translations. Many do respond now that the language is impossible to read or too difficult(even though the phonetic orthography is easily learned.). In Saint Lucia (where I live) not many church leaders use the available translation with their Creole speaking congregations. They will make their own impromptu translations straight from the pulpit. So while it is commendable and good to have the translations, if they are not used widely, by leaders and average readers, a sense of futility can emerge.

Raymond Takashi Swenson

Posted: August 14, 2008 12:53 PM

If people preach in a language, they should have the scriptures available to read in that language. It is preferable to having people do translation "on the fly" with varying results. Peter did not insist that Gentiles learn Hebrew or Aramaic before they could hear the gospel message. Once the Lord sent him a vision and a mission to Cornelius, he knew that the gospel was meant to be heard by all people of every nation. It should be obvious to anyone that, once a person is literate in his own language, it will be much easier for him to learn other languages, including being able to compare written texts in his own native tongue and in the new language he is trying to learn. Why should anyone want to withhold the miracle of the widely available, printed vernacular Bible from any of God's children?

Fred Goodwin, San Antonio, TX

Posted: August 14, 2008 12:31 PM

"Other critics have argued that as an obscure vernacular dialect, patois is incapable of communicating the deeper truths of Scripture." Isn't that the same argument that the Roman Church made in opposition to Wycliff's first English translation? And before that, didn't the Eastern Christians argue that translating the Greek into the "vulgar" Latin was next to heresy? Ever since Holy Scripture was first written down, it has been translated into local languages. Were it not so, we would still be reading and hearing it in the original Greek and Hebrew.

Ron W

Posted: August 14, 2008 12:25 PM

Gideons print and place bibles in 84 different languages, and last year they placed almost 76 million copies of God's word in 187 nations. Regardless of what the American media has to say, there is a world wide revival going on as God word is placed in print that people can read and understand. There are some very misguided and uninformed "Christians" in the U.S. who actually think that only the KJV of the bible should ever be used. THe facts are if we tried to use the 1611 version not many people today could even read the old Kings english. Yes, for sure the Holy word needs to be printed so that as many of the worlds people can read it as possible..

Bill Judt, Saskatoon, SK

Posted: August 14, 2008 11:51 AM


Pentecost is the best evidence of God's desire to have the gospel - His Word - proclaimed in every tongue to every nation - even subsets of nations. The goal of reaching the hearts of people with the good news of God's love through Jesus is more important than political agendas.

Anonymous

Posted: August 14, 2008 11:21 AM

To say that a written Bible in every vernacular language is essential to Christian evangelism is to say that it is impossible for Christianity to have flourished before 1450. Wikipedia says that by 1424 Cambridge University library owned only 122 books. Reformation Christians have a nasty habit of believing that Christianity depends on a book. Jesus did not give us a book. He gave us the Holy Spirit. For Chistianity to flourish all we need is one Bible per church and people with good memories. Maybe if we learned to congregate to hear the Word of God we would have less trouble forming communities. Giving everybody a Bible just encourages them to be lone-ranger Christians.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment