This dissertation has argued that translators among indigenous non-Arabic- speaking, Islamic peoples should translate the first edition of the Bible into their language using a mediating approach. Upon review, my methodology confirms that neither an essentially literal nor a highly paraphrastic translation are optimal targets for work among these PGs. Instead, my research demonstrates that a mediating approach will continue to be the most understandable translation for the Berbers of North Africa.
Methodology
Since the eighth century AD, the Berbers have been under Islamic hegemony dominating every aspect of their culture, including their language (Tamazight). Today, Moroccan society immensely respects both qur’anic Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic.
Unfortunately, the Tamazight language finds itself at the bottom of the language
hierarchy in Morocco. Religious vocabulary often follows the terms found in the Qur’an, and as words transfer over into Tamazight, the Islamic meaning transmits as well.
Additionally, the Berbers do not have a recent Christian heritage upon which they have built a church or believing community. Any key biblical terms translators seek to use will nearly always carry an Islamic meaning, even if using an essentially literal translation. If the translation team uses words unique to Christianity, they often carry no meaning for non-Christian hearers. Thus, using key biblical terms with a mediating approach offers the best opportunity for Berbers to hear and understand the Bible in their mother tongue.
In addition, individuals and teams have translated the Bible into English over the past eight centuries. Universally, their goal was to produce a text that allowed the
reader and the hearer to understand God’s intended message. Often, translation projects began because the church felt that older Bibles could no longer deliver that vital message.
Those doing this work admitted the challenge of balancing the text between the form and the meaning. Between the fourteenth and nineteenth centuries, most Bibles in English leaned towards formal equivalence, also known as essentially literal translations. The texts allowed the reader to see and analyze Hebrew and Greek syntax and grammar, prioritizing the original languages. These Bibles were understood best when preachers and teachers could expound on the meaning of the text. Additionally, essentially literal texts often required books that could explain the meanings of words, such as
commentaries or language helps. However, today, without such resources in their mother tongue, the Berbers struggle with this type of translation. Even the handful of pastors among this PG find themselves challenged to understand this type of Bible, and they can offer little help to their people with an essentially literal translation.
In the twentieth century, Eugene Nida promoted translating the Scriptures using a method known as Dynamic Equivalence, which eventually came to be called Functional Equivalence. Many translations over the past sixty years have focused on this thought-for-thought method. Functional Equivalence translation aims to pass on the meaning of the Bible rather than the strict form. These texts offer great freedom to
express the author’s intention to the reader. However, if translation teams take Functional Equivalence to the extreme, these works can stretch the truth or change the historicity of the Bible. This type of Scripture can lead the reader away from Christ and back to Muslim theology when employing Islamic vocabulary.
The Tamazight translation project has sought to balance the form and meaning as they have no resources in their language to help explain difficult words or passages.
Additionally, the team’s goal was always to pair the Bible with solid discipleship.
Unfortunately, among the Berbers, many believers can only listen to the Bible online, and
mediating approach again seems the most prudent method until the church can stand alone with steadfast leadership and reach the many scattered believers.
Another point of consideration is that many Bible translation spectrums have been produced with the vast number of versions of the English Bible available. Typically, on one extreme, there exists a translation that gives priority to the syntax and grammar of the source language. These essentially literal Bibles focus on the form and require
previous knowledge or much explanation. Conversely, functionally equivalent
translations focus on the receptor language and the original text’s meaning. If given too much license, these texts may distort the original method to function well in the language or even to appease the reader. For a first translation among the Berbers, neither of these Bibles is recommended as they require previous knowledge or resources which are unavailable.
Furthermore, as missionaries traveled to people around the world, they faced a spectrum of possibilities. Some forced their own culture, language, and ideas upon the new community where they lived. However, vast misunderstandings often occurred, leaving both parties extremely frustrated. On the other hand, missionaries risked voyaging to distant lands and accepting everything about the new culture, syncretizing the Bible with false teachings. These workers might have been tempted to alter the message of the Word in order to find higher receptivity. Ultimately, one finds balance in these two extremes by contextualizing the methods while leaving the same eternal
message. This challenge parallels Bible translation among indigenous Islamic PGs. A text that avoids these outer boundaries allows the authorial intention to remain while speaking in a clear, accurate, and natural language.
Advocates of Relevance Theory teach how individuals seek to communicate in ways that are optimally relevant to the hearer. Additionally, the goal is to require the least amount of processing cost by the receiver. However, this type of communication will not always result in direct speech but will contain many inferences from prior knowledge.
Bible translators among the Berbers do well to pay attention to this vital message. These PGs have no Christian heritage and filter their ideas and decision-making processes through Islam. Thus, the assumption that a direct translation of the Bible will lead the hearer to belief and a strong church is often unfounded. Instead, an unclear Bible reifies Islamic beliefs while Christian doctrines become syncretized with Muslim theology. A first translation must make explicit what the original audience would have understood.
This mediating approach gives indigenous peoples the best hope of understanding the gospel message.
John Travis offers the C1–C6 chart he used among indigenous Islamic people, allowing missionaries to evaluate contextualization patterns among those with whom they minister. A C1 model brings in a foreign culture that dominates the church in language, culture, and liturgy. Conversely, a C5 strategy looks and sounds exactly like the local culture. The goal is to give believers opportunities to share what they have found. Travis advocates for a C5 movement, which leaves the believer in the mosque, an insider among his own people. Opponents warn of the many dangers of this model and suggest a C3 or C4 approach instead. This spectrum mimics many of the same ideas found in Bible translation. Texts made to sound too much like the original cause great confusion and misunderstandings. Translations that mimic the local Islamic culture and practices lead to syncretism. The mediating approach offers the best chance for a hearer with no Christian heritage to understand.
Regarding translation work, the UBSGNT presents a grading of variants from A–D, allowing the reader to assess the confidence level of the editorial committee. Over time, the grading scale has changed as the United Bible Society produced multiple editions; however, the reason for this shift remains unclear. Bible translators must test their work with native speakers and allow them to evaluate whether texts are well
comprehended or not. Nevertheless, a grading scale that employs native speakers can be a