Table Of Content

A TRANSLATION STUDIES CURRICULUM FOR MINISTRY LEADERS A THESIS-PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GORDON-CONWELL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMET OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF MINISTRY BY LISA HOOGEBOOM JUNE 2017 Copyright ©2018 by Lisa J. Hoogeboom. All Rights Reserved. CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ......................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ v LIST OF ABREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................... vi ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. vii Chapter 1. EDUCATIONAL/MINISTRY SETTING AND PROBLEM .............................................. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 Ministry Setting ................................................................................................................... 4 Ministry Problem .............................................................................................................. 10 The Project and Research Overview ................................................................................. 22 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 27 2. A THEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR BIBLE TRANSLATION ............................... 30 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 30 Considering the “Word of God” ...................................................................................... 33 Evidence of Translation Within the Bible ......................................................................... 52 All Nations: Diversity of People and Languages in the Bible .......................................... 55 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 57 3. REVIEW OF TRANSLATION STUDIES LITERATURE ............................................... 60 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 60 Establishing Subtopics for the Translation Studies Undergraduate Curriculum ............. 61 Key Works in Translation Studies to Guide Lectures and In-Class Activities ................ 69 Overview of Literature for Assigned Readings ............................................................. 111 4. PROJECT DESIGN: STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES AND RATIONALE, CURRICULUM DESIGN, AND ASSESSMENT STRATEGY ..................................... 115 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 115 Explanation of the Three Student Learning Outcomes .................................................. 117 Explanation of the Educational Strategy and Elements of the Curriculum ................... 124 iii The Research Tools Used for Assessment ..................................................................... 141 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 150 5. PROJECT OUTCOMES: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF THE TRANSLATION STUDIES CURRICULUM .............................................................................................. 152 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 152 Assessment of Student Learning Outcome 1 .................................................................. 155 Compilation of All Data Contributing to SLO 1 ............................................................ 166 Assessment of Student Learning Outcome 2 .................................................................. 169 Compilation of All Data Contributing to SLO 2 ............................................................. 178 Assessment of Student Learning Outcome 3 ................................................................. 182 Conclusions on the Research Question ........................................................................... 186 Additional Remarks: Reflections on the Outcomes by Instrument, Proposed Changes, Unexpected Results, Further Studies .............................................................................. 190 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 197 Appendix A: Informed Consent Form ................................................................................ 197 Appendix B: Anonymous Survey and Questionnaire ......................................................... 199 Appendix C: Likert Survey Data ........................................................................................ 203 Appendix D: Essay Questions ............................................................................................. 206 Appendix E Holistic Assessment Rubric ............................................................................. 207 Appendix F PowerPoint Slides ............................................................................................ 209 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... 243 VITA ....................................................................................................................................... 250 iv ILLUSTRATIONS 1. Table 3.1 Pym’s Polarities of Directional Equivalence .................................................. 77 2. Figure 5.1 SLO 1 Proficiency Results from Identifiable Data ...................................... 164 3. Figure 5.2 SLO 1 Proficiency Results from Anonymous Data ..................................... 165 4. Figure 5.3 SLO 1 Anonymous Data Changes, Pretest to Posttest ................................ 165 5. Figure 5.4 SLO 1 Assessment Report for Proficiency .................................................. 168 6. Figure 5.5 SLO 1 Assessment Report for Growth ....................................................... 168 7. Figure 5.6 SLO 2 Proficiency Results from Identifiable and Anonymous Data .......... 179 8. Figure 5.7 SLO 2 Assessment Report for Proficiency .................................................. 180 9. Figure 5.8 SLO 2 Assessment Report for Growth ........................................................ 180 10. Figure 5.9 SLO 3 Assessment Report for Proficiency .................................................. 185 11. Figure 5.10 SLO 3 Assessment Report for Growth ...................................................... 185 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my doctoral advisors at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary: Roy E. Ciampa, whose thoughtful scholarship and writings guided the curriculum used in this project, and whose encouragement kept me on track, and Bryan Harmelink, who exemplifies the kind of wise leadership in conflict situations that I had in mind as an outcome for students enrolled in this study. They are both consummate teachers, mentors, and scholars. I also want to thank my cohort members for sharing their Bible translation insights, and teaching me what sacrifice and passion for the kingdom of God looks like. Thanks also to my colleagues at Kuyper College for their support, and to the administration for permission to conduct research on campus. Thank you to my parents, whose love and encouragement are with me in whatever I pursue. I especially want to thank the ones who have journeyed most closely by my side in this graduate studies journey which began on the first of September, 2001: my children, Sara (and Josh), Joshua (and Melissa), and Elisabeth, who willingly shared their homework study space with one or both parents for most of their growing-up years. Special thanks to Sara, who helped me with my research for this project and looked at everything with her eye for detail. And of course, my beloved husband Mike, who has been my encourager, my fellow-adventurer, and my partner in all things for nearly thirty years. I dedicate this account of my doctoral project to the Jesus-loving students of Kuyper College who unfailingly help me experience the joy that comes from careful reading of the Bible, and especially to the students who so willingly participated in this research project and embraced the subject matter with extraordinary enthusiasm. vi ABBREVIATIONS CBMW: Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood CRC: Christian Reformed Church CRCNA: Christian Reformed Church in North America DSS: Dead Sea Scrolls IRB: Institutional Review Board KJV: King James Version LXX: Septuagint NASB: New American Standard Bible NIrV: New International Reader’s Version NIV: New International Version NKJV: New King James Version NLT: New Living Translation NT: New Testament OT: Old Testament PLO: Program Learning Outcome RSV: Revised Standard Version SLO: Student Learning Outcome TNIV: Today’s New International Version vii ABSTRACT This project entailed designing, implementing, and assessing a Translation Studies curriculum aimed at preparing students who are headed for various ministry settings to deal with issues related to the nature of the Bible and Bible translation. The goal of my project was to help the students improve their understanding of the complexities of the nature of the Bible (origins, infallibility issues, its reflection of the character of God, etc.) and the complexities of Bible translation (textual critical issues, linguistic theory, etc.) so that they can be better interpreters as well as good counselors to others about issues which have repeatedly become a source of divisiveness in the church. The project included setting Student Learning Outcomes that aligned with that aim as well as with those of Kuyper College, where this project was conducted. Readings, lectures, and other assignments were established to cover an eight-week curriculum. The effects of the curriculum on students’ knowledge and attitudes towards the Bible and translation issues, as well as on students’ preparedness to handle translation-related issues, was determined through analyzing four data sources. The results led the author to conclude that the curriculum was highly successful in informing and equipping students to understand and thoughtfully engage issues related to the nature of the Bible and Bible translation. viii CHAPTER ONE: EDUCATIONAL/MINISTRY SETTING AND PROBLEM Introduction The translation of the Bible into the languages of human speakers has built within it the potential for tension, drama, controversy, and staunch opinions. Taking the inspired and revered “Word of God” with its ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek signs, symbols, and sounds, and putting it into new signs, symbols, and sounds has often sparked controversy, even in centuries past. Jerome’s Latin translation of the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew, for example, was severely criticized by many, including Augustine, who vigorously opposed it; he feared it would further separate the Latin-speaking church from the Greek-speaking church, whose Old Testament was the much-revered Septuagint.1 In the sixteenth century, William Tyndale’s English translation of the Greek word ekklesia in the late 1520’s as “congregation” instead of “church” was one of several controversial changes that caused an uproar in the Roman Catholic Church as it “denied the papacy its favourite proof-text”2 in Matthew 16:18, with the effect that the “congregation” was built on the rock of Peter’s leadership and testimony about Christ—not the “church.” Tyndale was found guilty of heresy and died at the stake in 1536.3 While the fervor of opinion around Bible translation is a little less volatile than in Tyndale’s era, the rate of speed at which Bible translations and updates are produced and 1 Paul D. Wegner, From Text to Translation: The origin and development of the Bible (Grand Rapids: 2 R.S. Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002),164. 3 Wegner, From Text to Translation, 287. 1 published over the last fifty-plus years gives the church plenty of opportunities to debate translation issues. In the English-language world especially, new translations or updates to translations come out so often that it can be difficult even for Bible teachers to keep up with them. Add to that the newly-harnessed power of electronic dissemination over the last two decades, plus the even more recent developments of exponential exposure to the public through social media outlets, and the result is that church-goers and non-church- goers alike are regularly presented with a bewildering array of translations, and their social networks are inundated with strong opinions by a plethora of enthusiastic, self- proclaimed experts touting the goods and the evils of a given Bible translation. And so in the United States and elsewhere around the world, church leaders are being asked a variety of questions from church members, or likely asking the questions themselves: Which translation is right? Why are translations changing all the time, anyway? Should I let my child read that comic-looking version of the Bible? And what in the world are those Bible translators doing in their Bible translation among Muslim groups? No doubt it is the respect and love that these folks have for the Bible that drives the questions. And it is that same devout commitment that leads some to make pronouncements about the wickedness of some translations, and the supremacy of others—which has consequently led to numerous difficulties and conflicts in individual churches as well as denominations. In fact back in 1997 when David Neff, editor at Christianity Today, saw Bible translation issues tearing up the church, he used his platform to plead for Christians to remain respectful in order to curb destructive clashes that had begun to multiply between and among various church factions.4 These clashes 4 David Neff, “The Great Translation Debate: The divides over gender-inclusive Bibles hides what unites us,” Christianity Today 41, no.12 (1997): 16-17. 2