UBS Monograph Series, No.

T H E CU LT U RAL FACT OR
IN
BIBLE T RAN SLAT I ON

Ernst R. Wendland
T H E CU LT U RAL FACT OR
IN
BI BLE T RAN SLAT I ON
 United Bible Societies'

M onogra ph Series

1. Sociolinguistics and Communication

2. The Cultural Factor in Bible Translation

 UBS Monograph Series, No. 2

T H E CU LT U RAL FACT OR

IN

BI BLE T R A N S L A T I O N

A Study of Communicating the Word of God

in a Central African Cultural Context

Ernst R. Wendland

UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES

London, New York,
Stuttgart
 Unless otherwise indicated, the Scripture quota-
tions in this publication are from the Revised
Standard Version of the Bible, copyrighted 1946,
1952, © 1971, 1973 by the Division of Christian
Education of the National Council of the Churches
of Christ in the U.S.A., and used by permission.

UBS Monograph 2
©United Bible Societies 1987
UBS-EPF 1987- 1.5M
Title No. 99-7682
Printed in Hong Kong
 T a ble of Cont e nt s

Preface vii

Introduction ix

List of Abbreviations xi

CHAPTER 1

Culture and Its C o r e — T h e World View of a P e o p l e . . . . 1

CHAPTER 2
Culture, Communication, and Contextualization 17
CHAPTER 3
A Survey of the Religious-Cultural Matrix
of Central Africa 39

CHAPTER 4

The Translation of Culturally-Unfamiliar Concepts . . . . 57

CHAPTER 5
Figurative Language and Culture 83
CHAPTER 6
The Sociocultural Aspects of Direct Speech 133

CHAPTER 7
Ruth in Central Africa: A Cultural Commentary 166

CHAPTER 8
Cultural "Conditioning" of the Communicators 189
References Consulted . 207

Index of Scripture References 213

 Preface

The Cultural Factor in Bible Translation is a fascinating study of

some of the most crucial problems faced by any translator trying to
bridge the span between quite diverse cultures. Based on years of
teaching and translation experience in East Africa and on a broad
knowledge of African linguistics and literature, Ernst Wendland has
produced a highly practical and richly documented volume which
combines sound theory and readily applicable insights. His treatment of
figurative meanings is especially useful, and in his analysis of the
problems of translating direct discourse he has explored a particularly
crucial area, almost totally neglected by most translators. Rather than
dealing only with different classes of problems in intercultural
communication, he has shown how extensive and subtle these difficul-
ties are by discussing in considerable detail more than sixty different
expressions in the story of R u t h which, if not handled circumspectly
in terms of their cultural implications, can lead to serious misunder-
standing. Although the immediate focus of this volume is the range of
difficulties encountered in two typical East African languages, namely,
Chichewa and Chitonga, the theoretical framework makes this m o n o -
graph instructive for people working in almost any part of the world.
This is the second monograph in a continuing series published by
the United Bible Societies, and the sixth monograph in the series
produced under the auspices of the Bible Society of South Africa,
designed to provide significant technical help to translators concerned
with various complex aspects of their work. For production purposes
and for uniformity of style and format, American spelling and punctua-
tion have been observed.

Eugene A. Nida
 Introduction

In June-July of 1985 a two-week seminar/workshop for Bible

translators was held in Pretoria under the auspices of the University
of Pretoria and the Institute for Interlingual Communication of the
Bible Society of South Africa. The theme of this seminar was "Bible
Translation and the Receptor." Some twenty Bible translation teams
from all parts of Central and Southern Africa were represented.
Complementing various lectures on basic translation theory and
practice (Dr. E. A. Nida), Old Testament texts (Dr. Th. Schneider), and
New Testament texts (Prof. J. P. Louw), I presented some material on
the cultural aspects of Bible translation, based on my experience in
serving as an adviser to the Chichewa (Malawi) and Chitonga (Zambia)
projects. This monograph is a reworking and supplementation of that
material. It has benefited from the response of many of those who
participated in the seminar as well as my fellow lecturers (mentioned
above).
In particular I would like to thank Dr. Nida for his m a n ^ helpful
comments on an earlier draft of this text. I also wish to acknowledge
the invaluable instruction and advice of my translation colleagues in
Central Africa, the Coordinators of the Chichewa and Chitonga
projects respectively, Fr. Joseph Tenthani (Lilongwe) and Rev. Salimo
Hachibamba (Lusaka). Without their assistance this study would not
have been possible.
In closing I want to express my appreciation for the typing and
editorial assistance provided by Prof. Louw and his secretary, Mrs.
Venter, and by Ds. Gerrit van der Merwe and his staff of the Bible
Society of South Africa, which sponsored the publication of this book.

Lusaka, Zambia
February, 1986
 List of Abbre via t ions

General Abbreviations

Chewa NIV New International

ccf. see Version
cp. compare NT New Testament
e.g. for example OT Old Testament
etc and other things, or and p. page
so forth PP. pages
GNB Good News Bible RL receptor language
Gr Greek RSV Revised Standard
i.e. that is Version
KJV King James Version SL source language
LB Living Bible T Tonga
LSBT Language, Society, and v. verse
Bible Translation viz. namely
NASB New American Standard vs. versus
Bible vv. verses

Books of the Bible

Gn Genesis Jb Job
Ex Exodus Ps Psalms
Lv Leviticus Pr Proverbs
Nu Numbers Ec Ecclesiastes
Dt Deuteronomy SS Song of Songs
Js Joshua Is Isaiah
Ju Judges Jr Jeremiah
Ru Ruth La Lamentations
1,2 Sm 1,2 Samuel Ezek Ezekiel
1,2 K g 1,2 Kings Dn Daniel
1,2 Ch 1,2 Chronicles Ho Hosea
Ne Nehemiah Am Amos
List of Abbreviations

Mi Micah Ga Galatians
Na Nahum Eph Ephesians
Zph Zephaniah Col Colossians
Mal Malachi 1,2 Th Thessalonians
Mt Matthew 1,2 Ti 1,2 Timothy
Mk Mark Pm Philemon
Lk Luke Hb Hebrews
Jn John Ja James
Ac Acts 1,2 Pt 1,2 Peter
Ro Romans 1 Jn 1 John
1,2 Co 1,2 Corinthians Rv Revelation
 CHAPTER 1

Cult ure and Its Core—

T he World V ie w of a People

"Beauty Lies in the Eyes of the Beholder"

The familiar saying of the heading above applies in a general,

figurative sense to the topic of this book as a whole, but more
specifically to a unique biblical poem in praise of love—and b e a u t y —
namely, The Song of Songs. In either frame of reference, it is
important to recognize that one's "sight," if we may extend the
metaphor a little, is always influenced to a considerable degree by the
culturally-conditioned "spectacles" that one happens to be wearing. In
short, beauty is relative; its evaluation is therefore dependent upon a
host of personal, impersonal, and interpersonal factors, not the least
of which is the sociocultural background of the "beholder." Bible
translators learn to appreciate this fact all too quickly as they
attempt to render The Song meaningfully in their mother tongue. The
Tonga translators of Zambia, for example, did not make it past the
second verse before encountering a serious clash in perspectives (All
Scripture quotations are taken from the Revised Standard Version
[RSV], unless noted otherwise):

O that you would kiss me with the kisses of your

mouth! For your love is better than wine . . . (1:2)

In traditional Tonga society, the practice of "kissing" (kumyonta) is

culturally very inappropriate between adults of either sex. It is
suitable only in the case of a mother and her small baby as a sign of
affection. The explicit mention of one's " m o u t h " makes the expression
particularly objectionable, almost vulgar in fact. The only logical
conclusion that the average reader can come to is that the speaker
(who, as the text suggests, is a woman) must be one of the notorious
prostitutes (bahule) who frequent the shebeens and taverns of today's
urban areas. Who else would so blatantly liken the love of a man to
" w i n e , " the drink of the wealthy and westernized city folk? And this
is only the beginning of the seemingly endless chain of difficulties
that confronts the Central African translator in this short book of 117
verses. As an illustration, let us briefly consider the concept of beauty
as expressed by the Hebrew poet and compare this to the corres-
ponding notion among the Batonga.
At the beginning of Chapter 4 there is an extended series of
pictures describing what a man finds attractive in the appearance of a
w o m a n — f r o m the Hebrew perspective, that is. From the Tonga point
of view this concentrated imagery conveys, in most instances, quite a
different aesthetic impression. Dress codes being what they were, the
" M a n " begins with what was perhaps the most obvious feature: "Your
eyes are doves behind your veil" (4:1). Beautiful eyes were a sign of
perfection in a woman (cp. G n 29:17), the reference probably being to
their grayish-white color with flashes of iridescence. The domesticated
dove of Tonga villages, however, has red eyes, and this is an e x -
tremely bad sign in humans, i.e., revealing either a drunkard or a
witch. The whiteness of a woman's eyes is admired, to be sure, but
the image normally used is that of milk or of sun-bleached maize meal.
Next the Man compares the hair of his beloved to " a flock of
goats moving down the slopes of Gilead" (the place being noted for
its excellent pasturage and hence quality of livestock). There are a
number of serious problems with this simile: (a) goats are not herded
in the hills of the relatively flat plateau which extends across much of
Butonga ('Tongaland'), for that is the haunt of predators; (b) the hair
of the typical Central African goat is not usually dark black like its
Palestinian counterpart, but rather a muddy (or dusty, depending on
the season) variegated color; and (c) worst of all, the goat is specifi-
cally a male symbol in Tonga lore, especially in relation to its alleged
promiscuous a n d / o r insatiable sexual behavior.
The woman's teeth are the next to be described in figurative
terms:

"(They) are like a flock of shorn ewes that have come

up from the washing, all of which bear twins, and not
one of them is bereaved." (4:2)
 The meaning of the original does not come through too clearly in
this translation, but the general sense is not difficult to determine.
Again, whiteness is the desired color (perhaps coupled also with the
pinkness of skin/gums), while symmetry, that is, the perfect matching
of teeth, marks the appearance of beauty with regard to arrangement.
Similarly Tonga men appreciate white teeth, but not too much of the
white should show, for that is an obvious indication of a starving
person (i.e. 'the teeth are outside'). A Tonga woman would not mind if
her teeth were compared to those of an animal, but only the cow
would do, certainly not a culturally much less familiar and less
important " s h e e p " (GNB/NIV). However, beauty in her case is not
distinguished by the presence of teeth, but rather by their absence,
specifically the four front upper teeth—in imitation of the cattle,
which are socially and economically so vital in both the clan as well
as the community at large.
In the latter part of Chapter 4, the description turns from a
depiction of the woman's physical appearance to a delineation of her
personal attributes. The lover exclaims:

"You have ravished my heart with a glance of your

eyes." (4:9)

However, such an action would be contrary to accepted Tonga behavior

between the sexes. A woman, a young, unmarried one in particular (i.e.
"sister," 'daughter of my mother' in Tonga—not a blood sister), must
be coy. Therefore she will never look at an adult male directly, even
her "beloved." On the other hand, it is considered attractive, even
enticing, for her to 'roll' her eyes (while glancing away from him) so
that he can see how white they are. A "locked garden" (4.12) is a
rather strange way to refer to a woman's virginity, for in the Tonga
setting a 'garden' is simply a cultivated field, which would be impos-
sible to 'lock'. A kraal, or cattle pen, is a different matter, but that
would not carry the correct connotation in this context. A 'closed
house' is thus the closest equivalent. Similarly a "sealed fountain"
(4:12) is somewhat of a contradiction, for how does one stop a flowing
stream? The rendering " a private fountain" (GNB) does not help
because no source of water in Central Africa can ever be regarded as
one's personal property. A 'sealed well', however, can, and this picture
is used metaphorically to refer to a virgin, in contrast to 'an open
weir (i.e., a loose woman). And finally, in this connection, the image
of "living water/flowing stream" (4:15) does not turn out to be very
fitting as a reference to one's lover in Chitonga, since it suggests
that she is ill, being afflicted with either diarrhea or some type of
infection in the urogenital tract. Thus to liken her to "flowing
streams from Lebanon" would most likely be understood as an
insult—especially due to the influence of contemporary events, since
" L e b a n o n " is widely known from the news as a place that is a
continual battleground.
The preceding has been a selection of just some of the problems
that a translator must contend with as he attempts to relate two
significantly different conceptual systems with regard to the notion of
beauty. And this is but one of scores of semantic fields that he will
have to deal with when transmitting the meaning of the original
message of Scripture idiomatically in his own language. As we have
seen in the examples above, the cultural aspect of interlingual
communication is indeed a crucial part of the problem: people see,
think, and speak about their experience and the world around them
differently (to varying degrees) from those who come from another
cultural background. That is the problem which we will be exploring,
in a preliminary and often very tentative way, in this book: what is
the nature of some of the critical issues involved, and how does one
go about dealing with them in a valid and responsible manner from a
cross-cultural perspective? The solutions are rarely easy or straight-
forward because they are in many cases so variable and dependent
upon factors which pertain to the specific setting in which a given
translation is being undertaken. But the principal problem is one of
recognition: so many translators, national and expatriate alike, simply
fail to appreciate the magnitude of the difficulties involved and the
consequences for their work. All communication is culturally condi-
tioned to one degree or another in both the transmission as well as
the reception of the verbal and/or nonverbal " t e x t " concerned. The
purpose of this book is to encourage readers at least to consider this
fact much more seriously as they analyze and expound the Word of
God in the language of man—whether the latter be their own mother
tongue or that of a people to whom they wish to convey the divine
message.
A Sociological Perspective of Culture
" C u l t u r e , " briefly put, is the sum total of a people's system of
beliefs and patterns of behavior which are learned in society, whether
by formal instruction or by simple imitation, and passed on from one
generation to the next. It is their design for living—for thinking as
well as doing. A given culture thus organizes and governs all of the
thoughts and actions—the perception, interpretation, and behav-
ior—of every individual who belongs to the distinct social group that
manifests it. Taber (1979, pp.117-118) characterizes the cultural
organization of any society as having five principal features.
First of all, culture is learned and is not genetically determined
as is the case with most animal behavior. Under the right conditions
the various aspects of culture can also be i/rclearned—with either
beneficial or adverse effects for the individual concerned or, indeed,
society as a whole. This point is of utmost importance for the
Christian cross-cultural communicator, who must always carefully
examine and evaluate the effects of his message upon the life of the
receptor community.
Culture is also shared, that is, as a social phenomenon it
constitutes the common heritage which gives a group its identity and a
sense of dignity, security, and continuity. It also makes intercommuni-
cation possible by providing the basic signs and symbols that are used
to transmit messages (both verbal and nonverbal) with conventional
meanings which are understood, more or less, by all normal adult
members of the group.
Thirdly, culture is selective, a fact which makes the world in
which people live manageable, enabling them to better control their
environment and to utilize its resources. As a result of cultural
selectivity, their language, customs, social institutions, and so forth
are also geared to express their needs and experiences most efficiently
in the specific environment in which they are living.
Furthermore, a culture is integrated to form a complex, multi-
leveled system, the whole of which is greater than the sum of its
individual parts in meaning, significance, influence, control, etc. The
diverse aspects of a culture by and large (never perfectly, of course)
complement each other to foster the unity which is so necessary for
its members to make sense of reality, both past and present, and to
provide the foundation according to which they can subsequently relate
new objects and experiences and, ultimately, plan for the future.
 And finally, culture is adaptable, it is dynamic, not static (unless
it is in the process of dying). It thus possesses both a resilience and a
flexibility that enables the members of the various social groups of
which it is comprised to respond in a meaningful way to the manifold
novelties, changes, and external as well as internal pressures to which
it is continually being exposed. It is this factor which makes inter-
cultural communication possible—in particular, the translation of God's
Word into hundreds of languages and cultures all over the world.
There are two principal components which comprise any of the
world's many cultures: internal and external, or conceptual and
behavioral. The behavioral aspect is much more easy to describe, since
it is overtly manifested in the oral and written traditions of a people,
their various customs and practices, their domestic and technical skills,
occupations and trades, their social and religious institutions—by their
whole way of life, in fact. The conceptual component is more basic; it
is the core of culture that motivates and organizes all meaningful
activity—verbal and nonverbal—and which, in turn, functions as the
normative grid to which all socially acceptable behavior must conform.
This is the so-called "world (or 'life') view" which represents a
people's conception of reality, that is, their understanding of the
nature of the universe and of man's place in it. World view, which
may or may not have a scientifically "objective" basis, is a cover
term that includes a broad assortment of conceptual categories: beliefs,
presuppositions, values, norms, ideas, ideals, attitudes, goals, expecta-
tions, interests, and so forth. The world view, or " m i n d - s e t , " provides
an organizing framework whereby an individual makes sense of the
"real world" around him, and it serves as a guide for interpreting
that reality, which includes the words and actions of those with whom
he is living.
This interpretational process is both explanatory and evaluative.
That is to say, a person's world view (which he assimilates as a
member of society in a given culture) enables him to screen, sort,
systematize, and explain the various aspects of reality that he
perceives and experiences every day of his life from childhood on. It
also helps him to judge, validate, and relate to (from receptivity to
resistance) these same sensory, psychological, and emotional stimuli to
which he is constantly exposed, whether consciously or subconsciously.
The collective world view of a given ethnic group also performs these
same functions on a larger scale for the society as a whole. It thus
acts as a stabilizing and sanctioning force which helps to control
social change and to maintain a state of equilibrium as the old ways
of thinking and doing continually confront the new in life. A simple
diagrammatic representation of this model of culture is shown below:

CULTURE

perception motivation

Real World ^ 7 WORLD VIEW -y Way of Life

interpretation conformity

A people's .mind-set, or characteristic way of thinking, thus bridges

the gap between the ways in which they typically speak and act (life
style), either as individuals or as a group, and their perception of
reality, whether seen (e.g., the physical environment) or unseen (e.g.,
the "forces of nature"). Their world view influences their " p e r c e p -
tion" of the real world, even as it also shapes their "interpretation"
of life around them. This conceptual framework in turn provides the
"motivation" for the way in which they live, just as the life style of
individual members generally manifests a certain basic "conformity"
with the viewpoint of the group as a whole. The world view as posited
for an entire culture is obviously an abstraction—a generalization of
what is by and large common to the entire group (as determined by
i n - d e p t h anthropological and sociological studies). Thus one's personal
environment, background, nature (including "self-image"), and experi-
ence will always color or influence one's own perspective on life to
varying degrees so that it does not correspond in every respect to
that posited for society as a whole. However, when these individual
variations in thought, emotion, attitude, etc., which ultimately manifest
themselves in overt behavior, reach a point where they differ signifi-
cantly from the norm, the result is social alienation, conflict, and
perhaps even persecution.
It should also be noted that the analysis and description of a
particular world view is complicated by the fact that it can rarely be
regarded as a homogeneous conceptual construct. It is more often the
case that multiple world views are represented among a given people,
all related in one way or another, but some evincing a number of
significant differences. As a society increases in complexity and
diversity due to factors such as biological growth, urban expansion,
schooling, greater mobility, widespread influence from the mass media,
intermarriage, and all types of cross-cultural contact, differences in
perspective, attitude, and belief naturally develop, and these are often
reflected then in varying life styles.
To give one example: individual security has become an even
greater concern for today's Zambian, especially for those living in
large urban areas, than it was for his ancestors. Interpersonal
conflicts and stresses have increased tremendously, simply because one
has contact with so many more and different people than would have
been the case in the more homogeneous, well-ordered rural community.
These complex social tensions, coupled with the feeling of a greater
need for personal success in the face of stiff competition (an attitude
which is encouraged by modern influences, like Western individualism
as taught in seminars on business/marketing techniques and promoted
by mass media advertising) and the never-ending struggle for survival
in the more unstable economic and moral environment of the cities,
impose a severe, strain on one's mental equilibrium. It is no wonder,
then, that two closely related traditional needs, namely, for protection
against "witchcraft" (or the malevolent thoughts and actions of
potential and actual enemies or rivals) as well as for supernatural
powers (procured magically—for a price) to enable one to achieve
success, have not only continued to flourish, but have become for
many the dominating forces that control their minds and lives.
This complexity is evident also in the case of the biblical
cultures, where we find at least two major world views represented to
varying degrees, i.e., Hebrew and Hellenistic, along with many s u b -
types, e.g., the world view of Yahweh's called prophets did not
correspond in every respect with that of the Patriarchs, and the world
view of the postexilic prophets was not exactly the same as that of
their preexilic counterparts. Changes would naturally take place in
time, if for no other reason, simply as a result of historical experience
(e.g., the exodus, the giving of the Law at Sinai, the conquest of
Canaan, the institution of a monarchy, the divided kingdom, the
Babylonian captivity, the influence of Alexander the Great and Greek
culture, and the imposition of Roman rule). Modification of the pious
Jew's conception of the world and his place in it also occurred as a
result of the ongoing revelation of Yahweh, both immediately by his
acts of deliverance as well as punishment, and also mediately through
the messages conveyed by his chosen servants. The importance of the
religious component of a people's world view will be discussed more
fully in Chapter 3.
Certain aspects of a society's world view, in particular those
which pertain to one's life style and interpersonal relations, such as
one's goals, attitudes, and expectations, tend to be more easily
modified due to the influence of factors such as education, urbaniza-
tion, industrial and technological experiences, political organization,
travel, or interaction with people of different cultures. Other aspects
of one's outlook on life are more resistant to external and internal
pressures for change. This would include one's value system. A " v a l u e "
in this context refers to the worth which a given society (or member
of the group) explicitly or implicitly attaches to specific persons,
objects, events, activities, states, conditions, etc., whether positive,
negative, or somewhere in between—in other words, what in this
world is good/bad, honorable/shameful, desirable/undesirable, attrac-
tive/abhorrent, needful/unnecessary, and so on. These values normally
form an interrelated and hierarchically arranged set, and they are
regularly reflected in one's behavior—by what a person emphasizes,
whether consciously or unconsciously, in his words and actions. One's
values relate, in turn, to the basic needs that one experiences in life.
These may be grouped for convenience into four broad and overlapping
categories:

BASIC HUMAN NEEDS

1. BIOLOGICAL—pertaining to man's relation to physical life and the

setting in which he lives; e.g., food, drink, rest, elimination, sex,
shelter, and air.

2. PSYCHOLOGICAL—pertaining to man's relation to his inner self

and mental well-being; e.g., safety/security, love/belonging,
esteem, positive self-image, and hope for the future.

3. SOCIAL—pertaining to man's relations with his fellow man (whether

with someone of the same nuclear family, kinship unit, ethnic
group, age group, trade, occupation, profession, etc. or with
"outsiders" and foreigners); e.g., a fixed place in society and an
 established "identity," with all of the mutual obligations, privi-
leges, and benefits which that position entails, including an
understanding of the basic roles, mores, and statuses that
accompany these different interpersonal relationships.

4. SPIRITUAL—pertaining to man's relations with the supernatural,

whether personal (deity, ancestral spirits) or impersonal (magic,
charms, sorcery); e.g., giving one a place in the "unseen world"
of the powers and principalities which control life and the
destiny of all things, the knowledge of right and wrong (moral-
ity), a means for religious expression and for receiving, in turn,
"messages" from supernatural beings and forces.

The focus of this study will be necessarily upon the last cate-
gory, although, as was suggested above, it is virtually impossible to
divorce one sphere of influence from another, as they are so inter-
dependent and closely integrated in the life and thought of a people.
The sacrifices and prayers which people offer at a Tonga rain shrine
(malende), for example, function primarily as an appeal to certain
ancestral spirits who are thought to have power over the rainfall
through their intervention with Leza, the high god. But the rituals and
ceremonies that are associated with worship at such shrines also serve
socially to unite the community in their time of need and to give its
individual members peace of mind in the knowledge that the lack of
rain, upon which their lives and livelihood depend, is being looked into
by their more powerful spiritual relatives, whose interests are likewise
promoted by the physical well-being of the living.
There is one more level that forms part of a society's world
view, namely, its foundation, which is the source from which all of
the other perceptual, conceptual, and emotional constituents flow. Here
at the level of a people's ultimate cultural coding we find the beliefs
and presuppositions which generally are simply taken for granted as
being the indispensable and indisputable facts of existence. Thus they
are not normally articulated propositionally, as dogmatic statements in
a textbook. Rather, they are most usually represented in symbolic
form, particularly in a group's various types of artistic expression
(e.g., paintings, songs, dances, carvings, weaving, embroidery, and folk
tales). These concepts relate primarily to the nature of being (onto-
logy), the organization of the universe (cosmology), and the manifesta-
tion of knowledge (epistemology). They attempt to deal with the basic
questions of life: What is man in relation to the other creatures, both
visible and invisible, that populate his world? How did man get here
and where is he going—what is his ultimate destiny? How does man
fit into the hierarchy of powers which are seen to govern the
environment in which he lives, and how can he learn to control those
forces, whether benevolent or malevolent? What is truth, and how can
one discern fact from fiction, reality from irreality, sense from
nonsense, and so on? What constitutes knowledge, or wisdom (if the
two are differentiated), and what are its limits? How, then, does one
obtain knowledge, especially of the supernatural (here knowledge often
overlaps with power), and what are the socially acceptable ways of
using it?
A people's world view offers them a framework for answering
(not necessarily explaining) fundamental questions such as these,
therefore providing them with the security of an organized and orderly
universe, where every person and every thing has its determined place
and purpose. Needless to say, these underlying beliefs are highly
resistant to alteration, no matter how much a community's way of life
may appear to change on the outside (i.e., the cultural surface).
However, it is at this interior, or deep level, where the Word of God
(and the life-giving Spirit) must work for genuine "conversion" to
occur. And for this to take place, both the Scriptures as well as
Christian witness must be formulated in culturally comprehensible and
relevant terms.
We might illustrate these general categories of basic need, the
presuppositions associated with them, and the specific cultural forms
whereby the latter might be expressed, by examining several features
pertaining to the Old Testament Hebrew religious system. Considering
now the "biological" sphere, we note that blood was regarded as being
sacred, for blood represented the life of an animate being (Gn 9:4-6).
Therefore a "bloody" sacrifice was normally employed to symbolize
and to substitute for human life where the issue of redemption or
atonement was concerned (as in the case of a firstborn child, or an
offense against Yah weh; e.g., Ex 34:19-20; 2 Sm 24:25). An example
pertaining to the "psychological" category would be the ancient Jew's
concept of " t r u t h " and "knowledge" as applied to his God. For the
pious, these notions did not have to do with abstract theological
propositions. On the contrary, they were intensely related to one's
own experience and a consciousness of Yahweh's guiding all of one's
personal affairs. True wisdom was a way of life set in conformity to
God's revealed will (e.g., the entire book of Proverbs, also Jb 28:28;
Ho 14:9). There is also an important religious aspect of the "social"
dimension, one which is clearly seen in the covenant that Yahweh
established with his people Israel at Sinai (Ex 19-24: Lv 18-20).
Though broadly patterned after the suzerainty (lord-vassal) treaties
that were common in the ancient Near East, this agreement was
unique in that it gave expression to the special relationship that
Yahweh had graciously entered upon with Israel—one that was based
on his holiness (qodesh) and mercy (hesed), not, as was typically the
case, upon servile fear instilled from a position of military power (Ex
19:4-6; 20:2,6; Lv 19:2).
And finally, to exemplify a presupposition derived from the
"spiritual" area of the Hebrews' world view, we can point to the one
which undergirded Israel's religion as a whole, and that is simply but
significantly the assumption of God's existence. The fact of his
presence—from eternity and to eternity—was so obvious as to remain
unquestioned in the Jew's mind; only a "fool" would deny it (Ps 14:1).
Yahweh's personal interest in man, his people in particular, was
demonstrated not only in his mighty acts of deliverance, but also in
his continual efforts to communicate with them verbally, through his
called prophets: "Thus says the L O R D . . . ." It was this belief, which
was based upon their experience from generation to generation, that
gave rise to Israel's strong reverence for and devotion toward the
Word of God, the sacred Scriptures—an attachment that unfortunately
later developed (under the strict instruction of Jewish sects such as
the Pharisees) into what amounted to an attitude of idolatry. Thus the
literal form of the Word was transformed into an object of worship,
while its meaning was lost in the process (Mt 15:6-9).
As was noted earlier, it is important to recognize that the Bible
does not present a single, uniform world view. Rather, the people's
outlook on life, or that of the writers themselves, may change from
book to book and from topic to topic, even with regard to their
theological perspective. For the pious Israelite of early and middle OT
times, for example, there was no question that Yahweh was the Ruler
of heaven and earth, in particular over the enemies of his people (e.g.,
Ex 15; Jg 5; Ps 66; 148). Yahweh was seen to exercise his powerful
rule directly through the mighty men and women whom he chose to
lead his people to victory in battles against the forces of evil; e.g.,
Moses and Deborah. This viewpoint focused primarily upon Yahweh's
past and present mighty deeds. The perspective shifts somewhat later
in history, namely, after the Kingdom was divided and the people
turned almost en masse to worship other gods, especially the Canaanite
deities Baal and Asherah. In their apostasy Israel lost their sense of
history and their appreciation for God's past acts of deliverance. In
their prosperity the people, the wealthy and powerful in particular,
generally regarded Yahweh-worship as being rather old-fashioned, and
he was demoted in popular opinion to being just one god among
m a n y — n o less perhaps, but certainly no greater than any other deity
(e.g., Is 5:18-19: Ho 4, 8; Am 8:11-14). As a consequence their worship
became pure ritual—outward acts devoid of all meaning and devotion
(e.g., Is 1:11-15; A m 5:21-23). As for the faithful remnant, their
perspective was turned more and more toward the future and the time
when Yahweh would reestablish his power and authority among his
people in a universal kingdom of peace and righteousness (e.g., Is
2:1-4; 60; Ho 1:10-11; A m 9:11-15), which would be ruled by the
LORD'S Anointed (or Messiah), the "Holy One of Israel" (Is 11-12).
Now if differences in religious perspective such as those m e n -
tioned above can occur among people who for the most part share a
common culture, how much more divergence might one expect when
examining the world view of a community which differs not only
culturally, but also with respect to time (history), place (environment),
and language? Obviously one must learn to expect contrast and
disparity in viewpoint almost anywhere in the biblical text. In 2 Ch
26:23, for example, it is reported that King Uzziah was not buried in
the royal tombs because he was a leper (cp. G N B rendering). Within
the framework of the OT ceremonial laws, this is not surprising, for a
ritual prohibition was involved: Uzziah, despite his royal status, had to
be ostracized in death as he was in life because of his disease. The
same opinion prevails among the present-day Tonga of Zambia. To
handle the corpse of a leper is taboo. The underlying motivation,
however, is not quite the same, for this behavior is occasioned by a
fear of supernatural retribution. The leper has for one reason or
another been directly punished by God (leprosy is popularly referred to
as mulilo wa Leza "the fire of G o d " ) . Thus, although the body is
"unclean," just as in the biblical instance, it also possesses an
inherent malevolent power to pollute anyone who touches the body
(outside of those who have been "protected" with a special " m e d i -
cine"). The violator, so the belief goes, would also contract a fatal
disease and die within a short time. In poetic discourse the potential
distortions in perception tend to occur more frequently. The well-
known expression from Ps 2 3 , "valley of the shadow of death" (v. 4),
for instance, sounds somewhat contradictory to the average Tonga
listener because, from his perspective, a person remains alive as long
as his " s h a d o w " (cinzemwemwe) is present. As his shadow leaves (e.g.,
in the case of a serious illness), his life departs.
Literal translations are not the only source of such conceptual
problems, however. Even the well-intentioned effort to render the
original text meaningfully may produce a cultural clash in underlying
world view. G N B , for instance, tries to make sense of Job's complaint,
"Didst thou not pour me out like milk" (Jb 10:10a, RSV) by trans-
lating "You gave my father strength to beget m e . " The difficulty is
that, from the Tonga/Chewa perspective, it is not the "father" who
"begets/bears" a child, but the "mother." The father simply "feeds"
the embryo that is already present in the mother's womb. Thus, to
follow this up by saying that "you made me grow in my mother's
w o m b " (v. 10b, GNB) would imply that God himself was the father of
Job! In many cases where a literal rendering would produce such a
distortion, it is possible to change the linguistic form of expression in
translation to reproduce the meaning in the receptor language (RL);
e.g., shift " f a t h e r " to " m o t h e r " in the passage above, as was done in
Tonga. In other situations, which will be more fully discussed in
Chapter 4, this is not possible. By employing the fundamental theo-
logical metaphor of Fatherhood and Sonship (especially in John, e.g.,
Chapters 8, 10), Christ was implying equality in nature, power, and
authority with God (cp. Jn 5:18). But this is not what the same
figurative form conveys to most listeners today, whether living in
America or Central Africa. For them the primary association of the
father-son imagery is subordination—loving though it may be,
nevertheless a s u p e r i o r - inferior relationship. It would be impossible,
however, to alter this form of expression in any way, for it runs
throughout the Scriptures, and thus a change would certainly cause
much greater distortion to the message than the relatively slight
misunderstanding that may at times result from its retention. Such
differences in outlook are particularly important for the translator to
take note of in his work, for they have the potential to disrupt the
message-transmission process by attaching misleading and even
contradictory meanings, associations, values, attitudes, etc. with what
appear on the textual surface to be similar linguistic and cultural
forms. It is this aspect of communication that we would like to
concentrate on in the chapters that follow.
As the title of this book indicates, we will be placing special
emphasis upon exploring the effect that a specific culture has upon
the process of communicating the Word of God via translation. An
explicit treatment of this topic is necessary for two reasons. One is
that, strangely enough, the cultural issue often appears to be n e g -
lected, at times completely ignored by translators, national as well as
expatriate. The work of such individuals is typically characterized by a
misguided devotion to formal fidelity—an attitude which overvaluates
the linguistic and cultural forms of the SL text and correspondingly
depreciates those of one's own language and culture. Other factors
which contribute to this general neglect are: a lack of awareness of
the intricacy of the issues involved in cross-cultural communication; a
schedule which will not permit adequate research into the nature of
the problems that arise; the inability (arising in most cases from a
lack of suitable and sufficient training) to deal with such difficulties
in a consistent manner; and so forth.
Secondly, the very fact that cultural barriers in Bible translation
are so common, and their solutions often so complex, would warrant a
more thorough examination of the subject. The meaning of any
message is invariably conceptualized, constructed, transmitted, and
received through the use of specific cultural forms. Furthermore, this
meaning is always interpreted within a particular social context
according to the culturally-conditioned perspectives and experiences of
the individual members of the group. It is subsequently responded to
in a manner that is in keeping with socially-established rules and
patterns of behavior which are usually quite specific to that group.
Since at least two distinct cultures are concerned—and often a third,
through the influence of versions in one or another of the so-called
" w o r l d " languages—the task of Bible translation can become rather
complicated, even confusing at times, since it is generally true that
more than one way of handling a given problem is available. It is
hoped that a more detailed consideration of these difficulties will
serve to increase one's awareness of the precise nature of the issues
concerned and will in turn point one in the direction where some
possible solutions might be found.
In this chapter we have briefly surveyed some of the chief
concepts relating to the study of culture and its core, the "world
view" of a people. No language can be divorced from the culture of
its speakers, in particular, their way of viewing the world and their
place in it. Since the translator works with language, its forms and
the meanings which these convey with respect to both SL and R L , he
cannot avoid the issue of culture. In Chapter 2 we will look at the
process of Bible translation as a communication event and the need for
following a set of working procedures which takes this fact into
consideration. Again, the importance of contextualizing the message
will be pointed out, with respect to both analyzing the SL message
and also reconstructing that message in the sociocultural setting of
the R L . Chapter 3 presents a survey of the religious-cultural matrix of
Central Africa. This provides a background for the various proposals
for dealing with several major types of translational problems for
which a thorough knowledge of the receptor culture has a particular
relevance. These are presented in subsequent chapters: Chapter 4,
culturally unfamiliar concepts; Chapter 5, figurative language; and
Chapter 6, direct speech. Chapter 7 presents a selective commentary
on the book of R u t h which is intended to reveal the degree of
cultural influence upon a larger portion of biblical discourse, and also
the various types of interaction that occur between the source and
receptor contexts in this regard. This study concludes (Chapter 8) by
examining some of the aspects involved in sensitizing oneself to the
various details of a people's world view and way of life that make a
difference in the process of communicating God's Word cross-cultur-
ally through translation.
 CHAPTER 2

Cult ure , Com m unic a t ion,

and Cont e x t ua liza t ion

In order for a translator to be prepared to face the problems

that inevitably arise as he carries out his task, it is important for him
to fully recognize the fact that Bible translation is one of the most
complex types of communication possible. This is because at least two
distinct message-transmission events are involved: the primary, or
original, event which produced the text in the source language (SL),
and the secondary, or translation, event in which the message, or at
least certain aspects of it, are reproduced in a different language, the
receptor language (RL), at a much later date, and in a new socio-
cultural setting (see Wendland Language, Society and Bible Translation
[LSBT], pp.37ff.)
Ideally, a translation ought to be based on the original text of
Scripture ( M l ) , that is to say, the Hebrew and Greek testaments. In
many cases, however, it is not always possible to obtain the services
of qualified translators who are competent in the original biblical
languages. Thus a team will be dependent upon other translations for
their " t e x t , " normally a version in one or more of the major lan-
guages of wider communication in the area (e.g., English, French, or
Hausa [West Africa], Swahili [East Africa], Chewa [South-Central
Africa], and so on). Of course, the translators can always consult
commentaries which refer to the original, and they may have the
benefit of comments from exegetical advisers who are not mother-
tongue speakers of the R L . But to a certain extent at least, theirs will
be a "translation based upon a translation," and this situation always
carries with it the possibility that the R L text might become distorted
as a result of influence from certain linguistic and sociocultural
features of the "interposed" version, i.e., M2 in the diagram below:
 SI Ml — > Rl

&
Thus the current translator ( r ) produces a version (M3) that is two
large steps distant from the actual biblical text and extralinguistic
context. Unless he is aware of this fact and takes definite measures to
counteract the influence of the interposed version, he will end up with
a translation in which certain elements are alien to the meaning of
the SL text and also unnatural in terms of both the receptor lan-
guageas and its cultural setting.
Let us consider two fairly typical examples which illustrate how a
popular English translation (Living Bible) has skewed the original text
in favor of a contemporary Western cultural setting. The first occurs
in G n 6:1, where we read in a relatively literal translation (RSV):

When men began to multiply on the face of the ground

The LB recasts the text in the following way:

Now a population explosion took place upon the earth.

This discourse-opening utterance tbrobably had a neutral connotation in

the Hebrew. But from ä Central African perspective, it would convey
implicit positive overtones, for as was pointed out in the preceding
chapter, a high cultural value is attached to biological increase. For
most people in Western societies, however, the expression "population
explosion" carries a definite negative association; this is what most
governments of the world, along with many social crusaders, are trying
to prevent. The naïve reader might even be led to conclude that this
was a factor which contributed to the subsequent Flood—it was God's
way of keeping the population in check! Furthermore, a literal
rendering of LB in Tonga, for example, would convey an entirely
different meaning, i.e., the Flood was preceded by another catastrophe
in which many people were killed by some sort of "explosion."
The second example is found in the New Testament, literally
(RSV):

"Behold, I have made ready my dinner, my oxen and my

fat calves are killed, and everything is ready." (Mt
22:4)

LB translates the passage in this way:

"Everything is ready and the roast is in the oven."

Apart from the meaning reduction (omitting any reference to the

animals used is a significant loss), this translation distorts the
temporal-cultural context of the original. It suggests that the meat for
the feast was cooked in an " o v e n , " as would be the case nowadays,
but this was not in fact done at the time of Christ (ovens were used
to bake bread). A literal translation also presents problems in a
language like Tonga as well, for the average housewife would never
"roast" meat inside an oven. Rather, she would fry it on top of the
stove (if the family were wealthy enough to own one; most urban
dwellers use plate cookers or charcoal instead). Alternatively, in a
rural setting she would simply roast it over an open fire. Translators
must beware of such subtle pressure to push their text into a cultural
context which is foreign to that of the original, and a version which
is twice removed from the SL is always in danger of falling just that
much farther from the truth. The matter of "anachronism," or
historical misrepresentation, in translation will be dealt with more
fully in Chapter 4.
The complexity of the translation process also affects the nature
of the version that we intend to produce. Most Bible translation
projects being carried out (or planned) in Africa today aim to achieve
what is commonly called an "idiomatic" (or popular language)
version—that is, a version which speaks the language of the people at
large. Since this is our goal (either now, or at some time in the near
future), it is necessary to take a careful look at the nature of such a
version and some of the implications of this choice as far as our
working procedures are concerned. We might define an idiomatic
translation further by saying that it is one which seeks to convey the
full communicative value of the SL message in the R L . By " c o m m u n i -
cative value," then, we are not speaking merely about the informa-
tional content of the text but about whatever the original conveyed in
terms of the other principal functions as well—the expressive,
affective, directive, and poetic. These breathe the life into literature;
they give the message an impact and an appeal which reinforce the
urgency of Scripture content and its relevance also to the reader
today.
Now this is not a matter of simply enlivening the original—of
adding some feeling and color to dead theological documents—in order
to enable the Bible to compete with the popular paperback novels
found in the local bookshops. In other words, the task of the trans-
lator is not to " a d a p t " the Bible according to prevailing literary
tastes so as to make it a best seller in the literature of his language.
Rather, he has the far more complex and difficult assignment of
"reclothing" in the R L the dynamic forcefulness, the emotive power,
and the beauty that is already there, so artistically expressed in a
great variety of verbal hues, patterns, and shades in Hebrew and
Greek. But at the same time he has the obligation to remain faithful
to the basic fabric of content out of which the original documents
were cut and to the intention of those first designers.
These concerns have been well summarized in what is now a
classic definition of what translation is all about:

Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor

language the closest natural equivalent of the source-
language message, first in terms of meaning, and
secondly in terms of style. (Nida and Taber, 1969, p. 12)

We will be frequently referring to this expression, " t h e closest natural

equivalent," in the following chapters, and therefore it is necessary
clearly to define its meaning at the outset. The term closest focuses
upon the SL message—fidelity to its content in particular; we do not
want to see any additions to, deletions from, or distortions of the
content of Scripture. Natural, on the other hand, focuses upon the R L
message, especially with respect to its form; God should not sound like
a foreigner who is learning to speak a new language. Equivalence,
then, joins the two communication events, i.e., in the SL and the R L ,
and introduces an essential element of comparison into this process of
literary composition—one that presents the greatest challenges to
translators, namely, to reproduce as much of the meaning of the
biblical message as possible using all of the resources of the R L at
their disposal.
In order to accomplish this goal of finding the "closest natural
equivalent" of the SL message in the setting of the R L and its
culture, one must always keep in mind several fundamental principles
of translation in particular and of communication in general:

1. Carefully study the total context of the original communication

event in order to arrive at a more accurate determination of its
meaning. A correct understanding of the biblical text is, of course,
essential, for it forms the foundation for the whole process of
translation. It is this meaning, in all of its fundamental aspects, that
the translator must reproduce in the R L . It is unlikely that anyone
would disagree with this primary goal. This is what he has been
trained to do (in Bible school, seminary, translator training institutes,
and so forth), and that is what he may have already been doing for a
number of years now. There is the subtle danger, however, that this
goal becomes so familiar to the translator that he begins to take it
for granted. He may be lured into thinking that because of his
education and experience he already knows what the meaning of the
original is. And so he becomes lazy in his exegetical habits. He puts
his different commentaries back on the shelf and sets aside the
various Bible versions that he has available and simply starts to
translate the base text as he understands it on the spot. It is very
easy to fall into this habit, and sometimes outside pressures (e.g., lack
of adequate time) as well as internal ones (e.g., disinterest over an
especially " b o r i n g " section of Scripture) help to contribute to the
problem. But this is a very dangerous practice for the translator to
follow, whether intentionally or not, for every once in a w h i l e — p e r -
haps more often than he realizes—he is trapped by the lack of a
sound exegetical procedure into rendering the text poorly (even
wrongly!) because he has failed to consider the entire context of the
original, whether the textual or the extratextual setting.
Most translators recognize the importance of the textual context
as they seek to interpret the message of Scripture. Often, however,
they tend to overlook the extratextual setting, but the latter often
contributes a great deal to one's understanding of the meaning of a
passage. This is particularly true when dealing with any of the many
and diverse references to the biblical cultural environment that we
find either embedded or implied in the text. Since that is the special
focus of the present study, it may be worthwhile to examine a number
of different passages, each of which illustrates the need for carefully
considering the sociocultural milieu of the SL message in order to
arrive at a valid interpretation. Consider the following passage, for
example:

[There] was a cave, and Saul went in to cover his

feet. (1 Sm 24:3, K J V )

Now it was not necessarily a cold day up in the hills where Saul was
pursuing David that caused him to pause and (perhaps because he was
wearing sandals) turn in "to warm up his feet," as the old Chewa
Bible translates. Rather, as the RSV correctly puts it, "Saul went in
to relieve himself" ("to help himself" in idiomatic Chewa). The
figurative expression "to cover his feet" is a euphemism which
substitutes for an overt reference to the act of elimination. And yet it
was also probably true in a literal sense as well, for this was the
posture generally assumed by Middle-Eastern gentlemen as they
squatted in their flowing robes.
Another OT historical incident takes on a new meaning in the
light of the cultural setting of the times. People often wonder why the
prophet Elisha dealt so harshly with a group of children who taunted
him with the words:

" G o up [i.e., get out of here], you baldheadl" (2 K g

2:23)

Jews were proud of their head of hair (2 Sm 14:25-26; SS 5:11), and

the complete absence of hair was considered to be a punishment from
God, since this was often associated with "leprosy" (Lv 13). So not
only were these children being extremely disrespectful, which was a
serious enough offense in itself (Pr 30:17), but they were in effect
cursing God's prophet to his face.
In order to fully understand the many biblical references to the
relations between a guest and a host, it is necessary to have some
background in the customs pertaining to hospitality in the ancient
Near East. Since guests were believed to have been sent by God (Hb
13:2), it is not surprising to read about Abraham's enthusiasm when
one day he spotted three men near his tent: " h e ran . . . to meet
them, and bowed himself to the earth . . . [he] hastened into the tent
to Sarah, and said, 'Make ready quickly . . . * . . . [he] ran to the
herd . . . [and] hastened to prepare i t . . . " (Gn 18:2-7). As a sign of
special welcome and honor, the host would anoint his guest's head
with oil (Ps 23:5, cp. Lk 7:46). To thus receive a guest into your home
was to assume all responsibility for his well-being and protection
during his stay. Certainly Lot saw this as his sacred obligation when
there was a danger of his guests being molested (Gn 19:8). This
attitude helps to explain the image of a " t a b l e " being prepared for
the Psalmist " i n the presence of [his] enemies" (Ps 23:5). Though
enemies surrounded him on every side, David felt completely secure
knowing that God was his host, and hence also his protector.
The sharing of a meal together in the Middle East (literally, for
often the only dishes are those which contain the food itself, cp. Mt
26:23) is more than an act of hospitality; it creates a bond of mutual
loyalty, fellowship, and peace (Gn 26:30; Ex 24:8-12), which is a theme
that contributes also to the overall significance of our Lord's Last
Supper (1 Co 11:17-26). Simply to give a person a drink of water was
to offer him a pledge of friendship at the same time. This lends added
import—and obligation—to Christ's words, "Whoever gives you a cup
of water to drink . . . " (Mk 9:41). The customs at mealtime also help
to explain the rather ambiguous reference to "Abraham's bosom" in
the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Lk 16:22): there is here
most likely an allusion to a heavenly banquet, at which Lazarus is
reclining at the table in the place of special honor, namely, in a
position next to Abraham, so close that he could lean upon his chest
(cp. Mt 8:11; Jn 13:23). Surely this only adds to the bitter irony of the
scene as the rich man must gaze in torment at the one who during his
lifetime had to scrape for the crumbs falling from his table (Lk 16:21),
but who was now feasting in heavenly glory. This imagery also lends
impact in a negative sense to the presumptuous request that James and
John made of Christ—"to sit, one at your right hand and one at your
left" (i.e., in the guest places of highest honor at a feast) (Mk 10:37).
Christ, however, advised his disciples to humbly seek the least favored
positions (i.e., on the lower level of the room and nearest the door)
(Lk 14:8-10).
There are a host of seemingly obscure, even meaningless,
passages that a proper anthropological orientation can illuminate for
receptors today, whether in Africa or America. In the Law of Moses,
for example, we read this command:

If ever you take your neighbor's garment in pledge, you

shall restore it to him before the sun goes down; for
that is his only covering . . . in what else shall he
sleep? (Ex 22:26).

This sounds a little strange at first—that a man would have to sleep

at night in the same clothes he wore by day—until we realize
something of the nature of the " g a r m e n t " in question. This was in
fact the closely-woven outer cloak (made from wool or goats' hair)
which the typical peasant would wear both as an overcoat to give
shelter from wind and as a blanket to provide warmth at night. It was
on account of this latter function, then, that the law prescribed that
a man return this garment to his fellow at sundown. Even the
interpretation of dreams becomes easier with a bit of biblical back-
ground. Gideon, for example, overhears this dream being recounted in
the camp of his enemies:

" . . . lo, a cake of barley bread tumbled into the camp

of Midian, and . . . struck [a tent] so that it fell
. . . " (Jg 7:13).

Bread, of course, was the staple food of the Israelite farmer, while
the tent symbolized the nomadic life of the people of Midian. A note
of disparagement is introduced into the dream with the specification of
the bread as being made from "barley," which characterized the fare
of the poor common folk of that day. Obviously this reflected Midian's
opinion of Israel in general and their army in particular. In any case,
the meaning of this dream was readily apparent to the friend of the
dreamer, but it is likely to be rather opaque to most receptors today.
Some idea of the cultural context is necessary to illumine the
content and to intensify the effect of many an OT prophecy, such as
we find in this word of woe from Jeremiah:
 " I will banish from them the voice of mirth and the
voice of gladness . . . the grinding of the millstones
and the light of the lamp." (Jr 25:10)

The "millstone" is not intended as a negative image in this context,

as Christ later uses it (Mt 18:6). Rather, since the sound of women
grinding grain with their hand-operated mills is a characteristic of
village life in Palestine, it gives a picture of domestic peace and
tranquillity. Where, then, this sound has been silenced, as the above
passage states, it indicates that the normal activities of human
existence have ceased. It is thus a sign of utter desolation. Jeremiah
also employs this image in a somewhat different way to describe
another aspect of God's judgment upon Jerusalem in Lm 5:13, where
we read that "young men are compelled (by the conquering enemy) to
grind at the mill." Since this was typically a woman's j o b , it must
have been a terrible shame for men to be forced to do it (so also
Samson was humiliated with this menial task in the Philistine prison
[Jg 16:21]—he was not employed to power the much larger donkey/ox
driven mill as is commonly depicted in Bible story illustrations).
The preceding passage derives part of its impact from another
familiar biblical figure, that of the "light" of a " l a m p . " For the Jew,
light was an absolute necessity, whether in his religious or in his
everyday secular activities. Light, among other things, was a symbol of
life, and since people were generally afraid of the dark, a lamp was
normally kept burning in one's house all night. To be forced to sleep
without such a "night light" was regarded as a sign of extreme
poverty. Thus to wish that someone's "light" be put out was a curse
of the strongest degree (Jb 18:5). It was this image in Jeremiah's
prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem that people would probably
have reacted to most strongly; the "light" of their city and nation
was about to be extinguished! It was against this OT literary-cultural
background that Christ's similar words of warning assumed an even
more ominous import for the listeners of his day: "Cast the worthless
servant into the outer darknessV (Mt 25:30). This was not mere
exclusion from fellowship; it meant that one would be absolutely cut
off from everything that the "light" symbolized, including God himself
(Ps 27:1; Jn 1:4-9).
 Obviously there is a great deal of insight to be derived from a
careful study of the sociocultural setting of the biblical text. A good
commentary will always make such information available, that is, when
it is relevant to the interpretation of a particular passage. But just as
frequently a similar type and degree of illumination is necessary from
the perspective of the receptor culture in order to give readers an
accurate understanding of what God is really saying in his Word. All
too often, however, such background knowledge is simply taken for
granted—with most unfortunate results as far as the clarity and
comprehensibility of the message goes. The Bible translator must
always be on the lookout for areas of cultural "mismatching" between
the SL and R L communication contexts and the respective texts that
are produced in each case.

2. Once the meaning of the original has been correctly determined,

using all of the exegetical tools at our disposal, it is necessary to
transfer it into the setting of the receptor language and culture. This
context, too, must be thoroughly analyzed and exploited in order to
communicate the full dynamics of the original message. The trans-
lator's aim is not to "transculturize" the text, to adapt every possible
aspect of the message to the sociocultural environment of speakers of
the R L . He would then be a paraphraser, not a translator. Rather, his
job is to contextualize the content of the original within an alien (RL)
setting to the ultimate degree that this is possible without denying or
distorting the historicity and authenticity of the biblical texts. Clearly
the line of demarcation here between excellence and error, success and
failure, is an extremely fine one. It requires translators who are
experts not only in the language and literature of their people, but in
all of their beliefs, values, traditions, customs, and whole way of life
as well. Only persons with such capabilities will be brave enough to
experiment creatively with their language (and the culture which it
reflects) in the interests of achieving a greater measure of equivalence
between respective messages. Only such individuals will be prudent
enough not to try to push a good thing too far—and to recognize the
danger when they have.
We will be discussing this crucial issue in more detail from
various perspectives throughout this book, but here is an initial
example which illustrates the need for translating with cultural
awareness in the RL:
 Hushai said to Absalom, "Long live the king! Long live
the king!" (2 Sm 16:17)

This exclamation of praise, literally 'may-he-live the-king!' though

somewhat archaic, sounds quite appropriate in English under these
circumstances. That was how the passage was drafted into Tonga, too,
without much difficulty: "May the chief have a long life!" The
translation is understandable, the word choice and collocation is
acceptable, the grammar correct, and so it might have remained—until
one day, on a-ûnal check-through of this text, the project coordinator
remarked, "Yes, but this is not what we would say." Everything was
natural but the setting; the words did not fit the cultural context in
which they were to be used. It had suddenly occurred to him what
would have been said in such a situation: "Aaongole mwami!"—'May
the chief [live to] be bent over in his back!' This traditional blessing
(which normally would be spoken only by a respected elder of the
community, thus also corresponding to the biblical account) features a
type of verbal metonymy: one of the associated characteristics (bent
back) of a particular event, state, or condition (old age) is used in
place of the condition itself—all perfectly natural, if one always
remains cognizant of context in addition to text and what is apt,
fitting, or even expected when people converse in specific social
situations within the framework of the receptor culture.

3. Even a superficial examination and comparison of the SL and R L

situational settings as discussed in (1) and (2) above quickly reveals
the inadequacy of a literal translation in most cases. Rather, another
important principle emerges: in order to communicate the full content
of the SL message, its verbal form will usually have to be changed in
the RL. By verbal form we are referring to the lexical and g r a m -
matical structure in particular, but on occasion even the larger
arrangement of the discourse may be involved as well, for example, in
the case of a flashback (displaced narrative sequence) or a digression
(comment by the author) which upsets the normal flow of the text.
The " c h a n g e " required may involve merely a slight shift in word order
or the substitution of one word for another, i.e., a contextual equiva-
lent for a literal correspondent; e.g., in place of "flesh" (sarks),
"people" in Ac 2:17, "sinful human nature" in Ro 8:3, and " h u m a n
point of view" in 1 Co 1:26. Frequently, however, the alteration
necessary for genuine naturalness is far more drastic than that. For
example, a relatively literal rendering of Ac 18:6 sounds like this:

[Paul] said to them, "Your blood be upon your heads! I

am innocent . . . ."

Here is how this strong warning of Paul is expressed idiomatically in

Chewa (a back translation):

"You have killed yourselves with your own heart. Those

things are yours, I have no cause." (i.e., You are
responsible for your own destruction. It is all your
fault—I had nothing to do with it.)

Indeed, the form is very different, but the meaning conveyed is the
same, and this includes not only the informational content, but more
important perhaps in this context, the expressive force (Paul was truly
angry and frustrated with his fellow Jews) as well as the imperative
impact (this was a powerful rebuke and condemnation, one that implied
serious consequences if left unheeded).
Often this "change in linguistic form" in the R L will mean a
corresponding alteration in the basic manner in which the meaning is
expressed; for example, it is a common feature of translations that the
text tends to be more " r e d u n d a n t " than the original. This simply
means that normally a greater amount of information which is implicit
in the biblical version has to be stated explicitly in the translation;
e.g.:

—thoughts/emotions/attitudes:
"We bee of vou. pray on our behalf to Chauta, your
God, lest we die . . . ." (1 Sm 12:19, Chewa)

An initial indication of the speakers' state of mind is necessary, i.e.,

Choonde, to clarify the exact nature of their request; it was a plea
and not a command, as a literal rendering might suggest.
—words:
" G o and wait for three days, then come back here
again and I will give vou vour answer." (1 Kg 12:5,
Chewa)

Without the final clause, which clearly manifests his intention,

Rehoboam's command to the people of Israel makes no sense in Chewa.

—actions:
So he went to the Tent of God and grabbed the points
on the corners of the table of sacrifice. (1 K g 1:50,
Chewa)

The destination of Adonijah's flight must be stated, for the average

reader would have no idea where "the horns of the altar" were.
Notice also that the term " h o r n s " cannot be rendered literally; not
only is it misleading (real animal horns are not being referred to), but
also the word (nyanga) has a negative connotation by virtue of its
association with traditional diviners and sorcerers.
It is important to stress the fact that there is no addition of
meaning in these various cases, only a change of state, i.e., from an
implicit to an explicit status. Other aspects of this most important
principle—change the form (where necessary!) in order to preserve the
content of the message—will be taken up in the following chapters,
particularly as they relate to the "cultural factor" in translation. It is
absolutely essential that the translator know how and when to apply
this principle correctly in practice if he is to communicate effectively
with his receptors.

4. As the translation is being prepared, it is also necessary to

consider the context of reception in order to increase the quality of
communication. This would include, first of all, the various supple-
mentary aids which are made available to help the reader understand
the portion of Scripture that he is reading, such extratextual devices
as section headings, cross references, footnotes, a glossary, book
introductions, illustrations, maps, and so forth.' Translators frequently
take these features for granted, or even as completely unnecessary
encumbrances to the text and to their task—as unwanted extra
baggage. They thus tend either to omit as much as they can get away
with or to leave this work until last when they will rush to get at
least some of it done. This is a mistake, for these "additional helps"
really do assist the reader if they are carefully done.
Section headings, for example, not only summarize the content of
a larger portion of text so the reader knows in general what is
coming next, but they also serve to segment the discourse in meaning-
ful ways, thus highlighting correspondences and other significant
relationships; e.g., the succession of kings in the books of Kings, or
on a smaller scale, the major divisions of Solomon's discourse on the
day of the Temple's dedication (1 K g 8). Similarly, footnotes are
essential as a means of indicating where significant alternate interpre-
tations occur in the text. In addition they may be used to convey
various types of information—cultural, geographical, textual, histor-
ical, etc.—which simply cannot be accommodated within the transla-
tion itself; e.g., the "Millo" of Jerusalem (1 K g 9:15), or the signifi-
cance of the name "Nehushtan" which was given to the bronze snake
that Moses had made (i.e., the word sounds like the Hebrew for
" s n a k e , " " b r o n z e , " and "unclean thing," 2 Kg 18:4). If these extra-
textual materials are prepared from the very start of the project, not
only will such work get easier as translators become more experienced
with it, but they will also become more expert in supplementing the
text for the reader with the necessary information at the right time.
This is especially critical where issues of a cultural nature affect the
receptor's comprehension of the biblical message, a point which will be
exemplified in many of the passages considered below.
Another important way to take the situation of reception into
consideration when translating is to obtain actual feedback from those
for whom the version is intended. This may be done in various ways,
from informal inquiries about one's likes and dislikes to elaborate
interviews and written tests for comprehension on published portions.
Translators must know about receptor stylistic preferences in addition
to their actual competence in understanding the text's content. How
will readers react to a spelling change from Maliya to Maria (Chewa),
for example? Or what would be their choice between the alternatives
mngelo 'angel' and wamthenga wa Mulungu 'messenger of God'? Does
the majority use -da or -na as the "past" tense marker? Over and
above its actual content, how does the expression bokosi la cipangano
'box of the agreement' (i.e., "ark of the covenant") sound to them? Is
it likely that most people will misunderstand a biblical custom such as
taking an oath upon the genitals of a man (Gn 24:2)? Is it possible, on
the other hand, that they might wrongly interpret a familiar practice
found in Scripture in the light of their own world view and way of
doing things (e.g., circumcision, G n 17)?
It is vital that we as translators have access to the thinking,
opinions, attitudes, etc., of our constituency before the text is fixed
in print. We must have the answers to these and a host of other
questions—not after the Bible has been published (then it's too
late)—but right now while we still have the chance to utilize their
input in order to improve the quality of God's communication to them.
In view of the importance that we attach to the receptor in trans-
lation theory, it is indeed strange that this is one of the most
neglected aspects of our work in practice.
The complexity of Bible translation ought to reflect itself in the
set of guidelines that a team adopts in order to carry out its tasK,
namely, one that takes into careful consideration the total c o m m u n i -
cation setting of both the original and the secondary message-pro-
ducing events. One of the most helpful methodologies that has emerged
in recent years is that of sociolinguistics, the study of language use in
the various socially-determined situational contexts that may occur in
a given speech community (cp. LSBT, Chapter 3). Context and c o m -
munication lie at the heart of understanding the message of Scripture
in its original setting and, above all, in our attempt to reformulate
that message within a completely new linguistic, historical, and
sociocultural environment.
The relevance of sociolinguistics to biblical studies may be briefly
illustrated by the following two examples. Perhaps it is simply a
matter of naturalness—a strange or foreign way of speaking—that
causes problems in a given passage. In Ne 5:14 Nehemiah is quoted as
saying, " . . . neither I nor my brethren ate the food . . . " (RSV).
But in modern English it is not polite to express a joint personal
reference by mentioning oneself first. Accordingly the G N B reads:
" . . . neither my relatives nor I ate the food . . . In Chewa, on
the other hand, the Hebrew form is the more appropriate, as one must
first establish the social point of reference in a conversation; thus
" . . . I and my brothers (relatives), we did not eat any food . . .
Frequently, however, it is more than mere idiomaticity which is
affected by a disregard for proper usage within a specific social
context. When the King of Persia, for instance, responds to Nehemiah's
appeal by saying, "What is it that you w a n t ? " (Ne 2:4, GNB), the
result would be rather insulting if rendered literally into Chewa.
Indeed, it would sound as if Nehemiah had been verbally demoted from
his privileged position as the king's personal cupbearer to the status
of a common beggar out in the streets. Sociolinguistically, a much
more fitting form of response would be: " N o w what is it that you'd
like to request of m e ? " Additional examples of this type will be
discussed in Chapter 6.
But the translator cannot limit the scope of his inquiry to the
social context alone, important as that may be. He must broaden his
perspective to encompass the entire culture of the receptor group. The
influence of the wider culture upon the language itself is the first
thing to take note of, that is, the way in which a language organizes
and segments reality in terms of specific semantic categories and
relations. The root qdsh in Hebrew, for example, includes a wide range
of religious notions, some of which may be completely incompatible in
English, viz., " h o l y , " "hallow," "dedicate/consecrate" (to God's
service), and "sanctify," together with "sodomite" and " p r o s t i t u t e " —
the latter with reference to the religious practice of local pagan
fertility cults (Nida, 1960, p. 36). For the Tonga of Zambia, on the
other hand, the idea of "consecration" is even more narrowly
restricted to the custom of purification, whereby a person, male or
female, who has become socially "unclean," e.g., through the death of
a spouse, must be "cleansed" by means of an elaborate set of
socioreligious rites. These may incorporate an act of ritual sexual
intercourse to rid the survivor of the lingering spirit of the deceased.
The linguistically-related aspects of culture need to be taken into
consideration, then, when one carries out a semantic (componential)
analysis as part of the process of finding suitable R L translation
equivalents for the various concepts found in the SL text, especially
those of a socially complex a n d / o r technical nature.
The cultural factor becomes even more crucial where the thought
process itself is concerned. Language and thought (including one's
perceptions, attitudes, values, etc.) are of course integrally related,
and both reflect the cultural setting in which they are realized. Had
Nehemiah been speaking Tonga, for example, it would not have been
necessary for him to encourage his countrymen to " . . . fight for
. . . your wives and your homes" (Ne 4:14). In the eyes of the typical
Tonga man, his wife is his " h o m e " (lit. ing'anda 'house'), for she is
the one who makes the family grow and keeps it together. Thus, when
a young man gets married, he is said to have "begun a house." But
we would like to take the argument a step further in order to
highlight once again the importance of culture at the basic level of a
people's world view, for this is where the process of intercultural
communication so frequently breaks down, with the translator being
completely unaware that this has happened. The problem is that
different underlying presuppositions and conceptual categories will
naturally lead to different interpretations and conclusions. For
example, when the disciples asked Christ what was the cause of a
certain blind man's affliction, they took for granted the fact that
some grievous moral fault was involved. According to their thinking,
which was quite traditional in this respect (as we learn from the book
of Job, e.g., 8:4, 11:14), the man was born blind either because of his
own sin (which seems a bit strange under the circumstances) or that
of his parents (Jn 9:2). Christ replies (9:3) with essentially the same
answer that God gave Job (Jb 38-42), namely, that his dealings with
men cannot be measured on a scale so crudely based upon inevitable
cause-effect relationships.
Now for the Western reader the disciples' query sounds c o m -
pletely out of place. From his rationalistic and scientific perspective,
the question would have been, how did it happen? Did the mother
contract some disease during pregnancy which predictably has this
effect? Did she perhaps take a certain drug that might inflict blind-
ness upon an unborn fetus? Or was there an anatomical defect that
denied the child its sight? For the Chewa reader, however, a different
set of questions comes to mind, one that stems from his particular
outlook on life. On the linguistic surface his basic concern seems
similar to that of Christ's disciples: who caused this misfortune? But
from this point on the Bantu world view leads to a totally different
conclusion; it has nothing to do with morality at all. Rather, the
answer lies buried in some hostile interpersonal relationship which has
consequently manifested itself in this socially aberrant action: a
sorcerer, at the request of the father's or, more likely, mother's
enemy from within the extended family or community, has no doubt
been engaged to magically afflict the baby with blindness. What
remains is to determine the culprit—the " w h o ? " — t h r o u g h divination
in order to punish him (her) and, if possible, to get him to undo his
destructive spell. Thus Jesus' reply is just as shocking and unexpected
to proponents of any one of the three perspectives outlined a b o v e —
and, we would venture to say, to any other natural philosophy of life,
whether modern or traditional in outlook.
The meaning of each and every verbal message is therefore the
product of both the functional intentions of the source as encoded in
his text and also the degree of comprehension and response of the
receptor as he subsequently decodes these same words. Since the act
of interpretation can never take place independently of the socio-
cultural matrix in which it occurs, it follows that the communication
event must be diligently analyzed and evaluated accordingly in order
to keep the process from aborting or to prevent the message from
being misunderstood. Obviously in cases where (at least) two i n d e -
pendent contextual settings are involved, as when a translation is
being undertaken, the need for attention to this matter is corres-
pondingly increased.
As the preceding discussion would suggest, contextualizing the
biblical message so that it communicates meaningfully to people today
is a necessary task, but due to the difficulties involved, one that
cannot be taken lightly. Whose responsibility is it then to see that the
j o b gets done properly? The answer is clearly shown us in the Word
of God itself: it lies with the source—the communicator. Indeed,
according to the Genesis record, it was God, the original source of all
things, who established human culture as part of his creative activity.
Since it is essentially a social phenomenon, one that is realized as one
individual interacts with another in his/her environment, from the
biblical perspective culture was initiated when Yahweh fashioned a
woman " a n d brought her to the m a n " (Gn 2:22). He thereby brought
into being the family, which is the basic relational unit of every
society on earth. Furthermore, culture is not merely a passive state or
condition, but it is manifested as man and woman actively seek to
shape, control, and utilize the environment in which they live. This
then is the task which the L O R D God himself assigned to the first
man when he created a " g a r d e n , " complete with beasts and birds of
every kind, and put the man in charge of managing it (Gn 2)—a
charge which was later made more explicit after the Flood (Gn 9:1-7).
In all of this activity we note that in every instance of c o m m u -
nication between God and the people he created, it was God who took
the initiative, right from the beginning (Gn 3:9, 4:6,9; 6:13; etc.), and
so has it been ever since. Thus the eternal, omniscient God chose to
contextualize his message to man at a definite time in this world's
history, within a specific human frame of reference (i.e., the H e b r e w -
Greek world view). He utilized a particular linguistic code, for that
was the only way in which his will, transmitted verbally, could be
conveyed intelligibly to his human receptors. In other words, in order
to communicate with his creation, God had to restrict himself to the
particular categories of thought and forms of message expression that
were available to people, and this included a specific cultural orienta-
tion. As part of his model communication "strategy," God employed a
great deal of anthropomorphic language, cast within the limiting
framework of a single cultural horizon, in order to make himself and
his ways understandable to man by analogy, that is, through descrip-
tion and explanation in human terms, such as heart, arm, eyes, right
hand, dwelling place, throne, love, anger, mercy, repent, etc. All of
the great theological concepts of Scripture are expressed in terms of
familiar human relationships: husband (Yahweh)-wife (Israel),
F a t h e r - 5 o n , covenant, redemption, expiation, mediation, and so forth.
Finally at the right time, to make absolutely sure that nobody would
mistake his plan and purpose, God's very Word became incarnate,
" b o r n of a [Jewish] woman, born under the [Jewish] law" (Ga 4:4).
Thus the gospel was contextualized in the most concrete, human way
possible in that manger at Bethlehem and also later on Calvary's cross
when the divine Father forsook his beloved Son in order that the Son
might draw all people unto himself (Jn 12:32).
During his earthly ministry, Christ, too, was a model c o m m u n i -
cator, clothing his teachings in a garb which was familiar to the
particular audience he happened to be addressing at the time, that is,
typically in d o w n - t o - e a r t h imagery that reflected the mind-set and life
style of his hearers: the shepherd and his sheep, the sower and his
seed, the priest and the Samaritan, the rich man and his shrewd
manager, and so on. Christ's apostles followed their master's policy,
taking care to adapt the form of their message to fit the situational
context of the recipients of their letters. Paul was particularly adept
at this, since he crossed so many cultural boundaries during the course
of his travels. His statement that " I have become all things to all
m e n " (1 Co 9:19-23) applies just as much to the message that he
preached as it did to the life he lived. His use of the metaphor of the
"body with many members" (1 Co 12:12), for example, was a particu-
larly appropriate way of describing the dynamic nature of the New
Testament Church as a living organism in contrast to a static organi-
zation. This was especially true in the G r a e c o - R o m a n cultural context
of Paul's day in which three social institutions, or recognized "bodies"
of individuals in close interaction, dominated the lives of many of
those to whom he addressed his epistles: the city community (politeia),
the household group (oikonomia), and the voluntary association (koino-
nia)—terms which were themselves employed as images reflecting the
unique fellowship that resulted from faith in Christ (see Tidball, 1984,
Chapter 6).
Today's translator cannot afford to ignore these models of
effective intercultural communication as set before him in the Bible
itself. He must therefore take the extratextual cultural setting of the
message - transmission process very seriously, with respect to both the
original as well as his own situation. He needs to determine, first of
all, the precise meaning of the SL text (in terms of content, intent,
and effect) within its own sociocultural and historical context. And
secondly, he must accurately discover what that message will mean to
those whom he is translating for. To this end he will try to specify
the influence which the receptor culture has upon the biblical text,
namely, where the average receptor's world view and life style
correspond to, and hence reinforce, the message; and where, on the
other hand, his perspectives, presuppositions, value system, and
thought process (which he holds largely in common with those of his
social group) might modify, obscure, or even distort the original,
particularly in the area of religious beliefs and practices. How can the
translator learn to predict where such problems of perceptual and
conceptual interference are going to occur? How then can he resolve
these differences by applying a method of translation which seeks to
"contextualize" the Scriptures in their new setting (i.e., concern for
the R L text) and yet not "deculturize" the original, hence falsifying it
in the process (concern for SL text)?
In the chapters which follow we will focus our discussion upon
the receptor side of the communications diagram presented earlier
(which, we must remember, represents a dynamic process, one that is
constantly in flux, not a static state), i.e.:

S M —> R

(R = R l , R 2 , R 3 , depending on the setting being referred to).

By this emphasis we are not suggesting that the source side is any
less important, but we are adopting this perspective simply because the
significance of the receptor and his culture within the total activity of
translation has not always been given the attention it deserves,
whether in books (articles) on translation theory or in actual practice.
In some situations, on the other hand, the receptor environment is
stressed so much that the uniqueness of the original has been lost. In
other words, certain culturally and theologically relevant features of
the biblical message have been eliminated in the attempt to " i n d i -
genize" one's translation. Here, for example, is how the Twenty-third
Psalm begins in the version of Capt. J. Rogers of the Merchant
Marines:

The Lord is my Pilot, I shall not drift.

He lighteth me across the dark waters
He steereth me in the deep channels;
He keepeth my log.

Or observe the transculturization that is characteristic of C. L.

Jordan's Cotton Patch Version. 1 Co 10:32 reads like this in the RSV:

Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church

of God . . . .

The passage is transformed as follows in Jordan's rendering:

Set a good example for both whites and Negroes—for

God's whole church . . . .

The translator whose goal is to produce a dynamic equivalent of the

Bible in his language will try to avoid both extremes—either an
overvaluation or a devaluation of the receptor culture in relation to
the SL text. In the next chapter we will begin our own program of
"contextualization" by presenting some of the broad socioreligious
characteristics of the Tonga and Chewa peoples. This general back-
ground will provide a framework for understanding and evaluating
examples of a more specific nature which follow—passages that
illustrate a number of the major problems encountered and the
meaning potentials discovered when reproducing the Word of God
within a Central African cultural context.
 CHAPTER 3

A Surve y of the Re ligious-Cult ura l M a t rix

of Central Africa

No form of communication, whether verbal or nonverbal, ever

takes place in a sociocultural vacuum. Rather, it is always influenced
in various ways by current events and the physical environment on the
one hand, and by the life style and world view of the people con-
cerned on the other. The latter is especially important, that is, the
concepts, opinions, attitudes, expectations, etc., of both the source of
the message and also the receptors. Therefore it is necessary to
examine more closely some of the principal features of this conceptual
framework in order to determine, to the extent that this is possible,
where the major bridges as well as barriers are likely to develop in
the transmission of the Scriptures from a biblical SL into a Bantu R L
(the Tonga and Chewa peoples acting as representatives from Central
Africa).
In this chapter we will focus upon the religious aspect of a
Central African receptor's culture and summarize some of the central
principles of the traditional Tonga/Chewa world view in this regard.
Such background material, however sketchy and incomplete, will be
helpful later on when we consider a number of the culturally-related
problems which national translators have experienced in trying to
render the Bible meaningfully for their people. This is a crucial
exercise that every translator must engage in for himself; he has to
stand back, as it were, and learn to examine his own culture critically
and analytically in order to determine its specific areas of emphasis
and tension, particularly at those points where the processes of social
change are currently operating to modify traditionally accepted values,
beliefs, customs, and so on. The same process has to be carried out
with respect to biblical culture—in its varied manifestations, of course
(the N T writers, for example, were influenced in different degrees by
their Jewish background as well as by Hellenistic thought). The results
of these two distinct studies must then be compared, especially where
significant differences appear, so that the necessary application to
Scripture translation can be m a d e — i n ways which we will be dis-
cussing in more detail below.
"Religion" may be defined as any form of communication, verbal
or nonverbal, with the supernatural, whether the latter is conceived of
as a personal being (or group of such beings) or some impersonal force
that has the power to influence one's life (see Nida, 1960, p.10).
Various types of religious communication are possible. Direct c o m -
munication with man as the source and God as the receptor is
exemplified by songs or prayers (verbal) and by such nonverbal
activities as dancing, pouring libations, offering sacrifices, etc. (which
may, of course, be accompanied by words). Different degrees of
indirectness enter into the process when intermediaries are involved,
whether human (e.g., a priest) or supernatural (e.g., ancestral spirits).
Man also communicates to his fellowman about God through myths,
proverbs, taboos having a divine sanction (e.g., incest), and about the
supernatural in general through the symbolic representation inherent in
typical ritualized behavior, such as that associated with traditional
rites of passage. On the other hand, God communicates with man
directly via dreams, visions, omens, and special portents in nature. He
may also send messages indirectly through prophets, diviners, mediums
(spirit possession), oracles, and so forth. The "messages" of religious
communication and the "settings" in which these are transmitted vary
considerably depending on the underlying beliefs which motivate them
(e.g., those oriented toward a proper attitude versus those stressing
proper action with respect to the deity) as well as the differing
results which they are intended to effect (e.g., remedial-healing,
prophylactic-protection, ameliorative-blessing, communal-fellow-
ship, and eucharistic-thanksgiving). Religious communication, like
religious beliefs in general, tends to reflect the geographical, histori-
cal, social, and political background and experience of its practition-
ers, or devotees (e.g., among the Hebrews, Yahweh was referred to as
being a " J u d g e " and " K i n g , " the God of Israel's "fathers," who
"delivered the people out of Egypt," and who "dwelled in Mt. Zion").
The religious component includes a belief system, an organization
with special institutions, and a specific outlook on life—and death.
This assumes different levels of importance depending upon the culture
concerned. In much of Western society religion is for all practical
purposes a peripheral activity revolving, along with similar ones (such
as contributing to one's local charity), about the elements that "really
matter" (e.g., economic prosperity, financial security, social achieve-
ment, etc.). In most if not all traditional African societies, however,
religion is central; it is that aspect of the world view according to
which the entire community orders and evaluates all of its thinking
and behavior—its social customs, relationships, activities, and institu-
tions; it is the " c e m e n t " that binds the structure of society together
and gives it stability in the face of both adversity and change. This
situation, as it pertains to the Chewa people for example, may be
roughly (and only partially) schematized as follows:

rites of passage
chieftainship ^ magic/"medicine"

kinship relations RELIGION - secret society (nyau)

oral traditions agricultural activities

social customs

Chewa society is thus viewed as an intricate network of multidimen-

sional relations that link the different cultural domains (only some of
which a r e — o r c a n — b e indicated above) in a complex variety of ways.
Like the spokes of a bicycle wheel, however, they all have a primary
connection with the religious component which functions as the hub of
the whole complex. This is, of course, a dynamic rather than a static
model, consisting of flexible, "fuzzy" (as opposed to "fixed") clusters,
or bundles, of features, units, interrelationships, trends, tendencies,
and points of prominence. This is because any society, no matter how
conservative and tradition-bound, is always in a state of continual flux
and development in response to the ever-changing stimuli, conditions,
influences, etc., of the environment, whether animate or inanimate,
natural or " m a n - m a d e " (in the sense of originating from nature or
man).
Chewa/Tonga traditional religion is very anthropocentric and
utilitarian, whether practiced by non-Christians or those who affirm to
be "Christians." That is to say, man stands at the center of the
universe—or rather we should say, man as a member of his society,
relatives as well as nonrelatives, for the individual is never considered
or evaluated apart from his place as a member of a cohesive group.
Community, furthermore, incorporates the departed members of
society as well as all the living, for the former have simply passed the
final "liminal stage" to a new mode of existence which is still
integrally linked with, and organized in a way similar to, the one
which they left in life. The ancestors comprise that "great cloud of
witnesses" (which is how H b 12:1 can readily be interpreted in an
African context) who continue to participate in the activities of the
living by serving as mediators between, and often as agents for, man
and the so-called " H i g h " God.
God, on the other hand, remains more or less aloof from human
existence, except to dispense major blessings such as life, health, rain,
the harvest, e t c , and also in the case of gross violations of the social
order, to mete out certain chastisements which affect the community
as a whole, e.g., drought, disease, infertility, pestilence—and ulti-
mately death, though the latter is generally viewed as having a
"secondary" human cause. The existence of God, a single deity, is
thus a fundamental religious presupposition in C / T thought. There is
no place for the so-called " G o d - i s - d e a d " theology in Africa. We might
note in passing that the two basic names for God in the Old Testa-
ment may be distinguished quite naturally in Chewa, viz. ELOHIM,
" G o d , " by the more generic and widespread term Mulungu, and
YAHWEH, " t h e L O R D , " by a regionally more specific name Chauta
(perhaps originally a praise name relating to the rainbow).
The ancestral spirits, which form the nucleus of Central African
natural religion, serve in the capacity of the "watchdogs" of society.
They uphold the ancient traditions and intervene supernaturally
(especially via dreams and certain individuals whom they choose to
"possess") to indicate to the living that an offense has taken place
with regard to themselves or their kinsmen on earth a n d / o r in the
customary way of doing things. Indirectly, then, the ancestors act to
establish and control the standards of behavior and the moral values
of the community. In keeping with an underlying "synthetic" world
view, one which seeks to unite diverse elements together, there is an
emphasis on harmony (e.g., in interpersonal relations and in a general
avoidance of competition), wholeness (which encompasses not only the
departed, but the world of nature as well), fertility (i.e., to enlarge
and extend the clan), continuity (e.g., there exists no great meta-
physical barrier between the land of the living and that of the
dead—it is all one), conservatism (since change has the potential of
upsetting society's links with the past), and dynamism. The latter
refers to the belief that the universe consists of various " p o w e r s , "
both personal and impersonal, seen and unseen, not the least of which
is life itself. These forces control man's existence, but, to a certain
extent at least, man can also control them for either beneficial or
harmful purposes (depending upon one's perspective) by means of
innate ability (charisma), esoteric knowledge, a n d / o r magical practice.
Much of life, therefore, is consumed in the effort to procure such
powers or to protect oneself against them.
Man's acts of religious devotion, in turn, reflect this order of
existence, for they are essentially pragmatic rites—various types of
bloody and unbloody sacrifices in particular. We note in this con-
nection that people relate to reality, including the supernatural,
primarily through ritual practice, rather than by means of intellectual
dogmas. These function to ensure continued blessings and to prevent,
if possible, any break in the well-ordered whole of life, but more
often to repair any rupture in relations that has occurred between
man and the ancestors or the deity. Such sacrifices, prayers, and
offerings do not constitute acts of worship directed toward the spirits
per se, as some have supposed. They rather reflect an attitude of
reverence and respect, mixed with filial fear, for those departed
"relatives" who are viewed as being in a position of authority,
especially in their comparative nearness to Chauta, the Great Spirit.
They must be kept " i n their place," that is, not too far away (lest
they get angry over being "forgotten") and yet, paradoxically, not too
near either (lest they interfere with one's daily life).
The practice of mediation is crucial in the successful operation of
Chewa society, whether purely human relationships are involved (e.g.,
marriage) or the interaction between man and the supernatural (e.g.,
initiation). Not only is God approached through mediators, the
ancestors, but human mediators are frequently necessary, in turn, to
communicate with the spirits—to ensure their blessing and protection
as well as to please them before some calamity occurs, to appease
them when they are offended, and to ascertain their will in order to
amend any wrong that has been done. These are the religious s p e -
cialists which play an important role in the community: the priests
(elder leaders of the clan), rainmakers, diviners, and doctors. They all
function to maintain the social equilibrium and harmony which are so
vital to life.
"Sin," which is basically a state (not simply the action per se),
stems from an overturning of the social order by behavior that
destroys peaceful interpersonal relations, or it is the result of some
violation of taboo or cultic regulation, the misuse of magical power,
etc. Therefore it must be atoned for or somehow set right so that the
condition of " c o m m u n i t y " might be reestablished. Sin is thus not so
much a wrong committed against a holy God (the biblical viewpoint) as
it is a violation of communal rights and obligations. The task of the
diviner (woombeza) a n d / o r doctor (sing'anga) is to determine the
nature of the offense, who is guilty, what compensation needs to be
made, and how the offender may be rehabilitated, "cleansed," etc., so
that he or she might again resume his/her place as a productive
member of the group, not only in a material sense, but also, and
perhaps more important, in contributing to the well-being of the whole
body.
The sing'anga also deals in both defensive and offensive " m e d i -
cine," which is any concoction or potion that is effective in accom-
plishing some personal or socially-oriented goal. Medicine is utilized to
protect oneself from illness and death and one's property from the
attacks of "witches," who are the personification of evil in that they
aim to disrupt social relations, either out of pure malice or out of the
wicked desire to gain a profit at the expense of others—materially,
socially, or spiritually (by manifesting extraordinary magical powers
and abilities). Medicine may also be obtained by individuals who wish
to gain revenge or to right a wrong. It depends upon one's perspec-
tive, of course, as to whether such activity is to be regarded as
" g o o d " or " b a d " — a g a i n , in a social more than a moral sense. The
distinction between "religion" and " m a g i c " here becomes rather
difficult to define. That is to say, instead of genuine, purposeful
communication with the supernatural, magic—whether "sympathetic"
(imitative: based upon similarity) or "contagious" (associative: based
upon contact)—involves the mere manipulation of symbolism, which is
supposed to represent one's control over supernatural forces, in order
to gain one's ends or to influence the events of one's life. Indeed,
there is undoubtedly a considerable overlapping of the two notions.
This was as true in biblical times (e.g., Jacob's increase in livestock,
G n 30:37f.; 31:9) and in certain segments of Western society (e.g., the
popularity of religious symbols, icons, and amulets) as it is in a Bantu
setting.
As John Mbiti has observed, many African religious ideas and
practices are focused upon the "eschatological" aspects of human
existence, namely, death and the spirits of the departed. This certainly
typifies the Chewa as well as the Tonga perspective. This eschatology,
however, is not a future-orientated one, as expressed in the Bible,
especially in the New Testament. On the contrary, it appears to be
directed more towards the past and the ancestors who have gone on
before, for that is the destiny of every man. " D e a t h , " in the sense of
a separation (not a cessation of life, but a change of state), occurs
ultimately when the " n a m e " of a spirit is no longer remembered by
the living. There is a correspondence in the Hebrew and Chewa
concept of " n a m e " as a representation of one's being a n d / o r person-
ality. There is a notion of immortality here in that "forgotten" spirits
are not annihilated, nor do they disappear from human history, but
they move on to a shadowy, "nameless" existence (in some respects
like the Hebrew idea of "Sheol," Jb 7:9-10) as they congregate at
certain natural habitats, such as springs, waterfalls, caves, hills,
gullies, rocks, big shady trees, and so forth, manifesting themselves
now primarily to play supernatural " t r i c k s " upon those who venture
too near (e.g., mysterious sounds, flashing lights, fires, etc.) Such
spots of increased spiritual "activity" often become regarded as
shrines {malende in Tonga), where general sacrifices and prayers are
made in times of special need.
Life beyond the grave is not regarded as being either " h e a v e n "
or "hell" in the biblical sense, although there is a " r e w a r d " of sorts
for the upright person, especially one who produced many children,
because he/she will remain longer in the living memory of those whom
he/she left behind, and hence will enjoy a more immediate state of
consciousness and activity. The reverse is true for the antisocial
person, especially witches, wizards, sorcerers, murderers, etc.—those
who have not taken proper care of their relatives, fulfilled their
kinship obligations, or acted in a responsible manner toward members
of the wider community. Such individuals will be "punished" by a poor
attendance at their funeral and by subsequently being ignored by all
those who knew them, even their closest of kin. They, too, may be
" r e m e m b e r e d , " but in a negative way by receiving the blame for
various misfortunes and maladies which they still have the power to
inflict upon the innocent. The afterlife is conceived of primarily in
concrete terms largely as an extension of the present. Many of the
socioreligious rituals and ceremonies practiced at the key stages in
one's life cycle, especially at the time of one's maturation involve the
symbolism of death and rebirth, anticipating, as it were, the change of
state which takes place then, i.e., from a " b o d y " (thupi) with "life"
(moyo) and an inner being (or " h e a r t , " mtima) to a spirit (rnzimu).
The biblical notion of a person possessing a "soul" or "spirit" while
he is still alive (e.g., Jb 32:8; Ps 31:5) is therefore quite foreign to the
Chewa view of man's essential being or nature. Neither is there any
"resurrection," for it is not really necessary, since death does not
mean the end of one's personal existence. However, instances of a
bodily resurrection, or a transformation into an animal form, which is
effected through magical means, are common themes in oral tradition
as well as in the anecdotes of folk belief.
The essence of life—and " p o w e r " — t h e n , is for a person to
insure immortality through his offspring, for they will be in a position
to retain his ties to the "extended family" on earth by "keeping in
touch" through individual and communal religitus rites and obser-
vances. The greatest blessing, according to the traditional point of
view (which, of course, is no longer a homogenous perspective), was to
live a long life and have many children. Great emphasis was placed
upon the parental, as distinct from the conjugal, aspect of marriage.
Procreation was, in the final analysis, a sacred duty, for it served to
propel the wheel of life which God had originally set in motion. The
practices of polygamy, and cross-cousin and levirate marriage, among
other things, helped to satisfy this basic need. Marriage itself was
viewed not so much as a relationship between individuals as an
alliance between families and clans (social groups). The similarities
between this and the Hebrew view of life are certainly striking and
thus helpful for providing Africans with a unique insight into many of
the practices as well as the teaching of Scripture.
Morality, on the other hand, like mortality, was conceived of
chiefly in physical terms—not as a desire for "righteousness" in the
sense of entering upon a spiritual, "covenant" relationship with God
and striving to obey his precepts. Rather, it consisted in establishing
and maintaining the appropriate horizontal (with the living) and
vertical (with the dead) social relationships in the community. This
does not mean that life in a traditional setting was idyllically free of
tensions, discord, and factions. There is enough suspicion, distrust, and
jealousy that are part of human nature to prevent this from happening
anywhere. There were also problems, such as sudden illnesses, death,
and destruction that needed to be answered. Among the Chewa/Tonga
there were no nonhuman, personal agents of evil, such as devils or
demons, which could explain these often frequently-occurring
disasters, nor could they be attributed simply to "natural causes," for
none were apparently observable. So the solution to such mysteries
had to be found within society itself and in the realm of the super-
natural.
It thus surfaced in the diverse beliefs associated with witchcraft,
which, as we have observed, continues to be the reason given today
for most of the major misfortunes that befall one in life (the activity
of hostile spirits is a distant second as an explanation). What could be
more natural to posit as a reason for the problems troubling society
than those misfits who appeared to be manifesting antisocial behavior
in one form or another? That is, of course, in most cases a subjective
judgment, and thus the door was opened for abuse in determining the
guilty parties. The same is true of the many different taboos, restric-
tions, and superstitions which developed around certain activities (e.g.,
hunting, cooking, etc.), events (a difficult labor or abortion), and
human conditions (e.g., menstruation, epilepsy). The violation of these
customs thus provided another handy excuse for the appearance of
misfortune. But only those who were believed, or claimed, to be
endowed with supernatural insight could know for sure. At least the
traditional doctors and diviners helped to undo some of the damage
caused through errors in their prognosis, as they initiated a means for
effecting a reconciliation between estranged parties and for restoring
injured interpersonal relations, by eliciting a "confession" from the
"guilty" and by means of the fines and penalties which were subse-
quently levied. Such indigenous practitioners also compensated in part
for their general ignorance of the physical/biological nature of injury
or disease through their attention to its social/spiritual aspects (which
are largely ignored in Western medicine).
The following diagram summarizes some of the key elements of
traditional religion as believed and practiced in Central Africa. It
indicates the various positions on the hierarchy of spiritual " p o w e r "
which is thought to animate and control the universe. This concep-
tualization is not explicitly taught as such, for as was mentioned
earlier, religion among the Bantu is not viewed as being a separate
"discipline" or activity, but rather it integrates all aspects of life
here on earth.

A = God
/ B
\ B = great ancestors
C = living dead
/ k. \
/ superior \
/ spiritual forces \^
ipr = interpersonal
<lpr< CMAN) >ipO relations
\ spiritual forces /
\ inferior /
\ \ V a = animals
a / /
b = plants
\ c / c = inanimate natural
objects

This world view is definitely man-centered, as are all natural religions.

Man must relate to his fellowman on a "horizontal" plane, that is, on
the same ontological level of being. Like a link in a vast cosmic chain,
man must also relate "vertically" to higher, more powerful spiritual
beings: to the ancestral spirits of one or two generations past who are
still " r e m e m b e r e d " in prayers and offerings; to the famous, founding
ancestral spirits of the tribe and clan (or "national" heroes); and
ultimately to God the Creator, who is generally quite removed from
the everyday affairs of human existence. Man must also relate to the
inferior spiritual forces of his physical environment, the inanimate
objects of which may be associated with certain, usually mischievous,
spiritual beings (whether they are of human origin or not is not
always clear). Their natural features may possess supernatural power,
since God created them. Hence they too have the potential to affect
man's life for good or ill. Man's spiritual links with certain animals
are reflected in the clan totems (e.g., crocodile, lion, elephant,
buffalo, etc.), whose ancient connections with humanity are often
deeply shrouded in mystery, but which manifest themselves in certain
customs of the present (e.g., the prohibition against either killing or
eating the meat of one's totemic animal). Many of these relationships
also find symbolical expression in traditional tales, whose character
roles are played by the same animals, and which transmit on the
narrative surface various acceptable and unacceptable standards of
social behavior.
From this concept of reality it follows that among the most
necessary and respected members of the human community are those
religious practitioners who possess the ability (whether innate or
derived) to manipulate and control these different forces, thereby
preserving the well-ordered whole and a harmonious integration of all
of its constituents. These are the medicine men (the "doctors"),
diviners, and priests (rainmakers), whose function it is to help clients,
both individuals and the community at large, to preserve the status
quo (i.e., the "balance of powers") and to keep interpersonal relations,
whether vertical or horizontal, in good repair so that the necessary
affairs of life and death may continue to operate smoothly. This
essential sociophatic role may be diagrammed as follows:

impiety Sorcery

reconciliation

Spirits < - ^MEDIATION > => Man

reciprocity

Thus, as was pointed out earlier, the knowledge of how intermediaries

operate is crucial in order to understand how a Bantu society func-
tions to maintain the stability of its institutions and the well-being of
its members. Since there is a hierarchy of forces in the universe, the
status of those higher up on the "ladder" of spirit power needs to be
respected and maintained. This is accomplished by the different rules
and taboos governing society as well as by the various mediators,
including the religious specialists mentioned above, who serve to relate
one person or family/clan with another or with the ancestral spirits,
who in turn relate the people to God. All thinking and behavior is
group-oriented and evaluated according to what will serve the best
interests (usually conceived in physical terms) of the whole, to which
one's individual desires and aspirations must conform.
There are two major evils, then, which operate to oppose and to
fracture the unity of the group. One force works to disrupt man's
communion with his ancestors. That is "impiety," whereby a person
(or a group of persons) neglects his (their) obligations over against
those members of the community who now exist as spirits (through the
lack of offerings, prayers, names given to the newly born, etc.). The
other force acts to destroy man's relations with his fellow man
through antisocial behavior (which originates in feelings of enmity,
jealousy, etc.) This is sorcery—or witchcraft (the boundary between
the conscious and the unconscious manipulation of negative super-
natural forces to enhance one's own power, wealth, and prestige is ill-
defined if present at all). This is the greatest crime against society,
and the most prevalent. When misfortune strikes, the important
question is not " H o w did this h a p p e n ? " but " W h y ? " and "Who caused
i t ? " The two possible sources are the spirits and sorcerers (witches).
The task of the diviner and the "doctor" then is to find out the
answers and to suggest a solution (normally through magical means)
that will both protect the innocent and effect an ultimate reconcilia-
tion of the parties involved. There must be a restoration of equilib-
r i u m — a calming of the forces and feelings which have been upset. In
these situations of interpersonal tension and antagonism, the reestab-
lishment of harmony is more important than punishment of the guilty.
And to prevent incidents like this from occurring at all, the principle
of reciprocity—mutual giving—pervades all social relations, as well as
the interaction between man and the spirits and God himself. " I do so
that you will d o , " the principle of give and take (do ut des), is a
truth to which a great many proverbs also attest, e.g., kupatsa ndi
kuika 'to give (to another) is to set aside (for a rainy day).' Most
aspects of Chewa and Tonga culture (world view + behavior), both
positive and negative (from the perspective of the people themselves),
can be explained with reference to these two concepts, namely, the
hierarchy of spiritual power(s), which must not be violated, and the
need for mediation to integrate and to preserve fellowship and the
harmonious whole.
A final point to note about this complex of forces, both great
and small, is the intricate balance whereby they are integrated with
one another in the world view. There may be some gaps, inconsis-
tencies, and even apparent contradictions (e.g., in Tonga religious
ideology the same ancestral spirit, muzimo, can impart certain features
of his/her personality to completely different individuals). And yet,
these do not cause a crisis of faith for the adherents of this belief
system, in which (as in others the world over) the Gestalt principle
operates, i.e., the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and
therefore resolves any seeming aberrations. The Christian c o m m u n i -
cator, and the Bible translator is included here, must always bear in
mind that where his message has upset the balance and has created a
conceptual gap, he has the responsibility of showing how God in his
wisdom and mercy has already prepared an infinitely greater functional
substitute—one which the traditional religious belief or practice may,
in fact, be a dim reflection of. Who, for example, is better suited to
assume the mediatorial role of the ancestors than God's own Son, who
came to earth to bridge the chasm that separated a loving Creator
from his rebellious people? Thus, no further sacrifices of appeasement,
atonement, or protection are necessary because of what Christ in his
life and vicarious death accomplished for all—a full and free recon-
ciliation with the Father.
This survey of some of the basic concepts underlying the
traditional religious system of the Chewa/Tonga people (and their
neighbors in Central Africa) shows the extent to which spiritual beings
and supernatural processes permeate their entire way of life and
thinking. In certain respects this is very similar to the world view
adopted by the Hebrews/Jews and hence also assumed by the biblical
writers. Indeed, there are many striking similarities, and this helps the
communication process along considerably—in matters as basic as the
common assumption of the existence of God to and including such
detailed beliefs and practices as the inherent power of blessings and
curses, the reality of personal evil forces in the world, the efficacy of
sacrificial offerings and associated prayers and religious rites, the
validity of supernatural communication via dreams and visions, the
social acceptability of polygamous marriages, the occurrence of
miracles and the operation of magic, the importance of ritual in
religious worship, and so on. In other, respects, however, there are
some important differences—differences which certainly affect the
way in which the average receptor reads and understands the Scrip-
tures, for example, with regard to theological issues such as: the
immediacy/distance of God to/from one's everyday life, the "exclu-
sivism" of Yahweh (versus the syncretistic, accommodative tendencies
of African religion), the nature and consequences of " s i n , " the need
for forgiveness and ultimately "salvation," the ultimate source of evil
in the world, the meaning and purpose of worship/sacrifice, man's
origin, identity, final destiny, and so forth. We might summarize these
basic differences in religious belief and practice as follows (after Nida,
1968, p . 81):

MAN'S RELIGIOUS RELATIONSHIP TO G O D

Old Testament Traditional African

a) the barrier to fellowship is God has withdrawn from man out

man's sin; man has with- of pique over some minor offense
drawn from God, his or personal failing
"Father"

b) Yahweh takes the initiative man takes the initiative in

to open up a dialogue aimed seeking God to appease him, not
at restoring man to sonship for the original fault, but simply
to keep on the "good side" of
God

c) the reason is Yahweh's man is motivated by his need for

undeserved love for man (or some material blessing or for
" m e r c y " ) ; a spiritual rela- protection; a contractual, utili-
tionship tarian arrangement

d) communication and com- communication is effected and

munion is made possible by the desired results achieved b y
the establishment of a right specialized religious knowledge
moral relationship between (e.g., divination) a n d / o r correct
God and man ritual behavior (e.g., sacrifice)
e) God responds to man's com- God responds because he is c o m -
munication because he is pelled or obligated to do so by
already inclined to do so the properly executed a n d / o r r e -
peated ritual action

f) God wants men to do/live man seeks to have God act a c -

according to his will cording to his will

As an example of the general divergence in religious perception

as it relates to a particular text of Scripture, consider the passage
recorded in Leviticus 14:1-9. The similarities between the Old Testa-
ment world view and way of life and that of African traditional
religion is often stressed, and indeed, this is a very important element
in the total communications process. The following legal discourse will
illustrate in a striking way a number of overtly similar cultural
practices. But beneath these correspondences let us pay special
attention to several crucial differences on the level of the basic
presuppositions that underlie the surface forms, for they too must be
recognized and dealt with as part of the translation process. The text
cited below is taken from the RSV:

The L O R D said to Moses, "This shall be the law of

the leper for the day of his cleansing. He shall be
brought to the priest; and the priest shall go out of the
camp, and the priest shall make an examination. Then,
if the leprous disease is healed in the leper, the priest
shall command them to take for him who is to be
cleansed two living clean birds and cedarwood and
scarlet stuff and hyssop; and the priest shall command
them to kill one of the birds in an earthen vessel over
running water. He shall take the living bird with the
cedarwood and the scarlet stuff and the hyssop, and dip
them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that
was killed over the running water; and he shall sprinkle
it seven times upon him who is to be cleansed of
leprosy; then he shall pronounce him clean, and shall let
the living bird go into the open field. And he who is to
be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his
 hair, and bathe himself in water, and he shall be clean;
and after that he shall come into the camp, but shall
dwell outside his tent seven days. And on the seventh
day he shall shave all his hair off his head; he shall
shave off his beard and his eyebrows, all his hair. Then
he shall wash his clothes, and bathe his body in water,
and he shall be clean.

We will now compare the elements of this account of the Hebrew

procedure for pronouncing a person healed from "leprosy" (i.e., an
infectious skin disease) with the Tonga ritual for healing a person who
has been struck by a disease as a result of offending a " w i t c h " (i.e.,
someone with the innate or procured power to harm, magically " u s e , "
or even kill a fellow human being). The similarities in these two
entirely different socioreligious rites are summarized below:

HEBREW TONGA

a) one primary officiant, the a) one primary officiant, the

"priest" "doctor" (ng'anga)

b) a disease involving one's b) a disease involving one's

social relations (isolation) is social relations (enmity) is
concerned concerned

c) the afflicted person is taken c) the afflicted person is taken

outside the camp out into the " b u s h "

d) two clean birds are used as d) a chicken is used as a sacri-

a sacrifice fice

e) additional elements in- e) a special " m e d i c i n e " is p r e -

volved in the sacrifice pared from various roots and
are: cedar wood, scarlet other natural elements and
yarn, hyssop branch, spring put into a pot
water in a clay pot
f) one of the birds is killed f) the chicken's claw is cut and
and its blood drips into the the blood drips into the pot
pot of water of medicine

g) the person to be cleansed is g) the person to be healed

sprinkled seven times with washes with the mixture of
the water/blood blood and medicine

h) the remaining live bird is h) the chicken is released out

released out in the country in the open country

i) the purified person washes i) the bewitched person leaves

his clothes his clothes out in the bush

j) all his hair is shaved j) all his hair is shaved

k) the person bathes k) the person bathes

D result: the person is now D result: any wild animal that

regarded as being cere- kills and eats the ritual
monially "clean" again and chicken will contract the
his isolation from the rest bewitched person's disease
of society is ended and he will be healed

The socially-prescribed ritual forms are strikingly similar, but their

functional significance obviously is not. For the Hebrews this was a
public ceremony which certified that an individual was healed of an
infectious skin disease. The functional symbolism involved was con-
firmatory, the overt testimony of a socioreligious state. In the Tonga
case the symbolism is efficacious; it actually brings about the " c u r e . "
It provides a socially-acceptable means of ridding an individual of
some malady caused by offending, whether intentionally or innocently,
a person who has retaliated with antisocial behavior. The " n a ï v e " (i.e.,
one who has little, if any, knowledge of the belief/value system and
social setting of the original) Tonga reader may very well interpret
this text in the light of his own culturally-determined expectations
and experience. If he does this he will undoubtedly conclude that the
Hebrews observed the same religious rituals that he does, and there-
fore the Bible may serve to reinforce an erroneous traditional belief
and practice.
A comparative study of this type (and the preceding was only a
limited sample of what actually needs to be done) is an essential
prerequisite that must be completed before translation work begins.
This provides a framework for discerning, in the first place, the
cross-cultural differences that do exist; and secondly, it serves as a
means for evaluating their relative importance to the transmission of
the biblical message from one social context to another. The ways of
resolving significant disparities in thought or behavior will depend on
the precise nature of the problem that is involved. In the next three
chapters we will more fully explore a number of these conceptual
difficulties as they relate to some specific issues which often cause
problems for Bible translators, namely, unfamiliar terms, figurative
language, and direct speech. As we will see, it is often the case that
several sociocultural factors converge to complicate the picture, and
thus it is not always so easy to propose a simple solution in a given
passage. It is a matter of carefully weighing the evidence presented by
text, context, and cultural setting, in both the source and the receptor
situations, in order to discover the closest natural equivalent of the
original in the R L .
 CHAPTER 4

T he T ra nsla t ion of
Cult ura lly-U nfa m ilia r Concepts

"Unfamiliarity" is, of course, a relative term. The fact is that

most lexical items do not correspond exactly between languages,
especially those that vary a great deal linguistically a n d / o r in the
culture of their speakers. Words may differ, therefore, with respect to
their respective areas of meaning or ranges of reference, and also in
the associative (e.g., connotative) and stylistic (e.g., literary) aspects
of meaning. The methods of dealing with such inexactness of reference
in translation are quite thoroughly discussed in books such as The
Componential Analysis of Meaning (Nida, 1975) and Lexicography and
Translation (Louw, ed., 1985). One finds that words used in their
primary sense in the Scriptures, i.e., that meaning which is the most
relevant culturally and which collocates with the largest and most
diverse group of items, usually present little problem in the process of
message transfer, except in cases where that particular meaning or
sense is unknown in the R L environment. It is the secondary senses
and extended (including nonliteral) usages which cause special diffi-
culty due to the inevitable incompleteness of lexical equivalence
between languages. We notice this with the N T Greek word soma
1
'body , for example, which, in addition to its central reference to the
physical body of a human being, can also denote: the corpse of a dead
person/animal; a slave to be bought and sold as merchandise; visible
heavenly objects (e.g., sun, moon, stars); the total person or self;
a n d / o r sinful, corrupt human nature.
An analysis of figurative language and its relation to the cultural
factor will be carried out in the next unit. In the present chapter we
want to consider those concepts for which there is little, if a n y r

correspondence at all between the SL and the R L . Such concepts

relate to two general categories of "unfamiliar terms": (a) those that
are semantically complex, which for the most part belong to the class
of " e v e n t s , " although they are typically expressed as nouns in English
and other Indo-European languages (e.g., inheritance, tradition,
reconciliation, intercession, baptism, justification, etc.); and (b) those
which are culturally "alien," such as technical words that pertain to
SL social and religious institutions, or that refer to rather specific
aspects of the physical environment in which the original message was
first produced (e.g., tabernacle, ephod, seraphim, Pharisee, birthright,
Sabbath Day, camel, denarius, hyssop, sapphire, etc.) The latter are
largely " o b j e c t " words. All of these terms consist of a set of semantic
components which has no direct or single lexical equivalent in the R L ,
for the concepts that they represent are unknown there.
Translation, then, becomes a matter of making explicit those
components of a given concept which happen to be significant in a
particular context. It is not the translator's task to attempt to convey
all of the semantic components of a term as determined by its usage
in each one of the contexts in which it appears; e.g., Sabbath (which
includes components such as calendar day, religious associations, fixed
by law, rest—a reminder of the seventh day of creation, no " w o r k "
permitted, worship of Yahweh, and so forth). That would be a
pointless, if not impossible, goal to accomplish. Rather, the aim should
be to select those features of meaning which seem to be the most
significant in the widest number of linguistic settings and to find an
expression which communicates these most economically in the R L ,
with allowance for certain formal modifications in particular contexts
(i.e., contextual consistency and meaningfulness have priority over
verbal consistency and formal correspondence).
The following outline summarizes a number of the principal types
of adjustment that may be used, depending on the context, in cases
where the biblical SL form, together with the concept (or set of
semantic components) which it designates, is either absent in the R L ,
or where the form is present but with a significant difference in
meaning. At first we will be primarily concerned with designative, or
referential, content. Meaning of an associative nature (emotive,
aesthetic, social, etc.) will be considered in more detail later, as will
concepts which involve special cultural problems in relation to a
Central African setting. The various possible "solutions" proposed
below are based upon the distinction between form and function as
this applies to the particular meaning in question, for often a decision
has to be made as to what is more important in a given context. This
then becomes the " m i n i m u m " to strive for when seeking an equivalent
term or expression in the R L . " F o r m " refers to the physical charac-
teristics of an object (largely pertaining to the sense of sight) or any
distinctive feature which sets that object apart from similar objects;
alternatively, it concerns any describable aspect of events. " F u n c t i o n , "
then, has to do with the use, purpose, or significance of that same
object or event.

The categories of lexical adjustment suggested here all follow the

general pattern, BASE + / - MODIFICATION. The " b a s e " may be of
three types: (a) a generic term, (b) a loanword, or (c) a culturally-
specific word. The "modification" may involve: (a) a classifier, (b) a
descriptive phrase, or (c) a comparison. The various combinations
possible will be illustrated from the Tonga (T) and Chewa (C) trans-
lations; this includes expressions which have been rejected for one
reason or another, as well as those which are currently being used.
Many of these examples illustrate the principle of making SL content
explicit in the R L , though in several cases just the opposite is true.

1. Use of a G E N E R I C T E R M

a) a generic term alone:

consider the lilies {maluwa 'flowers' [C]) of the field

(Mt 6:28)

they came to Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley

(maila 'grain' [T]) harvest (Ru 1:22)

Herod being tetrarch of (ankalamulira 'he was ruling'

[C]) Galilee (Lk 3:1)

In cases such as these, the form of the unfamiliar object is not in

focus, and to try to specify the text further would only result in an
unnatural style without much clarification of the intended meaning.
Thus the additional specific semantic components are left implicit by
being included under a term which has a more general reference.
b) a generic term plus a description of form:

keep the Passover (pobwe lyakwiindilila 'feast/ festival

of passing by' [T]) to the L O R D your God (Dt. 16:1)

you shall set in it four rows of stones. A row of

sardius (bbwe lisalala pyu 'a stone bright [with] redness'
[T], the last word being an ideophone) (Ex 28:17)

put away your wine (musinza wansaansa uusaside 'the

soup of sour [wild] grapes' [T]) from you (1 Sm 1:14)

The final descriptive phrase was rejected after testing because of its
length; it was simply too long to fit naturally in many passages,
especially those of direct speech. Therefore, the loanword, waini (old
Bible) was retained, despite the fact that it is somewhat misleading,
i.e., as a drink which typifies high society, one that is available only
from exclusive bottle stores.
The preceding passage illustrates a difficulty that translators
often encounter when they want to use some type of attributive
description, whether of form or function: how much modification is
enough to make the point in as few words as possible so that the
expression does not become intrusive and hence draw unnecessary
attention to itself? Obviously one cannot incorporate a complete
definition into the text (as in a footnote or glossary entry). But
enough information must be supplied so that the receptor has at least
some idea of what the referent is about a n d / o r to avoid a situation
where he either misunderstands the text or derives no meaning at all
from it. A possible solution to the problem of a longer expression is
to employ the full descriptive form at the first convenient spot in a
longer passage, and thereafter to use an abbreviation, perhaps the
generic term alone. Sometimes this will work; e.g., with the phrase for
" m a n n a " tunkwa/twakujulu 'pieces of bread/from above' (T), or
Wozozedwa uja/wa Mulungu 'the Anointed One/of God' for "Messiah"
(C). In other cases it will not, especially with infrequently occurring
terms; e.g., malo a anthu akufa 'the place of dead people' for "Sheol"
(C). It should also be kept in mind that a concept must not be
rendered so explicitly as to make reference to its textual context
unnecessary (i.e., redundant); e.g., when deciding upon an expression
for the " a r k of the covenant," it may be necessary at times to
specify that " Y a h w e h ' s " covenant was concerned, but not that he
made it " w i t h the people of Israel."
In situations where a description of either form or function is
possible, but not both, the priority generally lies with the function,
since that is normally more crucial to the understanding of a passage.
This stipulation would not apply, however, in passages where one or
more of the four following criteria are relevant:

1) where the form of itself is clear or familiar enough to convey the

intended function as well; e.g., buzuba bwakulyookezya 'day for
resting' for "Sabbath D a y " (T); tununkilizyo 'pleasant things
which smell good' for "spices" (T);

(Note that in the latter case the generic element is conveyed by

the nominal class prefix tu-. Such a generic reference, which is
quite easy to make in a Bantu language, thus forms the basis for
a neologism, or "new word," which translators attempt to
introduce into their language in order to express some culturally
unfamiliar biblical concept. Another example is the Chewa word
for "miracle," i.e., champhamvu 'something [noun class reference]
of power' [with a focus on the form of the event] or chozizwitsa
'something which causes amazement [with a focus upon function/
effect].)

2) where specific reference to a historical event is involved; e.g.,

"Bring me a heifer three years old, a she-goat three years old, a
ram three years old, a turtle dove and a young pigeon"(Gn 15:9);

3) where there is a particular emphasis upon the formal features of an

object or event in the context; e.g., " O n its skirts [i.e., of the
ephod] you shall make pomegranates of blue and purple and
scarlet stuff, around its skirts, with bells of gold between t h e m "
(Ex 28:33);

4) in the case of a term with special symbolic significance in the

Scriptures; e.g., the ritual of circumcision (Gn i7:11 ) or the
" L a m b of G o d " (Jn 1:29).
 (The expression Mwanawankhosa wa Mulungu 'child of a sheep of
God' is awkward enough in itself, but the difficulty is c o m -
pounded due to the fact that " s h e e p " in many parts of Africa
are considered to be stupid, rather useless creatures, much less
preferred than "goats." In the past at least, the Chewa
regarded the goat as the standard of value and a medium of
exchange in marriage negotiations and in settling legal disputes.
However, due to the possible association with the OT Passover,
Christ's title as the "Son of G o d / M a n , " reference to the Last
Judgment, e t c , the form-related components of " l a m b " need to
be retained in the RL.)

c) a generic term plus a description of function:

and he is the expiation (nsembe yokhululukira 'sacrifice

for forgiving' [C]) our sins (1 Jn 2:2)

(In [T] the expression used is cipaizyo cakumanya

mulandu 'the sacrifice for putting an end to the
case/offense [of our sins]'.)

he was to be put out of the synagogue (nyumba ya

mapemphero [ya Ayuda] 'the house of prayers [of the
Jews]' [C]) (Jn 9:22)

the votive gifts that . . . the kings of Judah had

dedicated (bakazipa kuli Leza 'they had given them [i.e.,
gifts] to God' [T]) (2 Kg 12:18)

an angel (mutumwa uuzwa kujulu 'a messenger coming

from above/heaven' [T]) of the Lord appeared to him
(Mt 1:20)

The final description, first used in the new Tonga translation, did not
mark the function very explicitly, but anything longer always disrupted
the style of a passage. Finally the expression had to be completely
discarded because the reference was so often becoming confused with
other messengers, "apostles," and even ordinary "servants." It was
decided to retain the loanword mungelo, which the Christian c o m m u -
nity was already somewhat familiar with from the old Bible. F u r t h e r -
more, it was felt that an "angel" lay so far outside the experience of
the people that no indigenous phrase (short of a full definition) would
work adequately, and also in many instances (as in the above passage)
the context helps a great deal to clarify the "otherworldly" nature of
the referent, especially when a loanword appears there.

you tithe mint and dill and cummin (all three are
combined under the generic expression zisyango
zyakulunga cakulya 'plants for seasoning food' [T]) (Mt
23:23)

The preceding example illustrates the technique of "grouping" which

may be applied when translating lists of similar items—where the
emphasis is not so much upon each individual item but on the signifi-
cance of the group as a whole (cf. also spices/perfumes in SS 4:14;
jewels in Ezek 28:13; metals in Ezek 22:18). In such cases, if one
attempts to make a specific reference to every member of the set, the
text becomes so cluttered with detail that the reader is unable to d i s -
tinguish the forest on account of the trees. However, there are similar
contexts where the form, at least one aspect of it, is of importance;
e.g., the Jewish high priest's "breastpiece," in which were set four
rows of three stones each to represent the twelve tribes of Israel (Ex
28:17-21).

at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the

cherubim (bakelubbimu [T]) (Gn 3:24)

An earlier effort to describe the function of these beings in Tonga,

i.e., basikulinda ba Leza '(people who) guard God', had to be rejected
because of an unfortunate ambiguity which made allowance for a
misleading implication. As it turned out (after testing receptors), the
phrase could well convey the idea that God is so fearful (of Satan??)
that he needs these "security guards" around in order to protect him.
A further erroneous implication was that after expelling Adam and
Eve, God remained behind to enjoy himself in the beautiful garden.
Therefore the loanword of the old translation had to be retained,
together with a reference to the glossary where the word is explained.
Certainly this solution is no worse than the GNB's overly generic (and
hence almost meaningless) term "living creatures." This example points
out the need for translators to check out carefully the new expres-
sions which they create for any puzzling ambiguity, hidden meanings
(contradictory components), and unwanted implications. Instead of
equivalence in meaning, they may have produced a distortion of the
original that is seven times worse than if nothing had been done at all
(Mt 12:45!), i.e., than if they simply employed a transliteration of the
SL term.

d) a generic term plus a description of both form and function:

This solution is not used very often due to the problem of
length, which produces stylistic awkwardness, and because it would
make too much explicit in the text. Such overly-long explanations may
also turn out to be anachronistic, since they might suggest that the
biblical writer had to provide this supplementary information for his
readers, when it is obvious in the context that the meaning would/
should have been perfectly clear to them. This is especially true in
dialogue or in the epistles, where there is a special emphasis upon the
speaker-hearer/writer-reader relationship, including the knowledge
which they supposedly hold in common, i.e., their presuppositions. The
over-specification of information in such a context can give the
impression that either the SL receptor does not know his own
language very well, or else he is rather dull-witted, and hence the
added explanation is necessary; e.g.:

and for a helmet (chisoti chachitsulo chotetezera mutu

'a cap of metal for protecting the head' [C]) the hope
of salvation (1 Th 5:8)

But at times it is possible, even necessary, to apply this solution; e.g.:

now a centurion (mkulu wa gulu la asilikali a Aroma 'a

great one [i.e., leader] of the group of soldiers [i.e.,
armyj of the Romans' [C]) had a slave (Lk 7:2)

"today you will be with me in Paradise" (Malo a

Chisangalalo Kumwamba 'the place of rejoicing up
above' [C]) (Lk 23:43)
 they make their phylacteries broad (timapukusi ta mawu
a Mulungu timene abvala pamphumi pao ndi padzan ja pao
'smallsatchels [containing] the word of God which they
5
wear on their forehead and hand [C]) (Mt 23:5)

"Phylacteries" causes problems in all languages. A transliteration is

difficult due to the length of the w o r d , mafilakitali, and because the
latter could be misunderstood as the much more common loanword,
mafakitali 'factories'. Furthermore, to provide components relating
only to form or only to function would probably be insufficient (zero
meaning). Granted, the function is only partially explained in the
Chewa rendering, but the context, both textual (SL) and extratextual
(RL), is sufficient to suggest their semi-magical/religious use. In a
Bantu setting the former would be paramount, for phylacteries could
easily be viewed as the Jewish equivalent of protective charms (i.e.,
zitumwa [C]), these being especially potent due to their inclusion of
God's word!

Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone (bbwe

liyandisi lyaacooko 'the most important stone at the
corner' [T]) (Ep 2:20)

The people were sacrificing at the high places (zipaililo

zyaatala atulundu 'place for worship/ sacrifice on top of
hills' [T]) (1 K g 3:2)

The preceding expression, though intelligible linguistically, sounds

rather strange to the Tonga who live on the relatively flat plains of
southern Zambia. There are "hills" in their country, but normally no
one would ever worship regularly there. For this reason the new
translation will try out a cultural substitute (see below), malende, the
"local shrine" of Tonga traditional religion, where the "priest" (clan
head, who may be a chief as well) makes sacrifices to the spirits in
time of corporate calamity, especially drought. This would seem to
approximate quite closely the main elements of both form and function
of the term "high places" in the Old Testament, which were not
always or even usually set upon hills, especially in the latter days of
the monarchy (cp. 2 K g 17:9,29).
e) a generic term plus a local comparison:
The idea here is to employ the generic word as a way of defining
the basic area of meaning of the unknown SL term and then modify
this by means of a comparison to some item of the local culture which
has a similar form a n d / o r function as the original. This concept is fine
in theory, but it does not work out as well in practice, at least as far
as the Chewa and Tonga translations are concerned. For one thing,
" o b j e c t " - t y p e comparisons are not commonly used in these languages
(while those based on "events" are more frequent), just as metaphor
is a much more popular oral literary device than simile. Secondly, such
phrases as the two listed below were found to be unnatural also on
the level of the specific context:

imbuto mbuli zyamapopwe itegwa kolianda 'grains like

those of maize called coriander' (T) (Ex 16:31) (this
expression includes a transliteration at the end)

micelo Uli mbuli magwaba 'fruits like guavas' for

"pomegranates" (T) (Nu 20:5)

The expressions sounded as clumsy as the awkward grammatical

constructions in which they were contained. Consequently, in most
cases they were abandoned in favor of a transliteration (plus glossary
reference), a straight local substitute, or a simple generic cover term.
Again, it was especially in direct speech that such comparative
expressions stuck out obtrusively. They would make the speaker sound
as if he did not have adequate competence in his own language; e.g.:

"If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed . . . ."

(Mt 17:20) (cisyango cilaanseke mbuli zyabbondwe 'a
plant having seeds like those of the bbondwe' [T])
(The utterance suggests that Christ himself was not
really sure about what he was referring to.)

The reason for bringing up this seemingly unsatisfactory means of

achieving lexical equivalence in the R L text is that it is often
proposed in handbooks on translation. Perhaps in other language
situations the method of comparison does prove to be more helpful,
but in Central Africa it has not worked out, except as a means of
definition in glossaries, where it does serve a useful purpose.

2. Use of a LOANWORD
a) a loanword alone:
The use of a loanword is not really the best way to communicate
a SL concept in the R L . This is because there is always a danger that
such a word, which has " z e r o " meaning to begin with, may pick up
some alien features of meaning and association through the process of
reinterpretation within the context of the receptor world view. But
due to the great diversity of subject matter in the Bible, in particular,
content which is foreign to the cultural environment and social setting
of the speakers, loanwords cannot be avoided. Indeed, many will have
already been assimilated into the language anyway through the normal
processes of education (especially if this is done in a European
language), the print media, broadcasting, cross-cultural contact
(missionaries, teachers, expatriate workers, external travel, etc.), an
earlier translation of the Bible, and a host of other more subtle
influences. In cases where the loan word has been established for a
long time (we might term this a "borrowing"), it will have developed
its own distinct set of semantic components and connotative overtones.
These will never match those of the original word exactly because the
sociocultural contexts in which the borrowed word is used, and from
which it derives its meaning, will not be the same.
At times, however, the correspondence in meaning is relatively
close; e.g., nkomeki ' c u p ' (T-from Afrikaans); olivi 'a type of fruit
which produces oil' (C-English; via "Olivine," a cooking oil sold
locally); apulo 'apple' (C-English; now grown in certain areas of
Central Africa); siliva 'silver' (C-English; may be purchased at the
local "black market"); libano 'incense' (C-Swahili; familiar from use by
Asians and in the ceremony of the Catholic Church); kavalo 'horse'
(C-Portuguese; the police sometimes use them in "parades"); hachi
'horse' (T-English; notice that the source of borrowing may differ
from one language group to the next); kuumbala 'to circumcise'
(C-Yao; the Chewa do not practice circumcision, but the neighboring
Yao do). The least problem of reference is usually found with proper
names which are simply used to designate a particular person; e.g.,
Petro 'Peter', Yakobo 'James', Davide 'David' etc.—except when a
compromise has to be effected between different ecclesiastical
orthographic traditions; e.g., 'angel' mnjelo (C-Catholic) vs. angelo
(Protestant).
At other times, however, there are some significant shifts of
meaning that occur during the borrowing process; e.g., paska (C-Latin)
for "Passover," but commonly applied (metonymy) by many people
specifically to the Lord's Supper of the NT; sabata (C-Hebrew/English)
for "Sabbath," but generally understood as meaning either an entire
week, or the day Saturday; Aroma (C-English) for " R o m a n s , " but is
usually applied to Roman Catholics; vinyo (C-Portuguese) for " w i n e , "
but often identified with a special bottled drink that Europeans use at
banquets and to celebrate the Sacrament; kenturiyo (C-Latin/English)
for "centurion," but frequently interpreted as a proper name, espe-
cially in contexts such as Mt 8:5,8 (the same is true of Farao for
"Pharaoh"). The translator must make a thorough check of all loan-
words employed to make sure that people generally understand them
correctly, in their context of use.
Then there are the many loanwords for which the borrowing
process has just begun, namely, those terms which have only recently
been transliterated and introduced into the language for the specific
purpose of Bible translation. These consist largely of place names
(rivers, mountains, valleys, cities, countries, etc.), personal and tribal
names, and the names of flora and fauna peculiar to the land of
Palestine in Bible times. Examples will be given below. One must
always take care with transliterations to see that they do not resemble
an indigenous word, or even a previous borrowing in the language, e.g.

there was a plot of ground full of barley {bbaali [T])

(1 Ch 11:13)

The problem here arises from the fact that bbaali is indistinguishable
from the well-known borrowing for 'burley tobacco', and that is how
this passage would be understood, especially since the meaning would
not sound out of place. The solution in this case was to employ a
simple generic term mai Ia 'grain'.
There are times, hopefully kept to a minimum, when a loan word
must be used as a compromise specifically due to its lack of content
in the R L . This may happen when translators cannot agree on a more
meaningful solution because of their differing theological backgrounds
The word for "baptize/baptism" is a good illustration of this. An early
draft of the Tonga for Mk 1:4-5 attempted the specific verb -bbiza
'immerse', but that was later rejected since it explicitly excluded the
interpretation of several other denominations. Descriptive expressions,
e.g., 'the washing of initiation', generally fail for the same reason.
Another term that frequently falls into this category in Central Africa
is the word for "Sabbath (Day)."

b) a loanword plus a generic "classifier":

This classifier is a generic word that gives an indication of the
larger grouping or category into which the loanword fits. Normally the
classifier does not have to be employed on every occurrence of a word
of this kind, but only when it is first introduced into a larger context
(e.g., a distinct narrative episode). All of the examples below are
taken from the Tonga (only the loanword/transliteration is underlined):

musamu waalumondi 'almond tree' (Ec 12:5)

tununkilizyo tutegwa aloesi 'sweet-smelling things called
aloes' (Ps 45:8)
(Note: it has recently been decided to remove the
qualifier "called" from such phrases for the sake of
naturalness and to replace it with the simple relational
particle "of," i.e., twa in this case.)

mafuta aambona 'oil of balm' (Gn 37:25)

idi vansiliva 'coin of silver' for "denarius" (Mt 26:15)
citeyo cahisooo 'bush of hyssop' (Hb 9:19)
mulonga wa Jolodani 'Jordan river' (Js 1:2)
munzi wa Betelehemu 'village of Bethlehem'(Mt 2:1)

It is especially necessary to use classifiers when a series of dissimilar

items is being referred to. In 2 Kg 15:29, for example, the list of
places captured by Tiglath-pileser from Israel groups four cities, two
sub-regions, and one territory, and only the last is marked (if
somewhat generically) in the text: " . . . all the land of Naphthali."
Occasionally one finds that it is not necessary to mark an
unfamiliar or unexpected (in the context) term because the original
author already did so; e.g., "tribe of D a n " (Nu 13:12). At other times
a translator may decide not to employ a generic term because it would
not fit smoothly into the context; for example, in poetry where
rhythmic lines of a particular length are desired; e.g.:

Strong bulls of Bashan surround me. (Ps 22:12)

Here the Chewa puts "from Bashan"—a place of some type is implied,
but it is not specified as a "district" or "region" (i.e., on the eastern
side of the Jordan River) since that is not in focus in this passage
(the problem is compounded here because we are dealing with a figure
of speech). Thus the importance of the principle of being faithful to
the meaning in context is once more demonstrated.

c) a loanword plus a description of form or function:

This proposal is similar to that discussed in 1/b-d above, so it
does not require much illustration here. In fact, as in the case of a
comparison (1/e), a loanword plus description is not often employed in
the Chewa and Tonga translations for stylistic reasons; the resulting
phrases frequently do not mesh well with their surrounding context. As
a means of definition in the glossary or a footnote, however, there is
no problem. But there are instances of a successful application of this
procedure; e.g., (all from Tonga):

intente lyakupailila Leza 'tent for worshiping God (in)'

for "tabernacle" (Ex 33:8)
(The loanword suggests the form, while the descriptive
phrase adds the function.)

ibbokesi lyacizuminano (ca Leza) 'the box of the

agreement (of God)' for " a r k " (2 Sm 11:11)
(The full form is not necessary once the term has been
introduced into a particular segment of text.)

oveni lyakujikila 'oven for cooking/baking/incinerating,

etc. (fire is implied)' (Mt 6:30)
(Since this word occurs in a didactic passage, it would
be possible, if it turns out that " o v e n " blunts or
obscures the point that Christ was trying to make, to
simply use " f i r e , " as was done in the Chewa.)
 Muleli mupati waku Loma 'the big (great) ruler from/in
5
Rome for "Caesar" (Mk 12:14)

3. Use of a C U L T U R A L SUBSTITUTE
A "cultural substitute" is a term referring to a well-known
object or event in the local or traditional setting of speakers of the
R L that is used to translate an unfamiliar or unknown SL concept, but
whose form differs in some significant respect(s) from that of the
original. It is selected to render the biblical word because its referent
corresponds rather closely in function, and this is viewed as being the
major aspect of meaning in a given context. The substitute is intended
to make these functional components explicit in the text. Its choice is
also determined in part by the lack of a suitable R L lexical equivalent
formed in one of the ways mentioned above (i.e., generic w o r d / l o a n -
word + / - modification). That is to say, the alternatives are either
stylistically unnatural/inappropriate or they do not clearly convey the
intended meaning, the functional element in particular. A cultural
substitute may also be necessary when the R L has no equivalent for a
generic term in the original. In both Tonga and Chewa, for example,
the word " w o r s h i p " has to be specified according to the context as
either " p r a y , " "ask," " b e g , " " t h a n k , " "sacrifice," " h o n o r , " or the
like.
There are, of course, a wide range of cultural substitutes
potentially available to the translator, since the basic functions of
human society do not differ all that much from one group to the next.
The forms whereby these functions are expressed or manifested,
however, do vary appreciably from one culture to another; this
contributes a great deal to their being regarded as "different"
cultures. Now, some substitutes from the R L culture are more accep-
table as translation equivalents than others. There are several criteria
that may be applied here in order to help translators decide whether
to accept or reject any given possibility. These relate to features of
both form and meaning/function. It should be noted that these are not
absolute determiners, but are better viewed simply as guidelines
intended to organize somewhat the process of selecting a suitable
term.

a) How great is the divergence in form between the SL referent and

that of the R L ? The greater the difference, the less acceptable the
proposed R L term is. Quite a range of variation is possible, and each
suggestion must be considered on its own merits, not only in the
context in which it occurs, but also in the wider context of Scripture
as a whole, and in the total extralinguistic setting in which the
translation is being produced. In some instances the correspondence in
external physical features will be relatively close—in fact, the nearest
natural equivalent of the SL concept; e.g., mmbulu 'wild dog' (C) for
"wolf" in Mt 7:15 (the function, of course, being the same: a fierce
predator of livestock); matalala 'hail stones' (C) for " s n o w " in Is 1:18
(since hail in Central Africa, when it occurs, is also white); nkhokwe
'storage bin' (C) for "granary" in Mt 3:12 (the difference is that the
biblical variety was usually found underground, while the Chewa
nkhokwe is normally built above ground); or mkuyu 'fig tree' (C) for
the "sycamore" of Lk 19:4.
In other instances the discrepancy in form might be quite
considerable; e.g., manda 'grave/s (dug down into the earth)' (C) for
" t o m b s " in Mt 23:27 (how these were then to be " w h i t e - w a s h e d " is
not at all clear!); mtanda 'crossbeam' (C) for "cross" in Jn 18:25
(what held this " b e a m " up is left implicit); or bwato 'dugout canoe'
(T) for " b o a t " in Mt 8:23 (the typical Tonga river canoe holds only
two or three persons at the most; thus the reader does not find it
surprising that when Jesus and his disciples all got into one " b o a t , " it
was soon in danger of "being swamped," v. 24).

b) The greater the emphasis on form in the biblical context, the less
possible it is to employ a cultural substitute that would significantly
alter that form in any way. It may be acceptable, for example, to
render " k i s s " by pat sa moni 'give a monV (i.e., say hello—C) in a
context such as Ro 16:16, where the function of greeting is being
stressed (adults do not kiss one another according to traditional
Chewa mores). But this would not work in a passage like Lk 7:45,
where the act of "kissing" is repeated and bears a special associative
meaning (e.g., emotive, contrastive) in the discourse as a whole, or in
Lk 22:48, where the act is an important step in the development of
narrative events (i.e., the betrayal of Jesus by Judas). Similarly, to use
bzala 'plant by inserting a seed into the ground' (C) for " s o w " in Jn
4:37 would be natural, for this is the local term which balances
poetically with " r e a p " as the two " e n d s " of the crop-growing process.
In the parable of the sower (Mt 13:4f), on the other hand, where the
actual manner (form) of planting is more in focus (and indeed crucial
for the eventual interpretation, v. 19f), the more precise but less
culturally significant term fesa 'scatter (seed)' must be used.

c) The more frequently a concept appears in the Scriptures and the

more culturally relevant it was in biblical (Jewish) culture, the less
satisfactory a specific local equivalent will be. Thus, in place of an
infrequently occurring term like " d r a g o n " (Ps 74:13; Is 27:1), the
physical features of which are not clearly described anyway, a cultural
substitute having the same function fits quite nicely; e.g., itosi 'a
mysterious and dangerous river monster having the characteristics of
both a snake and a human being, which lures fishermen to their death'
(T). Less acceptable but possible is the use of ngolo (C)/nkalaki (T)
'ox cart' for "chariot" in a context such as Ac 8:28, for the ox cart
is a slow vehicle, used mainly to carry goods, crops, etc., rather than
as a means of personal transport, and is, of course, drawn by oxen
rather than horses. " O x cart" is even more out of place as a transr
lation of "chariot" in the wartime contexts of the Old Testament (Ex
14:7, Pharaoh and his army would never have overtaken Israel had
they been using ngolo/nkalaki!).
It would be completely unacceptable, however, to render a central
biblical concept such as " b r e a d " by the local equivalent nsima 'stiff
maize-meal porridge' (C), or to replace " s h e e p " (nkhosa) by the
culturally more significant animal in Central Africa, "goat" (mbuzi)
(C), for not only are the original terms very common and important
referentially, but they also have many additional symbolic applications;
e.g., "bread of life" (Jn 6:35), "the good shepherd" (Jn 10:1 If).

d) The more literal and historical the original reference, the less
divergence in form is tolerable. The reason for this is that there is
greater likelihood that the meaning of the R L term will overtly clash
with or directly contradict the chronological and cultural context of
the Bible, and this is a distortion which a genuine concern for fidelity
will not allow. More formal modification may be possible, however, in
didactic discourse where the unfamiliar or misleading concept (to
speakers of the RL) is being used as an illustration or teaching device
(parable, proverb, figure of speech, etc.) and the emphasis is more
upon the associative (emotive, attitudinal, imperative, etc.) aspects of
meaning rather than the designative components. Thus licero ' w i n -
nowing basket' gives much more impact to John's words of warning to
the Pharisees than a literal translation of "winnowing f o r k " (Mt 3:12),
for the latter is unknown in Chewa agriculture. Similarly, the point of
Christ's metaphor in Mt 5:15 is lost if "bushel" (Gr. modios) is
rendered literally, i.e., mtanga (C) 'large basket', for that would soon
be ignited by the fire from the " l a m p " and burn up. But neither can
this word be translated in terms of its normal semantic components,
i.e., " a box-like object used for measuring grain," for the function of
the original in this particular context is different, that is, simply a
large container which would not allow any light to pass through. Here
mbiya 'a large clay water pot' is the most meaningful equivalent. To
bring out the more personal and intimate overtones of the context of
" k n o c k " in R v 3:20 ("Behold, I stand at the door and knock"), the
Chewa equivalent in traditional social culture is employed in the new
translation: kuchita odi 'to do odV (i.e., a word used by someone to
announce his/her arrival at the home of a friend or acquaintance).
This expression was replaced, however, by the more literal kugogoda
'beat, knock against' in Ac 12:13, where an actual historical event is
recorded.
Furthermore, in a poetic passage the attempt to preserve the
form of the referent may effectively destroy the intended rhetorical
effect. In Ps 40:7, for example, "It is written about me in the scroll
. . . ," the word "scroll" is replaced by " b o o k " in both C / T in order
to avoid the use of a clumsy, meaningless term; e.g., mpukutu (C)
'parcel of papers, etc. wrapped together'. The latter may be somewhat
more approximate in form, but its function certainly is not. Similarly a
literal reference to " p i p e s " completely dissipates the impact of
Christ's biting illustration in Mt 11:17, "We piped to you, and you did
not dance." The original alludes to a wedding celebration, and thus
the Chewa preserves the intended effect of these words by utilizing a
culturally familiar equivalent, i.e., "We played for you the wedding
d r u m . . . ."
A gradation in the "historicity" of a word's reference according
to the context of use may confront the translator with some inter-
esting problems of choice. In Mt 3:4, for example, the word "camel" is
translated by a Chewa loanword along with a generic classifier: nyama
yina yotchedwa ngamila 'a certain animal called camel'. To substitute a
culturally more familiar animal in this passage, such as the "elephant"
(njovu), could not be allowed since it would contradict what actually
took place (besides, elephant skin does not have much " h a i r " ) . In
Christ's comparison of Mt 19:24 (i.e., "it is easier for a camel to go
through the eye of a needle . . . " ) , the use of "elephant" in place of
" c a m e l " is more appropriate, but it still introduces a major problem of
historical-cultural fidelity in that it occurs in a context where other
features of the biblical environment are referred to (albeit figura-
tively), i.e., the "eye of a needle," or (depending on one's interpreta-
tion) a small " n i g h t - t i m e gate" in the city wall. Finally, in Mt 23:24
"elephant" would fit the best as a meaningful replacement for
"camel," because the entire emphasis is upon the climactic impact that
Christ's words of rebuke convey in a sudden dramatic contrast (a back
translation of the new Chewa version):

"You blind leaders, you strain your drinks in order to

remove a little fly,
but you swallow an elephant!"

(Note: whether or not this rendering is used, the

cultural-religious significance of the original ought to
be pointed out [in a footnote], i.e., the " g n a t " and the
" c a m e l " were the smallest and largest respectively of
the "unclean" animals according to the Jewish c e r e -
monial laws.)

The effect here depends upon the receptor's perception of the vast
difference in size portrayed, which produces an image that would
almost be humorous were it not for the serious discourse setting in
which these words were uttered. Use of the loanword ngamila would
delay, perhaps permanently, that flash of recognition which is so
essential for the metaphor's full rhetorical purpose to be achieved.
However, whether the formal differences between the referents, i.e.,
camel and elephant, are still too great is a decision that will have to
be made after carefully testing receptor reaction. Another factor that
plays into the picture here is the desirability of preserving a consis-
tency between the historical and didactic references (if possible, that
is) in all of the passages where "camel" is found. As we can see, this
entire issue is not an easy " e i t h e r - o r " option.
e) The more contemporary or colloquial a proposed cultural substitute
is, the greater the degree of anachronism (temporal skewing) that it
introduces into the text, and consequently the less appropriate it
becomes for use in the Scriptures. In the new Chewa translation, this
factor is most readily noticed in the adoption of metric figures for
indicating distances, weights, liquid and dry measures, etc., and in the
use of local currency equivalents to convey the various monetary
values; e.g.:

From Emmaus to Jerusalem is a distance of about eleven

kilometers (Lk 24:13)

In each water pot there could be put about one hundred

liters. (Jn 2:6)

"If she had sold it, certainly she would have made
thirty kwacha . . . (Mk 14:5)

(The latter presents even greater problems due to the

rapid fluctuations in the value of world currencies
nowadays.)

The exact equivalents are thus conveyed very explicitly, but with a
certain loss to the historical-cultural dimension of the text, which
from the Chewa perspective, though it purports to be written long
ago, does not make use of the traditional forms of measurement. In
fact, the very precision that modern metric measurement makes
possible causes certain passages to sound very out of character with
their ancient setting, e.g., with reference to the altar of burnt
offerings in the tabernacle:

"It must be square, and its length should be two meters

(mamita awiri), its width two meters, and its height 122
centimeters (masentimita 122)."(Ex 27:1)

The Tonga translators, on the other hand, decided to use local systems
of measurement whenever possible in such contexts. The equivalence is
not as precise, to be sure, for traditional measures are not stan-
dardized except for certain general norms that any item more or less
conforms to. However, the level of anachronism is reduced a great
deal, and with that the texts sound more natural, indeed, more
understandable to the average receptor. It is hard to predict how long
this will continue to be true in view of widespread formal education,
government promotion of the metric system, increasing influence from
the products of a Western-oriented, technological economy etc. But it
is surprising to find, after the necessary research has been done, how
many distinctions can still be made using local equivalents.
To give one example, the three main forms of liquid measure in
the OT are translated by using the nearest size of clay pot in the
Tonga village setting, i.e., " l o g " (0.3 liter) by kabiya 'small pot for
cooking stew' (Lv 4:10), " h i n " (4 liters) by inongo 'typical water pot'
(Lv 19:36), and " b a t h " (22 liters) by cipempa 'pot for brewing and
storing beer' (Ezek 45:10), while the special "alabaster flask" for
carrying oil (Mk 14:3) is rendered by the functionally equivalent insazi.
The latter is not made of stone, but in the contexts in which this
word is used it is obviously the function that is in focus and not the
form. A similar set of local equivalents was established for the dry
measures and distances found recorded in the Bible, but this pattern
could not be followed for weights because traditionally the Tonga
measured their produce by quantity and capacity rather than by
weight.
An example from Chewa of a colloquial term which gives the text
a rather undesirable contemporary flavor is the word used consistently
(formal correspondence) for the wide ranging Hebrew designation,
"servant" (ebed). The referents of this word in the original cover a
broad spectrum of society, from the lowly male slave to the highest
leaders in the government—all having this feature in common, that
they are each under some higher authority to whom they owe their
allegiance. To translate the wide area of meaning of this word by a
single R L term is bad enough, but the term chosen in Chewa makes
the situation even worse, i.e., mnyamata 'youth (usually around the age
of puberty and above)'. Its literal meaning appears to have been
extended to include adult male laborers, domestic servants in particu-
lar, during the colonial era, very likely as a loan translation (caique)
of the English " b o y , " which was applied, rather pejoratively at times,
by Europeans to their local African staff; The use of this word in the
following passage, for example, suggests that King David was God's
"houseboy":
 God has raised up a horn of salvation for us in
the house of his servant David. (Lk 1:69)

(The original implication that David was a devout

worshiper of Yahweh is thus completely lost.)
1
Why mnyamata was used in place of mtumiki 'servant (from -tumikira
'serve') is not clear, but as time passes and colonial history fades ever
further from living memory, perhaps the word will gradually lose its
anachronistic ring.
The possibility that a word's referent could have been found, or
would have been known, in Palestine (or neighboring lands with which
the Jews had contact) in Bible times tends to reduce its degree of
anachronism and consequent distortion of the original historical
setting. There would seem to be little problem, for example, in the
substitution of "sea shell" (mphande [C] used as a medium of e x -
change in the past and even as a symbol of power and authority) for
the " p e a r l " of great price in Christ's parable (Mt 13:45). The " e l e -
p h a n t , " too, was certainly not an unknown animal in O T times, not at
least to the nobility (e.g., 1 K g 10:18; Ezek 27:15). Some scholars have
even proposed it as being the beast designated by the term " b e h e -
m o t h " in Jb 40:15-24. Indian maize, however, was apparently not a
crop that people were acquainted with (the word rendered by the K J V
as " c o r n " is a generic term referring to any a n d / o r all types of
cereal grain). Thus, to render " w h e a t " by chimanga 'maize', even
where a didactic usage is concerned (e.g., the parable of the tares, Mt
13:24f.), clearly diminishes the historical dimension of the biblical text.

f) A cultural substitute may carry certain negative overtones which

make it unsuitable for use in the Word of God. These associations may
be of a designative or associative nature or, as is often the case, a
mixture of both. The word mowa 'traditionally brewed beer' (C)
(bukoko in T), for example, would not be acceptable, therefore, as a
cultural substitute for " w i n e , " either in historical or nonhistorical
references, such as Mt 9:17 ("new wine . . . into old wineskins"),
because of its unfavorable social connotations (from the perspective of
the church which is constantly preaching against beer-drinking). An
additional problem with the term " b e e r " in many African settings is
the strong religious overtones it carries due to its common use as a
libation to the ancestral spirits in many domestic situations. Even in a
negative context, for example, where Paul stipulates that church
leaders must not be "addicted to much wine" (1 Ti 3:8), mowa
probably ought not be used, because in this case a literal, historical
reference is involved.
Other terms may have more obvious referential features which
strongly link them with traditional beliefs that are opposed by the
church for theological reasons. In the old Chewa Bible, for example,
" t e m p l e " was translated as kachisi 'sacrifice hut'. The difference in
referential features between these two words is insurmountably great,
for the kachisi is a temporary grass/stick shelter which is hardly large
enough for one person to enter. Granted, there is some correspondence
in function, for it was at this shrine that corporate village sacrifices
were made by the local priest (wansembe). But since these sacrifices
were offered to God in the name of the ancestral spirits, especially in
time of calamity (famine, pestilence, plague, drought, etc.), the word
bears strong religious associations with the past which the Christian
church in general would not like to see continued.
Similar sentiments discourage the use of references to certain
well-known customs and folk beliefs (ultimately these, too, may have
an underlying connection with ancient forms of worship). When, for
example, Rachel refuses to allow her father, Laban, to search her
camel's saddle for the household gods which she had stolen, she gives
the excuse that "the way of women is upon m e " (Gn 31:35). In an
early Chewa draft this euphemism was rendered by an appropriate
cultural substitute: " I cannot salt the stew {-thira mchere) at this
time." This highly picturesque expression was eventually rejected on
the grounds that it might promote a local superstition that is still
very current among many people, namely, that this action on the part
of a menstruating woman can cause a mysterious illness (tsempho
'swelling disease') to befall everyone in the family who eats that stew
(ndiwo).

g) It is sometimes possible to sharpen certain critical semantic

features of a cultural substitute through modification (if done con-
cisely) in order to emphasize either its intended function or thé
original form of its referent in the SL. For example, in 1 Jn 2:1 the
term "advocate" (paraklêtos) is translated in Chewa by nkhoswe
yotinenera 'mediator who speaks on our behalf. The nkhoswe is the
traditional clan representative who speaks on behalf of individual
members in negotiations involving another clan, as when a marriage is
being arranged or a dispute ("case") is being settled. The modification
yotinenera emphasizes the fact that the group as a whole requires this
representation—certainly a very fitting metaphor depicting Christ's
role in pleading the case of humanity before his heavenly Father. In
the next verse (1 Jn 2:2) Christ's role is specified further by the term
"expiation" ("atoning sacrifice"—NIV; "means by which our sins are
f o r g i v e n " — G N B ) . In Chewa this idea is conveyed by the expression
nsembe yokhululukira 'sacrifice for forgiving', the modification thus
pinpointing the unique function of Christ's "sacrifice."
Without an additional descriptive phrase, some cultural equiva-
lents can give a misleading or confused picture of the original. For
example, the Chewa word nsan ja^ platform on which a temporary hut
is built in a field of ripening crops to protect it against foraging
animals, baboons in particular' fits the context well in Mt 21:33, but
does not work out satisfactorily when used to translate the " t o w e r "
of defense in a city. Here some indication of function is essential in
order to render such passages more meaningfully in the RL; e.g.,
nsan ja yotetezera (mzinda) 'platform for protecting (the city)' in Ju
9:51.
The form of the original may be highlighted through descriptive
attributives attached to a local term in cases like the following: ufa
wa mbee 'maize meal of dazzling brightness (an ideophone)' (C) for
" s n o w " in Mt 28:3, or cinjoka 'big (an augmentative nominal prefix)
snake' (C) for " d r a g o n " in Rv 12:13. An indication of the precise form
of the original becomes crucial in contexts such as Mt 27:60, where
there is a reference to the " t o m b " in which Christ's body was laid. In
most instances (e.g., Mt 8:28), this word (Gr. mnêmeion) and others, in
some contexts also rendered " g r a v e " (e.g., Mt 27:53), is translated by
the Chewa lexical equivalent manda, which has the same function, but
a very different form; i.e., a manda is dug vertically into the earth
and soil is normally mounded up on the top after burial. However, in
Mt 27:60 the form of the original is in focus, and this is even
described by the author: " . . . which he had hewn in the rock."
Therefore manda must be specified by the same descriptive phrase:
ochita chosema m'thanthwe 'which they made by carving into a (ledge
of) rock,' no matter how strange this may sound to the average
listener.
While descriptive modification may help to clarify the form
a n d / o r function of a cultural substitute in its biblical context, this
method cannot be used very successfully, if at all, to "neutralize" the
effect of any contradictory components or negative associations which
such local terms may carry. In the Chewa Bible, for example, the
expression mzimu woipa 'wicked ancestral spirit' is employed as a
translation for " d e m o n " (e.g., Mt 9:32; 12:22). But this phrase is really
a contradiction in terms, for although a mzimu might trouble a person,
it is thought to do so for a particular reason (e.g., disrespect, impiety
on the part of the individual concerned toward his relative), not
because it is inherently " w i c k e d " (for "spirits" having the latter
nature, a distinct term is used, chiwanda). Several other instances of
conflicting connotation were cited in the preceding section.
The following example is of a slightly different nature, one which
draws attention to some of the phonological aspects of equivalence
that also need to be taken into consideration. In his third and
climactic temptation as recorded by Luke, Christ is taken by Satan to
a place which is termed "the pinnacle of the temple" (4:9). In the old
Chewa Bible this term was rendered by a rather close functional, but
not formal, cultural substitute, namely, chimbudzi 'the topmost and
central tuft of a round hut, formed from tightly bound grass and split
bamboo strips.' The problem is that this particular word has several
sound-alikes in the language. One, chimbuuzi 'dimness of vision,' does
not cause too much difficulty because the context generally distin-
guishes quite clearly which word and reference is intended. That is
not the case with the other phonologically similar word, chimbuzi
'(outdoor) pit latrine'. Since this word occurs much more frequently in
everyday speech (or is referred to euphemistically), this is what most
people understand when they hear Mt 4:5—an amazing temptation
indeed: Christ is taken to the top of the toilet of the temple and is
told to j u m p in! And no amount of descriptive modification can really
alter the misleading picture and the unfortunate connotations which
that conveys. Thus the new translation replaces the specific word by a
generic expression, "at the very top of (the temple)." The reference is
not quite so clear, but just about anything is better than what the
text said in the old version.
 The subject of indigenous substitutes will be considered further
in the next chapter when the cultural implications of the dynamic
tension between form and function can be more fully explored in
relation to the effective communication of figurative language. The
purpose of these local replacements, once again, is to make explicit
the semantic components relating to the function of an unfamiliar SL
term so that its meaning can be more accurately reproduced in the R L .
This is an issue which involves not only the linguistic text and
context, but as we have seen, it concerns also the extralinguistic
aspects of the message, in particular, those relating to the total
sociolinguistic situation that characterizes the process of text recep-
tion. Translation is not simply a matter of pen and ink, Bible and
commentary, form and content, source language and receptor language;
it is much more than that. Translation involves different levels of
meaning in diverse social settings, the community and culture,
intention and effect, function and feedback, denotation plus connota-
t i o n — i n short, communication unlimited. Unless the translator sees
himself as part of this much larger complex of message transmission,
he will never be equal to the task of producing a dynamic equivalent
version of the Scriptures in his language. Or, to state this point
positively, once the translator realizes the great potential of language
as a primary exponent and expression of culture, he will be in a
better position to utilize this resource more perceptively and creatively
in order to contextualize the message of the Bible for his people. His
aim is not to transculturize the way of life and world view of the
original, but to convey its sense and significance as completely as
possible in a new sociocultural and linguistic setting.
 CHAPTER 5

Figurative Language and Cult ure

All languages, some perhaps to a greater extent than others, use

words in ways that are not literal. That is to say, the normal referent
of a word (whether an object, event, or abstraction) is not intended
by the speaker/writer when he uses it. Rather, the word or phrase is
employed in a certain context to convey a meaning which it does not
normally carry. Figurative language comprises one major category of
literary devices which manifest such nonliteral speech. A figure of
speech is based upon a special semantic relationship which associates
or links the figurative meaning of a term with its literal sense (the
latter being the meaning that people would usually give to the word in
isolation, i.e., when the linguistic and extralinguistiç context is
minimal). Furthermore, speakers recognize, for the most part subcon-
sciously, that there is this relationship between the two senses—the
literal and the extended; for example, between " b r e a d , " one of the
staple foods of many countries, made from wheat flour, and " i n d i s -
pensable sustenance," which is how Christ uses the term in the
expression " I am the bread of life" (Jn 6:35). Where a recognition of
this underlying connection has for all practical purposes died out, then
we are not dealing with a figure of speech any more, but some other
type of nonliteral language.
Figurative language is employed by people to describe some new
experience or insight, to lend verbal color to their speech, to e m p h a -
size important ideas and feelings, or to avoid speaking directly about
certain topics of a personal, embarrassing, specially religious, or highly
emotional nature. These general functions of figurative language are
more or less universal. The various objects and events which serve as
the literal basis for these figures, however, are not so common
between languages. Languages differ even more in the specific
associations of meaning, or semantic components, that relate the
literal and figurative senses, for such associations are very much
culture-specific. For these reasons, then, figures of speech rarely
correspond between languages, and the translator is faced with the
task of somehow making the meaning of the biblical expression explicit
in his language. In this chapter we will survey some of the main types
of figurative language that are found in the Scriptures. We will note
in particular the nature of the meaning which each typically conveys
on an implicit level, and in this connection offer a few suggestions as
to how this information can be reproduced naturally in the R L — t o -
gether with a similar functional value, that is, with an aesthetic
appeal and dramatic impact which matches that of the SL text. Special
attention will be given to the various ways in which the culture of
the receptor group influences the search for a dynamic equivalent
rendering of the original.
There are two basic types of associative relation according to
which figures of speech (the main ones at least) may be classified:
replacement and comparison. These will be discussed and illustrated in
turn under the various literary terms which have traditionally been
used to designate them (for a semantically more precise description of
the figures discussed here, see Nida et al., 1983, Appendix).

A. Replacement Figures
Six figures of substitution are discussed below: metonymy,
synecdoche, hyperbole, hypobole, idiom, and euphemism. In the case of
the first five, an ordinary way of speaking is replaced by a more
graphic a n d / o r less expected expression. Euphemism, on the other
hand, involves the substitution of an oblique reference to a topic that
for one reason or another cannot be spoken about directly in normal
discourse. The topic of figurative action is also taken up in this
section, since it must be handled similarly in translation.

1. M E T O N Y M Y
Metonymy involves the use of a word (or phrase) in place of
another word to which the former is related in some way. The
substitute word, or " m e t o n y m , " is employed as if it were a synonym
of the term that is replaced, but their respective literal meanings (and
associated collocational sets) are not really similar at all. On the
contrary, they usually represent completely different semantic fields.
However, they do have one important relationship in common, and this
component of meaning allows the metonym to be used as a substitute
for the other—normally with a certain degree of heightening in terms
of rhetorical effect.
There are four principal types of meaning-relation which link a
word and its figurative substitute, the metonym. While these connec-
tions were probably apparent to most of the original hearers of the
message, it is often necessary to make the precise nature of a given
relation explicit in translation, including the concept which has been
replaced, or it will remain hidden from today's receptors, and the text
might consequently be misunderstood. A literal translation may also
sound very unnatural, since the metonym joins words which usually do
not occur together in the language. The result is a "collocational
clash" that makes the intended meaning difficult if not impossible to
determine.

a) Location: In this type of metonym a place reference may be

substituted for what is located there, what is characteristically done
there, or even for the person(s) who is known to live and work there.
When Matthew reports that "Jerusalem went out" to hear John the
Baptist preach (3:5), he is obviously referring to the inhabitants of
that city (i.e., many of them at least; this is also hyperbolic speech;
see below). A literal translation into Chewa (C) or Tonga (T), h o w -
ever, would imply that "Jerusalem" is a person, because only human
beings collocate with the verb "go out (to hear)." A common locative
metonym in the Bible occurs with the word "heaven," the place where
God dwells. When Jesus asks, " T h e baptism of John, whence was it?
From heaven or from m e n ? " (Mt 21:25), he is not simply referring to
a location. He uses this as a designation for God himself (this usage is
also a type of word avoidance; see below). A " c u p " is used for its
contents in Paul's words: " T h e cup (i.e., wine) of blessing which we
bless . . . " (1 Co 10:16). The word " b e d " (koit'e) replaces two
contrasting references to the sexual relationship (i.e., what is done on
a bed)—referring positively to that of marriage: "[let the] bed [be]
undefiled" (Hb 13:4, literally); referring negatively to sexual immoral-
ity: "(let us walk) not in beds" (Ro 13:13, literally). " A l t a r " refers by
metonymy to what is offered there in H b 13:10—"we have an altar
(i.e., sacrifice = Christ) from which those who serve the tent have no
right to eat." The preceding passage illustrates another locative
metonym in the word " t e n t " (or "tabernacle," the well-known holy
place), typifying in Hebrews the entire Jewish religious establishment
as set in opposition to Christianity.
None of the metonyms illustrated in the preceding passages (or
those that follow) are meaningful and/or natural when translated
literally into C / T . At times, however, it is possible to render the form,
particularly if this is of some religious-cultural significance, together
with its sense in a combined expression that is acceptable; e.g.:

We have an altar of sacrifice, and the priests who serve

in the big tent where the Jews worshipped are not
allowed to eat what was offered on it. (Hb 13:10,
C—back translation)

Before going any further, let us consider in somewhat more detail

the issue of the "live-ness" (or activity) of a given figure. For
example, in the passage "if a house is divided . . . " (Mk 3:25), the
family—or those who live in the house—is meant. Now if one were to
look up the word " h o u s e " (oikos) in a Greek dictionary, one would
find that "family" is one of several meanings listed there (i.e., in
addition to the literal reference to a dwelling place—property/pos-
sessions, descendants, nation, etc.) Is "family" literal or figurative
then? That is somewhat hard to tell from our perspective and situa-
tion, which is rather far removed from the original literary and
linguistic context in which these words were uttered. This meaning
certainly was figurative—a metonym—at one time in the history of
the language, but its status at the time of speaking would depend upon
whether speakers had at least some awareness of the associative
relation between the literal and extended senses, in which case it
would be considered to be a "live" (active) figure. If there were no
recognition of this relation, the figure would be regarded as " d e a d , "
and it would be treated as any other literal reference or extension of
meaning.
This is not just an academic distinction, for while the problem of
semantic inequivalence may be essentially the same, the solution in
each case is not. If a genuine " l i v e " figure is posited, it is not merely
designative meaning that is involved in the transfer process, since the
text has been rhetorically heightened at this point—a feature which
calls for a similar effect to be created in the translation; e.g., a
panyumba 'those at the house' (C) rather than the more prosaic a
m'banja 'those in the family'. The interpretive problem posed by this
example is widespread in the analysis of the figurative language of the
Bible, and it points up the need for more lexicographical investigation,
coupled with rhetorical and semantic studies, of the original text in its
sociolinguistic and literary setting.
There are three general criteria, however, that the translator can
apply in seeking to determine whether he is dealing with a literal or a
live figurative sense in a given situation:

i- Are there any other figures in the context which are related to the
word or phrase in question? If so, then it is likely that the latter,
too, is being used with a figurative meaning. In Mk 3:25 the referent
of " h o u s e " is obviously related to the verb "stand" at the end of the
verse, and " s t a n d " is being used nonliterally, i.e., to continue to exist
in a unified state. But in the parallelism which unites verses 24-26
into a unit, there is no sustained build-up of imagery selected from
the semantic field of "buildings," and this would suggest that the
usage of " h o u s e " here is more literal than not. " H o u s e , " for example,
patterns together with " k i n g d o m " (i.e., nation) of v. 24 and "Satan"
(i.e., the entire group of Satan's followers) in v. 26. In Lk 11:24, on
the other hand, we do find a complex of interrelated images which
includes " h o u s e , " i.e.:

" I will return to my house from which I came."

In this case " h o u s e " serves as a locative metonym for place of abode
(i.e., of the evil spirit). This figurative sense is reinforced in the
following verses by expressions such as " . . . he finds it (i.e., the
house) swept and put in order" (v. 25) and " . . . they enter and
dwell there" (v. 26). The context, then, which includes the additional
feature that the various aspects of the imagery manifest a chrono-
logical progression, would lead us to conclude that "house" is a live
figure here (cp. Jn 14:2, "In my Father's house are many rooms
. . . ").

i i - Are there some key nonfigurative references in the context which

are closely related to the suspected figurative sense? If so, then it is
very possible (however, not so clear-cut as in [i]) that a figure of
speech is indeed present. In Mt 21:7, for example, after Christ has
chased the merchants and moneychangers out of the Temple, he
comments, " M y house shall be called a house of prayer . . . ." The
first " h o u s e " is obviously identified with the Temple in which these
words were uttered, and Christ thereby calls attention to the fact that
an OT prophecy has just been fulfilled, i.e., a combination of Is 56:7
and Jr 7:11. The meaning of "house" in this situation takes on a new
dimension as the well-known expression " m y / t h y (etc.) house,"
referring metonymically to the place where God manifests his presence
among his people and where they come to worship him, is dramatically
applied to the present circumstances. The figure is thus given new
life, or "reactivated" we might say, due to the current setting in
which it is used. The figurative imagery is then continued in the
words " b u t you make it a den of robbers" (we see here how criteria
[i] and [ii] are often used in conjunction with each other). The second
occurrence of " h o u s e " in this passage, i.e., ''house of prayer," was
also at one time a figure of speech (another locative metonym), but in
this case it is one which had " d i e d , " or become conventionalized, with
the result that the relation between its literal and figurative senses no
longer engaged the listener's attention in its interpretation, i.e., as a
place where some activity is characteristically performed.

iii- Are there other occurrences of a given expression with the same
meaning, seemingly figurative, in the same book, or in another book
by the same author, or in books written by different authors? If so,
then it is likely that the figure is a dead one; the more often it is
found, the more probable this conclusion becomes. "Same meaning"
implies that the contextual modification of either criteria (i) or (ii)
does not apply. " H o u s e , " for example, is used in the same sense as in
Mk 3:25, i.e., family unit, in Mk 6:4, Mt 12:25 (a parallel passage), Lk
18:29, and Jn 4:53. Thus our interpretation that this meaning in this
particular context is no longer actively figurative would appear to be
confirmed.

These same criteria may be applied to any of the other types of

figurative language that will be discussed in this section. They are not
incontrovertible, but they do provide the translator with at least some
guidance in the difficult job of discerning the literal from the
figurative, and what is figuratively dead from that which is rhetori-
cally still alive.

b) Time: A temporal metonymy is indicated when a time word is used

in place of an event which is specified as having taken place, or
which will take place in the future, at that time. One of the most
frequent examples of this relation is the use of " d a y " to refer to
something important which happens at that time. For example, when
Jesus speaks of his " d a y " in Jn 8:56 ("Abraham rejoiced that he was
to see my day"), he means the event of his incarnation, when he
became man. A literal rendering of this metonym is meaningless in
both Chewa and Tonga; an adequate translation must therefore make
the significance of the time referred to explicit, i.e., "the day of my
coming." The same is true in G n 6:3: " . . . his days shall be a
hundred and twenty years." In this case the time reference must be
recast in the form of an event: "people will not live longer than one
hundred and twenty years." Similarly the action taking place at the
time referred to has to be clarified in a passage like Jn 16:4, where
Christ warns his disciples, " w h e n their hour comes . . . ," viz., at the
time when they start to persecute you.

Much less frequently a temporal metonym involves the reverse, namely,

an event word substitutes for the time of that event. A rather
complex example occurs in Ac 27:9: "the voyage was dangerous
because the fast had already gone by." A literal translation (e.g., C / T
old Bible) makes it sound as if the fast itself was the cause of this
danger, i.e., perhaps the sailors were just too weak to work. Actually
it was the time of the fast, held in conjunction with the Day of
Atonement, which was of concern, not the religious festival per se. As
GNB points out in an essential footnote, this was the bad weather
season (September-October), and that meant rough sailing—hence
Paul's practical advice (v. 10).

c) Attribution: A characteristic or quality is used in place of the

person or object to which that quality is attributed or vice versa; an
object word substitutes for its associated attribute, which may involve
a related event as well. One of the most common attributive metonyms
in the Bible occurs with the word " n a m e . " This may simply be a
replacement for the person being referred to; e.g., "who believed in
his name [i.e., Christ]" (Jn 1:12). More frequently, however, a more
complex relationship between the person, usually the deity, and his
" n a m e " is denoted; e.g., "Hallowed be thy name" (Mt 6:9). In the
second passage God is certainly being referred to by the word
" n a m e , " but more is involved, namely, anything that can be said about
or to God (cf. Ex 20:7). Another familiar metonym occurs with " h a n d , "
which is associated with power, authority, control, e t c ; e.g.:

" T h e Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of

men [i.e., into their control]." (Mt 17:22)

In some contexts both Chewa and Tonga have similar métonymie

usages involving the words " n a m e " and " h a n d , " but this is not true
everywhere, and verbal correspondence must always give place before
contextual consistency. One metonym which has rather different
connotative associations in a Bantu as distinct from a biblical context
is " h o r n . " In the OT this word often evoked the idea of strength or
power, whether employed for good or bad purposes; e.g.:

"All the horns of the wicked he will cut off." (Ps

75:10)

In a traditional Chewa setting, this passage would also convey the

notion of power, but reference would be rather to the mysterious
magical power of the "sorcerer" (wanyanga 'person of the horn[s]'),
that is to say, someone who employs animal " h o r n s " in which to store
and apply his " m e d i c i n e " (roots, herbs, leaves, and various other
animate and inanimate substances), either to defend a client, to enrich
him at the expense of others, or to attack his adversary. Now, this
might sound like a real blessing to the Chewa listener thus far, but if
he would continue to interpret the verse from his cultural perspective,
he would encounter some serious difficulties with the next line:

"But the horns of the righteous will be exalted."

Certainly no "righteous" person would have anything to do with the

nefarious practice of sorcerers and witches—not if he were a practi-
cing Christian, at any rate! Similarly it would be misleading to attempt
to use "flywhisk" (mchira wamfumu 'the tail of the c h i e f ) as a
cultural substitute for "scepter" in a passage like H b 1:8:

" T h e righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom."

Indeed, the animal-tail flywhisk is a métonymie symbol of royal

authority and rule; however, it is again associated with magical powers
whose purpose is to protect the chief from the attacks of enemies,
both human and supernatural. But in fact "the Son" (1:8) has come to
free us from the belief in all such powers, past (traditional) and
present. Thus the use of mchira would distort and confuse the
theological intent of the author's use of the metonym "scepter," both
in this N T context as well as in the OT source (Ps 45:6).

d) Cause-Effect: With this type of metonymy, a cause substitutes for

its effect, or vice versa. For example, in Ac 15:21 we read: " F o r . . .
Moses has had in every city those who preach him." The name
"Moses" usually refers to the man himself. But in this passage it is
employed figuratively to designate what Moses (cause) wrote, i.e., his
books (effect). Notice that there is no comparison involved here as we
have in the case of simile and metaphor (see below). That is, Moses is
not said to be like his writings; rather, he is the one who produced
them.

There are a variety of cause-effect metonyms. They are often based

on a body part; e.g., "what comes out of the mouth [i.e., what is
spoken]" (Mt 15:11); " w h e n they lifted up their eyes [i.e., looked]"
(Mt 17:8). An instrument may be used for what it effects; e.g.;

" . . . bonds [i.e., imprisonment] and afflictions await

m e . " (Ac 20:23, NASB)

We might just note here that the four categories of metonymy being
proposed here are not strictly defined, nor are they necessarily
mutually exclusive. Thus one might classify a given instance in several
ways, depending upon one's perspective; e.g.:

" I have not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Mt

10:34) (i.e., strife, discord, conflict—the result of using
 a sword (cause/effect), or that which is associated with
the use of a sword [attributive])

. . . for he does not bear the sword in vain. (Ro 13:4)

(sword = instrument used to carry out punishment, i.e.,
cause/effect, or = object associated with one having the
authority to punish, i.e., attributive metonym)

The purpose is not to create a rigid taxonomy for analytical purposes,

but simply to provide a heuristic device, that is, a conceptual frame-
work, which will better enable translators to recognize and deal with
métonymie usage in the Bible. This is necessary due to the complexity
of figurative language, for as we also see illustrated above, the same
figure may be employed with a different meaning and associated
impact. Christ's use of an instrument of war in a context of familial
relations has a dramatic, almost shocking, effect, whereas Paul's
reference to the " s w o r d " of government is not quite so novel, for
Roman authority, like that of most ruling nations, was characterized
by its use of implements of warfare to keep conquered peoples in
subjection.
We see the figurative means for the result in the following
passage:

" . . . that I may avenge the blood [i.e., d e a t h / murder]

of my servants . . . ." (2 Kg 9:7)

When " b l o o d " is referred to Christ, however, a complex metonymy

results; e.g.:

In him we have redemption through his blood . . . .

(Eph 1:7) (i.e., shed blood/cause; death/effect; + as a
sacrifice/attributive)

The term " b l o o d " (haima) is an important verbal symbol in the

Scriptures, and due to its theological significance, in certain passages
at least, translators would normally be expected to make some attempt
to preserve the form in translation. But in the case of this word,
certain problems develop due to cultural associations in the Bantu
languages of Central Africa. Here we find that "blood" is such a
strong symbol of " l i f e " that to use it in reference to " d e a t h " often
causes a considerable degree of unnaturalness in usage. That is not
true, however, with the related biblical symbol, "cross." In this
instance, although the metonym is also a complex of both cause/effect
and attribution, it is not difficult to combine aspects of both form and
meaning in translation; e.g.:

For the word (= message, i.e., synecdoche, see below) of

the cross is folly to those who are perishing. (1 Co
1:18)

The words telling about the death of Christ on the

cross as a sacrifice is a foolish thing to those who are
lost . . . . (C)

And finally, there is a type of syntactic metonymy which has often

produced misleading translations, and that is where a double causative
agent is involved; e.g.:

For Herod had seized John and bound him and put him
in prison . . . . (Mt 14:3)

In fact, Herod (primary/initiating agent) sent his soldiers (secondary/

effecting agent) to carry out these various actions. A literal transla-
tion inevitably implies that Herod did all the dirty work himself!

2. SYNECDOCHE
Synecdoche is really a specific kind of metonymy (i.e., type " c "
above) in which a part of some entity or group is put in place of the
whole, or the whole is given for the part. But since it is frequently
distinguished as a special category in commentaries, lexicons, transla-
tion manuals, etc., we shall also do so here.
Often we find a member of the body standing for the entire
person; e.g.:

"You shall not see my face [i.e., me] . . . ." (Gn 43:3)

[Abimelech] told all these things in their ears [i.e., to

them]. (Gn 20:8, K J V )
 . . . that he may encourage your hearts [i.e., you]. (Eph
6:22)

Their feet [i.e., they] are swift to shed blood. (Ro 3:15)

Synecdoches are generally not too difficult to interpret or to translate

once they have been recognized. In some cases a literal rendering
would not be unnatural; e.g., the first and third passages above in
Chewa. But certain synecdoches are not quite so obvious; e.g.:

" I coveted no one's silver or gold." (Ac 20:33) (One

could understand the synecdoche as referring to one's
wealth [T], or more specifically, to one's money [C].)

"Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or n o t ? " (Mt

22:17) ("Caesar" refers to the whole Roman govern-
mental system.)

Whole for the part synecdoches usually involve groups of people; e.g.:

. . . the Jews [i.e., specifically their leaders] sent

priests and Lévites from Jerusalem to ask h i m . . . . (Jn
1:19)

And when the Pharisees saw this, they said . . . . (Mt

9:11) (i.e., not the entire membership, as a literal
rendering would imply, but specifically those who
happened to be there on the scene).

Another common type makes use of "all" when only a portion is

meant, even though this may constitute the majority; e.g.:

Early in the morning . . . all [i.e., a big crowd of] the

people came to him . . . . (Jn 6:2)

The preceding usage could also be classified as a "hyperbole" (see

below). One must be careful not to confuse this with instances where
the " a l l " is used in its literal sense; e.g.:
 [God] desires all men to be saved . . . . (1 Ti 2:4)

Sometimes an absolute negative replaces a partial negative for

rhetorical effect (also a type of "hyperbole," see below); e.g.:

He bears witness . . . yet no one [i.e., relatively few]

receives his testimony. (Jn 3:32)

In all such cases (literally "all"!) the translator must carefully

determine what a literal rendering would mean to his constituency. If
he concludes (on the basis of testing) that a majority would not
interpret the figure correctly, then he will have to state its
meaning—either the whole or the part as required—explicitly in the
text.

3. HYPERBOLE
Hyperbole is an exaggeration or overstatement intended to give a
special impact to one's words, but which is not meant to be taken
literally. The danger is that if a hyperbolic statement from Scripture
is understood literally by the readers of a translation, it can lead to
all sorts of wild interpretations (and translations!); e.g.:

" F o r John came neither eating or drinking . . . ." (Mt

11:18)

This has been rendered literally in the new Chewa N T , and the
question that immediately arises in people's minds is, " H o w , then,
could he live?!" They mistakenly attempt to find the answer in what
follows: " H e has a demon," i.e., he is controlled and empowered by
some (evil) supernatural being. In the case of this and many other
hyperboles, the only solution is to make the intended meaning explicit
in the text; e.g., "John never used to eat at banquets and he never
drank wine (strong drink)." Of all the speakers whose words are
recorded in the Scriptures, hyperbole is found most commonly in the
discourses of Christ. He frequently employed overstatement as a sharp
literary device to cut away at the blatant hypocrisy of his opponents;
e.g.:
 "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of
G o d . " (Mt. 19:24)

or to soften the religious indifference of his hearers; e.g.:

"If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and
throw it away . . . ." (Mt 5:29)

or to impress upon his disciples the need for commitment; e.g.:

"If anyone would sue you and take your coat, let him
have your cloak as well." (Mt 5:40)

The difficulty with these and many similar passages is that it is not
always possible to transform the exaggeration and yet retain the
general sense and impact of the original—at least not economically or
naturally in the text. Fortunately, in the case of both Chewa and
Tonga, hyperbole is not a completely foreign rhetorical feature,
especially in hortatory-didactic texts, and thus there is at least a
chance that receptors will understand it correctly in context. Where
misunderstanding is likely, however, some sort of explanatory footnote
will be necessary.
In addition to problems on the semantic level of discourse, some
hyperboles cause confusion due to conceptual "interference" from the
cultural context of the receptor group; e.g.:

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and

cleaves to his wife . . . . (Gn 2:24)

For the Tonga, who observe patrilocal residence (i.e., a newly married
couple will live at the village of the father's parents), this statement
taken literally sounds very strange indeed. But there is no idea here
of a physical forsaking or of social estrangement, as the verb "leave"
might suggest. Rather, the passage simply speaks in a striking way
about the shift in the center of one's emotional attachment from one's
parents to one's spouse (with an observation on the physical attach-
ment of marriage to follow).
 Hyperbole often looks like a "whole for the part" synecdoche,
whether positively or negatively stated; e.g.:

" T h e world [i.e., many people] has gone after him." (Jn
12:19)

And he could do no [i.e., only a few] mighty works

there . . . . (Mk 6.5) (The "few mighty works" are then
specified at the end of the verse.)

A contrast between antonyms may also be employed to overstate the

point; e.g.:

"Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated [i.e., loved less]." (Ro

9:13)

Again, a literal translation here, as is found in the older versions of

both Chewa and Tonga, is completely misleading and confuses Paul's
entire line of argumentation. The same is true of the following passage
where the hyperbole involves a figure of speech (metonymy). A w o r d -
for-word translation here serves only to obscure the meaning instead
of intensifying it as was the intention of the hyperbole:

They built for themselves high places at all their towns,

from watchtower to fortified city [i.e., from the smallest
village to the largest town]. (2 Kg 17:9)

Of course, not all hyperbolic language is untranslatable. Straight-

forward exaggeration, especially when augmented by other cues in the
context of use, may well convey a similar impression in the R L , as is
illustrated in this overstatement, the concluding word of " a d v i c e "
from Hushai to Absalom:

"If he withdraws into a city, then all Israel will bring

ropes to that city, and we shall drag it into the valley,
until not even a pebble is to be found there." (2 Sm
17:13)
Occasionally one may find a hyperbole which corresponds between the
SL and the RL; e.g.:

Where do all the fights [literally 'wars'] and quarrels

among you come from? (Ja 4:1)

In Chewa, then, as well as in Greek, the word " w a r s " {nkhondo, C)

may be employed to intensify the nature of the social strife being
alluded to. The hyperbole is particularly effective here in reference to
fellow-Christians, who ought to have been characterized by "peace."
Notice that RSV seems to interpret this word literally; i.e.:

What causes wars, and what causes fightings among

you?

But in the context of James, this is less probable.

Sometimes it is possible to replace a SL hyperbole by one that is

equivalent in the RL; e.g.:

. . . the earth was split by their noise [i.e., of song and

rejoicing at the coronation of Solomon], (1 Kg 1:40)

The form in Chewa rather closely approximates that of the Hebrew:

"the land was shaking . . . " (as at the time of an earth tremor).

4. HYPOBOLE
Hypobole is the literary opposite of hyperbole, though it has a
similar rhetorical effect. Understatement is not as common in the Bible
as overstatement, but it deserves mention because it does present a
similar translation problem in that a literal rendering will usually be
misunderstood in the RL; e.g.:

By faith he kept the Passover . . . so that the D e -

stroyer of the firstborn might not touch [i.e., kill]
them. (Hb 11:28)

What if some were unfaithful? (Ro 3:3)

 (Not only a few Jews were unfaithful, but the great
majority of the nation of Israel, as Paul later points
out, e.g., 10:21)

A rather complex hypobole occurs in Jn 15:20:

"If they kept my word, they will keep yours also."

But as the context clearly shows, there is really no cause for optimism
here. The fact was that just as the ungodly unbelievers of the
" w o r l d " had N O T obeyed Jesus' teaching (thus a contrary-to-fact
conditional), so they would not obey the instruction of Jesus' disciples.
A more frequently occurring type of understatement, termed a
litotes, accents an affirmation by means of negating the opposite idea;
e.g.:

A broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not

despise [i.e., will graciously welcome and accept]. (Ps
51:17)

No good thing does the L O R D withhold from those who

walk uprightly. (Ps 84:11)
(i.e., God will give them every good thing; or " G o d will
not begrudge them any good thing" [C].)

" F o r with God nothing will be impossible" (Lk 1:37)

(i.e., God can do anything/everything; in this case the
double negative emphasizes the positive thought.)

Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren . . . . (Ro

1:13, K J V )

As in the case of many a litotes, a literal translation is not difficult

to produce in either Chewa or Tonga, but the result, if not misleading
semantically, is stylistically unnatural. The impact of a simple direct
statement is much greater, " I want you to know . . . " (C), with
additional stress coming from the personal self-reference.
 For I am not ashamed of [i.e., I have confidence in] the
gospel. (Ro 1:16)

The litotes in the preceding passage is slightly more complicated, in

that it is based upon a Hebrew understanding of the verb " b e
ashamed" in relation to God. Thus a typical expression such as "let
me not be put to shame" ("be ashamed," KJV; Ps 25:2) means
something like " d o n ' t let me d o w n , " i.e., do not let my faith/confi-
dence in you (God) prove to be in vain by allowing my enemies to
defeat me. The concept of " s h a m e " is also an important one in the
typical Chewa/Tonga community, but it pertains to one's social, or
interpersonal, relations, and this excludes the theological component
which is so prominent in the Hebrew. Thus a literal rendering turns
out to be less than natural in the language, for people would not be
expected to feel " s h a m e " about something which is generally regarded
as being good—socially, ethically, morally, or however.

5. E U P H E M I S M
In all languages certain terms acquire very potent connotations
which become associated with their use. Because people feel so
strongly about such words, it is often considered improper to use them
in formal public speech or writing. They are regarded as being either
too powerful (in a supernatural sense), sacred, etc., or alternatively,
too offensive, embarrassing, harsh, unpleasant, dangerous, etc., to be
uttered in normal discourse, and this would include religious language
in particular. When such emotions and attitudes become attached to
words in this way, people normally develop alternative, less direct
ways of referring to the meaning that is designated by the " t a b o o "
terms. These socially-acceptable substitute expressions are termed
"euphemisms," or as the Hebrews called them, "clean talk." In the
Bible euphemistic replacements are employed most frequently when
referring to God, death, and sexual relations, examples of which are
given below:

"It is a decree of the Most High [i.e., G o d ] . " (Dn 4:24)

" A r e you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed [i.e.,

G o d ] ? " (Mk 14:61)
 (The Jews avoided explicit mention of the name of God
so as not to be inadvertently guilty of disobeying the
command of Ex 20:7.)

" . . . before I go whence I shall not return [i.e., die],

to the land of gloom and deep darkness [i.e., the
grave]." (Jb 10:21)

And Ananias . . . fell down and gave up the ghost [i.e.,

died]. (Ac 5:5)

Now Adam knew [i.e., had sexual relations with] Eve his
wife. (Gn 4:1)

It is well for a man not to touch [i.e., have sexual

relations with, here as a metonym for marriage] a
woman. (1 Co 7:1)

As far as translation is concerned, one must determine first of all

whether euphemisms are required for talking about the same topics in
the R L . Where a euphemism is not necessary, then the meaning—what
was kept hidden in the original—may be translated directly; e.g.:

[Ahaz] even made his son to pass through the fire.

(2 K g 16:3)
(i.e., he sacrificed his son as a burnt offering; appar-
ently the practice was so detestable to the writer that
he did not want to mention it explicitly)

In Chewa and Tonga there is no convention for avoiding the mention

of God's name as is done in the Bible, though various "praise names"
are often used to embellish one's reference to the deity, especially in
poetic contexts such as the Psalms; e.g., Mphambe (C) 'God who
manifests his power in creation and in natural phenomena like thunder'
designates "hosts" (sebaoth) in the expression "the L O R D of Hosts"
(1 Sm 15:2, etc.). Similarly, where dialogue is not involved, a e u p h e -
mistic substitute is generally not required with reference to someone's
death (e.g., Ananias, Ac 5:5).
 In cases of direct address, however, topics such as sex, death,
and the bodily functions will always have to be referred to e u p h e -
mistically in a Bantu language, but the forms employed to do this will
usually be different; e.g., "Joseph has gone" (C), " A d a m stayed with
his wife" (C), and so on. The forms will vary, too, depending on the
social setting of speech, i.e., who is speaking to whom under what
circumstances. In place of a more refined reference to sexual relations,
Judah, in Chewa for example, proposes this to a prostitute (or so he
thought): Tiye, tikaonane 'Let's go have a look at one another' (Gn
38:16). In a different situational context, evasion may be the norm.
Jairus for example would never have been informed so bluntly, "Your
daughter is dead" (Mk 5:35). Rather, the news would be conveyed
much more sympathetically, "Your child has left us." Similarly, when
K i n g David asked the Sudanese messenger about the fate of his son
Absalom, he receives the reply:

" M a y the enemies of my lord the king, and all who rise
up against you for evil, be like that young man." (2 Sm
18:32)

By means of this elaborate euphemistic statement, the messenger not

only informed David of Absalom's death, but he also respectfully
reminded him of his son's terrible crime and well-deserved punishment
(i.e., for treason). The influence of sociocultural factors on the forms
of direct discourse will be considered more fully in the next chapter.
Many euphemisms get rendered literally because translators do
not realize at all that they are dealing with replacement figures. For
example, it sounds quite natural in Chewa for Jacob to reprove Reuben
for "going up to his father's b e d " (Gn 49:4). That is banned behavior
among all the peoples of Central Africa—even to enter one's parents'
sleeping quarters is strictly forbidden. But the fact that Reuben
actually had sexual relations with one of Jacob's wives is not at all
apparent from this translation. Literalism, as found in the old Chewa
Bible, transforms Reuben's sin into something entirely different. When
he "defiled" his father's " b e d , " the implication is that he urinated
upon it, and this is behavior which could be expected only from small
children or fools! The meaning of some euphemisms lies deeply buried
within the cultural context of the original text. In the Preacher's
graphic description of the ills of old age, he mentions the fact that
"the desire [of the elderly] fails" (Ec 12:5). GNB renders this quite
generally as "all desire will be gone." Here the euphemism has been
missed, for literally the Hebrew reads: 'and the caper-berry is
exhausted'. In other words, there is a double metonymy in which the
berry substitutes for the potion that is made from it, and the potion
replaces its intended effect, i.e., as an aphrodisiac to increase one's
sexual desire. This example also illustrates the overlapping which is
often found in these figurative categories.

6. IDIOM
An idiom is a replacement figure which usually consists of two or
more words that function as a semantic unit in the language. That is
to say, the form of the expression is fixed and so is the sense, which
cannot be determined on the basis of the meanings of the individual
words that comprise it. An idiomatic phrase is often further compli-
cated due to the fact that it may incorporate some internal métonymie
a n d / o r metaphoric usage (depending on one's perspective), but such
finer distinctions will not be attempted here. We are also excluding
from consideration certain "low-level" idioms which consist of set
phrases (often verbal-based) in which a special usage of one of the
words alters the meaning of the whole; e.g., " w h o walks not in the
counsel of the wicked," i.e., he does not listen to their advice. The
following are some typical biblical (full, or "high level") idioms:

"Elisha . . . is here, who poured water on the hands of

Elijah." (2 K g 3:11)
(i.e., " h e was Elijah's assistant," GNB)

Then the captain on whose hand the king leaned said to

the man of God . . . . (2 K g 7:2)
(i.e., " t h e personal attendant of the king said to
Elisha," GNB)

"When you give alms, do not let your left hand know
what your right hand is doing . . . ." (Mt 6:3)
(i.e., " d o it in such a way that even your closest friend
will not know about it," GNB)
 "What have we to do with thee, Jesus . . . ?" (Mt 8:29,
KJV)
(i.e., " h o w have we provoked you" or "what are you
going to do to us"; cp. [C]: "what have we done to
deserve this!")

By their very nature, that is, a group of words that operate semanti-
cally as one, idioms defy a literal translation—a meaningful translation
that is. If an idiom rendered word for word means anything at all in
the R L , it is usually the wrong meaning; e.g.:

And he said, " I will go; / am as you are . . . ." (2 K g

3:7)
(i.e., " I am at your disposal" [GNB], but in the old
Chewa Bible, the literal wording suggests that J e h o -
shaphat was agreeing to Joram's request because he,
too, was a " k i n g , " and therefore just as courageous as
his friend.)

In most cases the sense of the idiom must simply be stated in explicit
nonfigurative language, as illustrated above. But at times it is possible
for a SL idiom to be replaced by a functionally equivalent idiom in the
R L . For example, the picturesque but rather overused, biblical expres-
sion, "land flowing with milk and honey" (especially in the Penta-
teuch, e.g., Ex 3:8), is rendered in Chewa as dziko la mwana alirenji
'land of what can the child cry for?' (i.e., in need, for its parents are
able to supply everything it wants). Elijah's despairing comment, "it is
enough" (i.e., I cannot go on any more/I want to die) (1 K g 19:4)
becomes mbubo ono cabonwa 'alright, now, it (i.e., the end) has been
seen' in (T) and zandikola 'they (i.e., problems) have choked me (to
death)' in (C). Every once in a while it is possible to find a R L idiom
that has some correspondence to the original in form as well; e.g.:

"Is it right with your heart, as my heart is with your

heart?"
(i.e., "You and I think alike" [GNB]) (2 K g 10:15, RSV
margin)

"You and I, our hearts have met together." (Chewa)

 Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoahaz . . . ,
saying, " C o m e , let us look one another in the face" (2
K g 14:8)

A literal translation of the preceding passage would suggest that

Amaziah is proposing that Jehoahaz come down to Jerusalem for a
state visit, while in fact he is challenging Jehoahaz to a fight (cp.
GNB). In Tonga he would have put it this way:

"Uboole, tubone mwaalumi" 'Come, let us see the man'

(i.e., who is the stronger between us).

The Tonga expression for the following Hebrew idiom turns out to be
exactly the same:

" K n o w then that there shall fall to the earth nothing

of the word of the L O R D . . . ." (2 Kg 10:10)
(majwi aa Leza taawida ansi 'the words of God do not
fall to the ground')

Some might be concerned about the possibility of cultural

distortion in the use of certain R L idioms. In 2 Sm 10:19 we read that
the allies of Syria, who had been soundly beaten by David, "made
peace with Israel." The natural way of conveying this in Tonga would
be to say that the Syrians 'dropped their loincloths' (zyakabaloka
nkute) or they 'blew their noses' (bakakeempa). In either case the
meaning is that their previous defeat made them forget about wanting
to do any more fighting—due to shame (the first idiom) or sorrow
(the second). With an idiom, however, the specific forms (objects/
actions) referred to the individual lexical items are not in focus, only
the meaning of the expression as a whole. Thus the amount of cultural
skewing between the SL and the R L texts is minimized if not excluded
entirely. But one would have to watch out for a possible mismatch in
literary style, for it might be that the idiom involving the loincloths
is too colloquial for use in the Scriptures. This is always a danger
with idioms, especially current ones; they may result in a " c h e a p -
ening" of God's Word by carrying with them the overtones of an
inappropriate register of speech.
 The preceding example also illustrates the case of an idiom being
used in the R L where one is not found in the SL text. Normally this
is not a problem, for in most translations considerably more SL idioms
and figures of speech are removed than are found suitable R L equi-
valents to replace them. Furthermore, R L idioms are not employed
simply to play with the text, or even to give it a higher literary
quality. Rather, they are used only when they are natural—when the
textual and extratextual (in the case of dialogue) context calls for a
particular one to best communicate the sense of the original.
The question of whether or not to use R L proverbs in Bible
translation is somewhat more complicated. A proverb, or colorful
wisdom saying, is like an idiom in that the whole functions as a unit
in the discourse, but there is also a difference in that to varying
degrees the individual words which comprise the proverb do contribute
to its total meaning. The issue concerns the degree to which these
specific meanings are consciously perceived by receptors as they
interpret and apply the proverb in its context of use. Where there is
such an active awareness of the referents of the various components,
then, there is always the possibility of semantic distortion, for
proverbs are generally very culture-specific There are exceptions,
however, such as the Chewa proverb which corresponds almost exactly
to the Hebrew figure found in 2 Sm 14:14.

"We must all die, we are like water spilt on the ground
which cannot be gathered up again."
(the Chewa proverb being: madzi akataika, saoleka 'once
1
water is spilled, it cannot be picked up .)

The following Tonga proverb, too, which immediately occurred to the

translator upon reading the text, does not differ overly much from the
form of the original, and it fits the situation perfectly (i.e., Elihu's
discourse):

" L e t days speak, and many years teach wisdom." (Jb

32:10)
"You may leave an elder behind in speed, but not in
common sense." (Munene ulamusiya kulubilo, kumaanu
tomwiindi.)
Where, as is usually the case, the proverbs have become more or less
stereotyped in usage, then they act more as units, like idioms, with
regard to how their meaning is signalled. One thing is certain, a
proverb always augments the dynamic quality of the text, sometimes
dramatically so, as the following Chewa and Tonga equivalents of the
Hebrew example recorded in 1 K g 20:11 demonstrate:

And the king of Israel answered, "Tell him, 'Let not

him that girds on his armor boast himself as he that
puts it off.' "

"You're as good as your fellow upon the anthill only

after you've climbed up there yourself." (C)

" A man is a buffalo" (T) (i.e., one cannot brag that he

is as strong as a water buffalo until after he has
defeated his opponent).

The question that translators have to decide is whether or not there

has been a cultural and/or a stylistic distortion of the original in the
process of message transfer.

7. F I G U R A T I V E ACTION
A figurative action is a gesture, body movement, or some other
activity that has a special significance, or "nonliteral" meaning, in the
particular sociocultural setting in which it is carried out. Figurative
actions may be handled in translation in a way that is similar to
figures of speech (that is why they are discussed here). Occasionally a
gesture will be found which corresponds in form and meaning between
the SL culture and that of the RL; e.g.:

. . . she fell sick and died; and when they had washed
her . . . . (Ac 9:37)
(In a [C]/[T] community, a body is also washed in
preparation for burial.)

In other cases, the correspondence is not exact, but it is close enough

so that the translator will not become guilty of contradicting a
historical reference through its use; e.g.:
 And Tamar . . . laid her hand on her head, and went
away, crying as she went. (2 Sm 13:19)

(A Tonga woman would place both hands together at the

back of her head [kulijata kumakosi] as a sign of great
sorrow, such as at the time of a funeral.)

They all laugh me to scorn; they shoot out the lip. (Ps
22:7)

(A similar grimace in Chewa, kukwenzula, involving a

twisting of the mouth [and lips], is used to sneer at
someone.)

There are also actions which, though they do not convey any special
meaning in the R L culture, do have their significance quite clearly
indicated by the context in which they occur; e.g.:

David bowed with his face to the earth, and did

obeisance. (1 Sm 24:8)

(The equivalent behavior in [T]/[C] culture is to kneel

[with the head not touching the ground], but the
following verb makes the meaning of the Hebrew action
obvious.)

Where the context does not suggest why a figurative action was done,
then this may be conveyed in the translation by a short descriptive
phrase, or alternatively it may be explained in a footnote; e.g.:

But when the apostles . . . heard of it, they tore their

garments [add movutika mtima 'troubled at heart' (C),
i.e., they were not pleased about what was happening]
and rushed out among the multitude, crying . . . . (Ac
14:14)

(The precise nature of the act of "tearing garments"

then needs to be described more fully in a footnote so
 that the text does not give the impression that the
apostles tore their clothes to pieces; the inner garment
was torn from the neck straight down only about 4-5
inches.)

As the preceding passage illustrates, one must take into consideration

both the form and the function of the symbolic gesture, though in
most cases it is the latter which needs to be made explicit. This is
especially true in situations where the same figurative action exists
also in the R L culture, but with a different significance from that of
the biblical context; e.g.:

[Judah] thought her to be a harlot, for she had covered

her face. (Gn 38:15)

(Among the T u m b u k a people [N. Malawi/E. Zambia], this

would be the expected response of a woman in the
presence of her father-in-law; linking such action with
"harlotry" makes this a very difficult passage to
understand.)

"Clap your hands, and stamp your foot, and say,

'Alas!' " (Ezek 6:11)

(In an African setting, hands are clapped and feet are

stamped [understood as being a reference to dancing] to
show joy and celebration, not as a sign of sorrow,
which is the intention of the original and signalled by
"alas"; there is thus a contradiction in the text for
most readers.)

And as they cried out and waved their garments and

threw dust into the air . . . . (Ac 22:23)

(These would be interpreted as manifestations of joyful

acclamation, as for a national leader, in a Central
African context; the throwing of dust would be seen as
analogous to the tossing of rice at a European wedding.)
Such apparent contradictions are difficult to deal with when actual
historical events are being reported. Translators are justifiably
reluctant to remove all of the specifics and simply give a general idea
of what was going on; e.g.:

Those who passed by derided him, and showing their

scorn [instead of "wagging their heads" which in (C) is
a nonverbal expression of frustration, grief, or even
surprise], they said . . . . (Mt 27:39)

And where a short explanatory phrase is unavailable, sounds unnatural,

or even draws attention to the cultural contradiction, a footnote is
probably the only answer. A cultural substitute, too, may be a
possibility where a nonhistorical reference is concerned; e.g.:

[I will] make you a desolation, and your inhabitants a

hissing . . . . (Mi 6:16)

The act of "hissing," probably more accurately rendered as "whist-

ling," suggested a feeling of disgust and repugnance over some
shocking a n d / o r shameful sight. The impact of the Hebrew is r e p r o -
duced in translation not by a "whistle," which would signify some-
thing else, but by a 'sucking sound produced by the lips' {mtsonyo—C)
or by a mocking, nonverbal 'hooting' (kuweela—T).

B. Figures of Comparison
Strictly speaking, the two major figures discussed here, namely,
simile and metaphor, function almost the same semantically. They
differ only in that the simile is formally marked as a comparison in
the text, whereas the metaphor is not. Thus there is a certain degree
of increased emphasis or impact in the use of metaphor, that is, when
it is recognized as such. In this section we will also discuss several
types of personification in which human characteristics are attributed
to nonhuman entities, for this figure, too, involves an underlying
comparative relationship.

1. SIMILE
A simile is an explicit figurative comparison in which an object
(or less commonly, an event)—the " t o p i c " (T)—-is described, defined,
explained, or highlighted through the use of another object—the
" i m a g e " (I)—which is likened to T. As a rule T and I are quite
different in nature, i.e., in the semantic field to which they belong or
the range of lexical items with which they collocate. But there is
always at least one quality or characteristic (normally a supplementary,
nondiagnostic semantic component) which the two are considered to
share in a particular sociocultural and/or literary context. A full simile
thus consists of four parts:

(T) Topic: This is the subject under discussion, specifically, the person
or thing about which the comparison is made, which the
image is intended to describe, illustrate, elucidate, or
emphasize in some particular way,

(I) Image: This is the " p i c t u r e " word or representation to which the
topic is compared on the basis of some specific point of
resemblance for the purpose of illustration, highlighting,
description, etc.

(G) Ground: This concept forms the basis for the comparison; it is
that aspect or feature of meaning which functions as the
point of similarity between the topic and the image; it may
be stated figuratively in terms of the image, or literally in
terms of the topic.

(M) Marker: This is a relational word such as " l i k e " or " a s " (in
English) which explicitly signals in the text that a compari-
son between T and I is being made; every language will
have its own way of indicating this relation.

Here are several examples which illustrate these four constituents:

They (T) are as still (G) as (M) a stone (I). (Ex 15:16)

The Amalekites (T) . . . were coming like (M) locusts

(I) for number (G). (Ju 7:12)

For the word of God (T) is . . . sharper (G) than (M)

any two-edged sword (I). (Hb 4:12)
 I (T) will come like (M) a thief (I), and you will not
know at what hour . . . (G). (Rv 3:3)

Such fully explicit similes do not cause the translator a great deal of
difficulty, except in passages where the ground is stated figuratively
as a continuation of the image; e.g.:

For wickedness (T) burns (G) like (M) a fire (I). (Is
9:18)
(Put nonfiguratively, the ground is: "destroys [people].")

They (T) are like (M) a lion (I) eager to tear (G). (Ps
17:12)
(David's enemies are like a ravenous lion, just waiting
for the chance to destroy/kill him.)

Observe how different images, i.e., fire and a lion, present a similar
basis for comparison. Different forms, in other words, have essentially
the same meaning here. The converse is also true: the same figurative
form (image) may convey different meanings. That is to say, the basis
for comparing T and I may vary from one context to another, as we
see in the following example of "sheep":

Thou hast made us like sheep for slaughter. (Ps 44:11)

They are doomed to die like sheep. (Ps 49:14—GNB)
Then he led forth [i.e., guided] his people like sheep.
(Ps 78:52)
Like sheep with none to gather them, every man . . .
will flee to his own land. (Is 13:14)
All we like sheep have gone astray. (Is 53:6)
Like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he
opened not his mouth. (Is 53:7)

(Notice that the ground is supplied in both literal and

figurative terms in this passage, which is quite unusual.)
 Your teeth are as white as a flock of sheep that have
just been washed. (SS 6:6, GNB)
[The people] were harassed and helpless, like sheep
without a shepherd. (Mt 9:36)
Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! (Mt
12:12)
Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Mt
10:10)

As we see illustrated above, it is possible that any one of the many

available supplementary components of the image may serve as the
ground—the reason for fusing the topic and image into a conceptual
unit. This semantic open-endedness, coupled with the fact that the
basis of comparison itself is usually culturally specific, i.e., dependent
on the perception of the people involved, is a feature which often
complicates the translation of similes (and metaphors, see below).
Indeed few, if any, of the characteristics noted above are typically
associated with " s h e e p " among the Chewa and Tonga, people (in their
traditional oral literature, for example). On the contrary, as has
already been mentioned, sheep are generally regarded as being rather
stupid creatures, which are hard to take care of since they cannot
really be left on their own. For this reason goats are greatly p r e -
ferred among the indigenous population, while sheep are more or less
confined to large, fenced European ranches. The point of the following
familiar simile is therefore lost unless explained:

" A n d he will separate them one from another (T) as

(M) a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats (I)."
(Mt 25:32)

Thus the ground, which in this case is largely a connotative value,

i.e., " s h e e p " (positive) / "goats" (negative), is just reversed for most
Central African receptors, and the intended meaning can be conveyed
only through the use of an explanatory footnote. In this instance it is
not possible to attempt to mark the desired connotation in the text,
e.g., "valuable" sheep vs. "worthless" goats, for this would be inter-
preted merely as an exceptional case.
Even in passages where the ground is explicitly stated, problems
may arise because of a difference in cultural perception due to
influence from the local environment; e.g.:

. . . his head and his hair were white as white wool.

(Rv 1:14)

Where sheep do happen to be raised in Zambia, for example, their

wool is certainly not associated with "whiteness," for no animal
herded in the dusty or muddy conditions which characterize the land
remains white for long. Cotton, on the other hand, which is being
grown commercially on an increasing scale in many parts of Tonga
country, is known for its brilliant white color, particularly since it
ripens after the rainy season, when the ground is dry and brown.
That is only part of the problem, however. The difficulties of
interpretation and translation are increased when part of the simile is
left implicit in the text. In most cases this is the ground, that is, the
component of meaning forming the basis of the comparison; e.g.:

" I send you (T) out as (M) sheep (I) in the midst of
wolves." (Mt 10:16)

The implicit ground here is "defenseless" (this is yet another quality

that may be attached to " s h e e p " in addition to the ones already
mentioned). In this case the image is expanded by the phrase " i n the
midst of wolves," i.e., dangerous enemies, and thus the missing point
of similarity is not difficult to deduce. The same is true in the
following passage, where the image has more or less universal quali-
ties:

His appearance (T) was like (M) lightning (I). (Mt 28:3)
(G = very bright, shining light)

In other passages, however, it is not so easy to determine the missing

component that is held in common; e.g.:

I (T) will be as (M) the dew (I) to Israel. (Ho 14:5) (G

= nourishing, life-giving; in many dry areas of Palestine,
a heavy dew performs the same function as rain does in
wetter climates.)
 " M y teaching (T) will fall like (M) drops of rain (I)."
(Dt. 32:2)

In the preceding example the basis of comparison has nothing to do

with the "falling" (e.g., quickly, powerfully, covering everything) as
the text might at first suggest, for this is still part of the image.
Rather, the point concerns the beneficial, yes indispensable, function
of water from rain, which, like Moses' (Yahweh's) teaching, has the
potential (if obeyed) of preserving life. Natural images, however, those
relating to the physical environment, are not as difficult to deal with
as those which are specifically tied to Jewish life and their socio-
cultural setting; e.g.:

" . . . let him (T) be to you as (M) a Gentile and a tax

collector (I)." (Mt 18:17)
(G = socio-religious outcasts, have nothing to do with
them; these groups were ostracized by strict Jews for
failing to fully observe the laws of Moses.)

Images which relate to certain aspects of the theology of the Bible

may also be unfamiliar to receptors; e.g.:

" I make you (T) as (M) God (I) to Pharaoh." (Ex 7:1)
(G = one having complete authority and the power to
enforce it.)

The problem is not that Chéwa/Tonga receptors are unfamiliar with

the image, but " G o d " is simply too great and "otherly" to be used in
human comparisons. Thus the intended ground here is not apparent.

[You were ransomed] with the precious blood of Christ

(T), like (M) that of a lamb (I) without blemish or spot
(G). (1 Pt 1:19)

Although the ground is present, it is given in figurative terms related

to the image. For people who only rarely see lambs, let alone one with
a noticeable defect, the significance of the point of comparison here,
i.e., a reference to the sinlessness of Christ, is obscure. In Jr 23:29
the problem is a somewhat different one:

"Is not my word (T) like (M) fire (I)," says the L O R D .

Commentators differ in their interpretation of the ground. Some say

that God's word is like fire due to its power—it produces results in a
positive sense, like wheat (v. 28); others feel that the focus is upon
destructive force, directed against the false prophets (v. 30). Obviously
the translator cannot make both ideas explicit in the text, so either
he leaves the passage ambiguous (but not meaningless!) or, preferably,
he includes the interpretation with the most support and puts the
other into a footnote.
Sometimes the intended ground bears absolutely no relation to
the biblical image, at least not in the mind of the average reader/
hearer; e.g.:

Your proverbs (T) are as useless (G) as (M) ashes (I);

your arguments (T) are as weak (G) as (M) clay (I). (Jb
13:12, GNB)

In both cases the grounds, which have been made explicit in G N B ,

contradict Tonga thinking: "ashes" have several uses—to make a type
of natural soap, as fertilizer for the garden, and as an insecticide to
get rid of certain plant pests; "clay" is not considered to be " w e a k , "
for it is used to strengthen the foundation of traditional houses and
also to make pots of all shapes and sizes. It does not help in such
cases to leave the ground implicit, as in the original, for that would
only lead to misunderstanding. Three possible solutions are: (a) to
replace the original image with the intended ground alone; (b) to
explain the meaning of the ground in a footnote; or (c) to employ a
cultural substitute for the SL image, e.g., " d u s t " for ashes, or " s a n d "
for clay. The same solutions would apply to cases where connotative
associations arising from the receptor culture might distort the sense
of the passage; e.g.:

He (T) will fly away (G) like (M) a dream (I). (Jb 20:8)
It is an ill omen for a Tonga person to have his/her dream vanish in
the morning, for according to popular belief, some people have been
known to fall into an epileptic seizure and trance after such an
experience. Granted, the passage as a whole does convey negative
overtones, but those linked to the receptor world view are too
divergent to be allowed the chance to interfere with what Zophar
actually meant to say with his simile.
A similar type of difficulty arises when the image happens to be
a live one also in the R L , but where the associated ground is c o m -
pletely different. When Christ, for example, instructs his disciples to
be as "wise as serpents" (Mt 10:16), he was obviously using a ground
of comparison that his hearers were familiar with: serpents were
generally considered to be clever creatures. When the Tonga or Chewa
reader, however, hears the word " s n a k e " (njoka) in this passage, it
conjures up for him entirely different associations, all negative: fear,
distrust, hatred, etc. Thus, even though the basis of similarity is
overtly stated in the text, it is overshadowed by overtones which
derive from the cultural context of today's receptors. Thus, if " s n a k e "
is retained, a footnote is necessary to clarify its significance here.
The use of a cultural substitute, e.g., kalulu 'hare', in this instance is
problematic both due to the great difference in physical form that is
involved between the two referents and also on account of the
connotations which are associated with this amoral trickster character
of popular folklore.
There are some passages, however, where a replacement from the
local environment fits quite well; e.g.:

. . . and their children dance (Jb 21:11)

Their children run and play like lambs. (GNB)
(The imagery and implication of the original are more
clearly brought out in the latter rendering.)

The Tonga herdsman can easily conjure up in his mind the idyllic
picture presented in this passage—with one slight difference: instead
of " l a m b s , " he sees "calves" frolicking about on the African veld.

"If you have faith (T) as (M) a grain of mustard seed

(I) . . . ." (Mt 17:20)
Usually it is not too difficult to find a small seed that people are
familiar with which grows into a large plant, thus illustrating Christ's
point. In Chewa this quality is duplicated by a garden herb known as
mpiru. Its seed is not used as a seasoning or for preserving food as
the biblical mustard; rather, its leaves are cooked to make a stew
(ndiwö) that accompanies the staple maize meal porridge (nsimd). But
in this case it is the form that is highlighted in the original and not
the function, or use.

2. M E T A P H O R
Like a simile, a metaphor is a figurative comparison based on a
supplementary component of meaning (the ground) that links topic and
image, but which, unlike the simile, is not overtly signalled in the text
(i.e., no marker is present). Thus the topic, or subject under discus-
sion, is directly said to be something else, namely, the image, or
illustration, and this creates an overt collocational clash in the text,
for the two are obviously not the same thing. It is only when the
receptor knows, or discovers, the " k e y " feature (G) which relates the
two unlike terms (T and I) that the metaphor is complete conceptually,
as far as he is concerned. The more novel, unexpected, dramatic, etc.,
this linkage is, the greater the emotive impact, imperative force,
a n d / o r descriptive power that this figure carries in the'discourse.
Metaphors are particularly important for the translator to master, both
in the SL and in the R L , since they occur so frequently in the
Scriptures.
As we saw in the case of the simile, there is relatively little
problem in interpretation or translation, when all three principal parts
(i.e., topic, image, and ground) are explicitly stated in the original;
e.g.:

" T h e L O R D (T) is the shield (I) of your help (G), [i.e.,

he protects you] and the sword (I) of your triumph (G),
[i.e., he causes you to be victorious]." (Dt 33:29)

" I (T) am the good shepherd (I). The good shepherd

lays down his life for the sheep (G)." (Jn 10:11)

Some difficulty may develop, however, in passages where the ground,

or point of resemblance, is given in figurative terms, like the image,
e.g.

" A n d he (T) will become . . . a rock (I) of stumbling

(G) to both houses of Israel." (Is 8:14)
(i.e., Yahweh's holiness and his righteous requirements
cause many in Israel and Judah to fall away and to
follow other, less demanding, gods.)

These [false teachers] (T) are waterless (G) springs (I).

(2 Pt 2:17)
(i.e., deceitfully they hold out great promise, but their
words turn out to be completely useless, even deadly.)

More often than not, the ground is left implicit in the text. Where
images of a culturally more "universal" nature are involved, the point
of similarity is relatively easy to supply from the context; e.g.:

And the tongue (T) [a metonymy = what people say] is

a fire (I). (Ja 3:6)
(G = is often used with evil, destructive results, as the
entire section 3:1-12 would indicate.)

Hear the word of the L O R D , you rulers (T) of Sodom

(I). (Is. 1:10)
(G = extremely wicked and immoral; in this case the
biblical story is so familiar that the basis of comparison
is not hard to determine.)

The more culturally specific the image and associated grounds become,
the more difficult it is to interpret the passage if translated literally
in the RL; e.g.:

Thou anointest my head with oil. (Ps 23:5)

(As in the case of many event-based metaphors, the

topic and image are fused with the ground, i.e., you
welcome/treat me with honor [as a guest]. This action
has a somewhat different significance in traditional
 Chewa society, where an anointing with castor oil was
part of the ceremony which took place at the instal-
lation of a new chief.)

He will receive the crown (I) of life (T). (Ja 1:12)

(The genitive construction complicates this metaphor;

here, eternal " l i f e " is the " c r o w n , " that is, a sign of
popular approval and a symbol of the honor and royal
authority that a king held among his subjects [cp. Jb
19:9; R v 4:4]. The meaning of the image in James, who
was writing primarily to a Jewish congregation, is thus
somewhat different from Paul's usage [see below]. In
any case, there is no exact correspondent in a Central
African context. A Chewa Chief might wear a special
sea shell or bracelet as a sort of badge of office, but
these would be magically endowed to give him super-
natural protection against his enemies. Because of these
underlying associations, such terms would not be
appropriate here. Instead the word mphotho 'prize',
'reward' [for achievement] has been used.)

Some common images in the Scriptures are employed with several

different grounds, as we saw in the case of "sheep." " L i g h t " is
another example. In some passages the ground is debatable, such as
the " f o x " as a symbol of either cunning or a destructive nature in Lk
13:32, or "salt" as a picture of preservation a n d / o r seasoning (in a
moral sense) in Mt 5:13 (Lk 14:34), or a " r o c k " which is valued as a
place of safety/defense or for its quality of unchangeableness/relia-
bility in Ps 18:31. Where the image is unknown to the receptor
constituency at large, then even if the ground is present, the text will
remain obscure; e.g.:

We have this [i.e., hope (T)] as a sure and steadfast (G)

anchor (I) of the soul. (Hb 6:19)

(In landlocked Zambia, a picture like this certainly does

not convey the significance which it did in the original.
The functional correspondent would be the "centerpole"
 [isomo, T] which supports the roof of the traditional
village house.)

The law (T) was our custodian (I) until Christ came. (Ga
3:24)

(In Chewa society there is, of course, no exact equi-

1
valent to the Greek paidagogos^ or 'slave- guardian ,
who would superintend and discipline (G) his master's
son until he became of age. To approximate Paul's
dynamic metaphor, the Chewa has employed a cultural
substitute, the namkungwi, i.e., the female supervisor
who oversees girls' initiation ceremonies. The form of
the figure has obviously been changed, particularly in
the gender shift from male to female, but the function
remains essentially that of the biblical figure.)

Most troublesome are those instances where the image and its related
ground occasion a contradiction from the perspective of the R L
culture; e.g.:

" I (T) am the door (I); if anyone enters (G) by me

. . . ." (Jn 10:9)

(The Chewa " d o o r " [chitseko] is 'that which shuts in',

so naturally no one is going to be able to "enter b y "
it. The solution in this case is not too hard to find:
Christ is the "doorway," or entrance, to the house,
building, stockpen, or whatever. When " o p e n , " he allows
free passage; when "closed," one's entry is barred.)

"Unless a grain of wheat [I; the implicit T is Christ,

the speaker] falls into the ground and dies (G) . . . ."
(Jn 12:24)

(On first reading this verse, the Tonga translator

commented, " A n y seed that would die after being
planted must be worthless! It would be impossible for
the seed to produce anything." But because of the
 theological significance of " d e a t h " in this context, it is
not valid to remove it in the interest of R L clarity.
Thus an explanatory footnote may be required.)

As the preceding example illustrates, the topic may not be expressly

included as part of the metaphor but must be derived from the
immediate context. This implicit topic may represent the speaker
himself (as above) or his addressees; e.g.:

" . . . and the sheep of the flock (I) will be scattered

(G)." (Mt 26:31)
(The topic, those who are likened to sheep, are the
disciples, whom Jesus is speaking to.)

When the unexpressed topic is someone (thing) other than the

participants of a dialogue, or the correspondents of a letter, then
there is a greater chance for it to be missed by receptors; e.g.:

[Jesus] said to [Peter], "Feed my sheep (I)." (Jn 21:16)

(This figure is compound and partially implicit: T l =

Peter; II = shepherd; T2 = Christians; 12 = sheep; G l =
care/provide for; G2 = believe in/follow [Christ]; T l
thus acts as an agent for the Good Shepherd.)

An athlete is not crowned (I) unless he competes

according to the rules (G). (2 Ti 2:5)

(The topic here is any Christian who, having overcome

in the trials and struggles of earthly life, would, like a
conquering athlete in the Greek games, receive a
" c r o w n " (or woven garland) as a sign of victory. The
imagery of an athletic contest would appeal more to an
audience with a Greek background [cp. the figure
" c r o w n " in a different context in James 1:12].)

The cultural problems presented by a translation of this and similar

passages are rather complex. The whole concept of competition
(whether sporting, military, economic, social, etc.) is foreign to the
traditional way of life in Central Africa, where community solidarity
and harmony was valued much more highly than individual achieve-
ment. Furthermore, anyone who "stood out in the crowd" by consis-
tently excelling in a particular endeavor would become liable to
accusations of practicing "witchcraft." Today, however, due to the
influence of formal schooling, organized sporting events, a money
economy, and other " i m p o r t e d " factors, especially in urban areas, the
old values are gradually being replaced, for the worse in many
respects, by those more typical of Western society. Thus the activities
of many of the younger generation are being governed more by
individualistic concerns, the "profit" motive, and the desire to "get
ahead."
At times the topic, too, like the image and the ground, is stated
figuratively; e.g.:

His watchmen (T/I) are blind ( I / G ) . (Is 56:10)

("Watchmen" is a metaphoric reference to the leaders

of Israel who are supposed to warn the people about
approaching danger, moral as well as physical. But they
are like " b l i n d " men, unable to perceive anything, and
thus worse than useless, since the nation is dependent
upon them for guidance. Though " w a t c h m e n " is not a
figure that would normally be applied to the political
leaders of a Central African nation, the image itself is
familiar enough from the irregular army of "security
guards," whose job it is to watch over factories, stores,
and homes at night, and often during the daytime as
well.)

Occasionally even the image, the indispensable constituent of any

figure, may be partially implicit; e.g.:

"You have taken away the key of knowledge." (Lk

11:52)

(The complete image is "the key that opens [G] the

door to the house of knowledge," GNB. By their false
teaching the teachers of the Law withheld the truth [T]
 that would give people a correct understanding of the
Scriptures.)

Not only do we have implicit elements to complicate the interpretation

of these pictures, but frequently metaphors are extended, or combined,
to form a complex series of figures; e.g.:

Your silver has become dross. (Is 1:22)

(Here we have two images referring to the same topic,

which is the antecedent of " y o u r , " namely, Jerusalem [a
metonym for the city's inhabitants, v. 21]. These people
were once as precious to Yahweh as "silver" [due to
their faithfulness to him], but now they have become as
worthless as " d r o s s " [due to their apostasy].)

He ( T l ) is the head (II) of the body (12), the church

(T2). (Col 1:18)

(In this passage two different topics and images are

joined to form a composite picture; G l = directs, guides,
leads, G2 = unit/group consisting of many constituents/
members.)

The more complex the metaphor, structurally a n d / o r semantically, the

greater the need to restructure the text, making explicit what is
implicit in the original, so that the translation will not be misinter-
preted. However, in the case of extended and/or combined figures (for
example, that of the bridegroom and his guests, the patch and the
coat, or the wine and the wineskins, Mk 2:19-22), the translator will
often be doing well if he is simply able to convey the image in a
meaningful way in the R L . This would include Christ's metaphoric
stories, or parables, for as the figure got longer, the less likely it
seems that even his disciples were able to understand it correctly
(e.g., Mt 13:10,36).

3. PERSONIFICATION
This figure involves an implicit comparison in that certain
nonhuman entities are represented or spoken of as if they were
persons. Normally this is effected by the application of human actions,
attributes, feelings, and properties to these living beings or inanimate
objects. Most personifications in the Scriptures are related to God,
especially in the Old Testament. Many of the prominent body parts of
a person (from a Hebrew perspective) are attributed to God in one
form or another; e.g.:

His eyes behold, his eyelids test, the children of men.

(Ps 11:4)

" T h o u g h they cry in my ears with a loud voice, I will

not hear them." (Ezek 8:18)

And when the L O R D smelled [implying a "nose"] the

pleasing odor, the L O R D said in his heart . . . ." (Gn
8:21)

These personifications are also related to the replacement figures

discussed earlier, to synecdoche in particular, i.e., "he beholds," "they
cry to him" " t h e L O R D said to himself" The various uses of " h a n d "
suggest a métonymie relationship; e.g.:

Who among all these does not know

that the hand [i.e., creative power] of the L O R D has
done this?
In his hand [i.e., protective power] is the life of every
living thing. (Jb 11:9-10)

"Behold, the hand [i.e., punitive power]of the L O R D will

fall with a very severe plague upon your cattle . . . ."
(Ex 9:3)

And yet it is not simple metonymy by virtue of the fact that it is the
" h a n d " of God that is being spoken about. Thus the application of
power varies according to the situation in which the L O R D is acting.
Indeed, God does seem to manifest a full range of human-like behavior
in his dealings with men; e.g.:
 [God] will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver . . . .
(Mai 3:3)

" A n d I will walk among you, and will be your God

. . . ." (Ex 26:12)

" I will build you up and not pull you down;

I will plant you and not pluck you u p . " (Jr 42:10)

The translation of these figures does not present too much of a

problem in Chewa or Tonga because " G o d , " like the ancestors, has
always been thought of as possessing distinctly human personality
traits and is frequently spoken about in anthropomorphic terms (e.g.,
in proverbs, maxims, songs, prayers, etc.) This pertains also to God's
perceptions, reactions, and emotions; e.g.:

Yet he, being compassionate,

forgave their iniquity,
and did not destroy them;
he restrained his anger often,
and did not stir up all his wrath.
He remembered that they were but flesh,
. . . [they] grieved him in the desert!
. . . [they] provoked the Holy One of Israel.
(Ps. 78:38-41)

Although the Bantu God does not get so intimately involved in man's
affairs, it does not sound overly unnatural to speak of him in this
personal way.
That does not apply, however, to all personifications. There are a
considerable number of such usages in which the basis of comparison
and related associations would not be clear at all if rendered more or
less literally; e.g.:

The face of the L O R D is against evildoers. (Ps 34:16)

(i.e., he opposes them in anger.)

"Compassion is hid from my eyes." (Ho 13:14)

(i.e., I will no longer have mercy on them.)
 . . . thy hand was heavy upon me. (Ps 32:4)
(i.e., you were punishing/afflicting me severely.)

" I the L O R D your God am a jealous God." (Ex 20:5)

(i.e., I tolerate no rivals; a particular problem in both
C / T is occasioned by the fact that "jealousy" very
commonly includes a prominent sexual component.)

" . . . for I repent of the evil which I did to you." (Jr

42:10)
(i.e., God did not want to punish his people. Literal
translations of passages like this make God seem as
wicked a n d / o r guilty as the people whom he is p u n -
ishing. In fact, it sounds here as if since he himself
was in the wrong, he must now make this "apology"!)

The application of human characteristics is not limited to God in the

Bible, but this figure may also be used in connection with the
members of a man's body, animals, human activities and states, and
various natural products and phenomena. These are more difficult to
render naturally in Chewa and Tonga because we do not find this kind
of personification in their traditional literature, except of course
where the familiar animal types of folklore are concerned. Thus, in
most instances the figure of speech must be replaced by its intended
meaning in the translation; e.g.:

"[If] my heart has gone [literally walked] after my eyes

. . . ." (Jb 31:7)
(i.e., if I have allowed myself to be attracted to evil, or
more specifically, if I have coveted anything which I
have seen.)

"But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds
of the air, and they will tell you." (Jb 12:7)

(There is no problem with this type of anthropo-

morphism, since it happens all the time in traditional
 tales, specifically, the wild animals instructing man in
the ways of wisdom.)

Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin,

and sin when it is full grown brings forth death. (Ja
1:15)

(In Chewa the personification was retained with the

addition of a marker of comparison to suggest the
nonliteral nature of the passage: " T h e n that desire
[anaphoric reference to v. 14] acts/ functions as if it has
become pregnant . . . .")

"Behold, this stone shall be a witness against us; for it

has heard all the words of the L O R D . . . ." (Js 24:27)

(This anthropomorphism is especially difficult, since it

occurs in direct speech in a historical passage; but any
attempt to reduce the figure may at the same time also
diminish the impact of Joshua's oath made on behalf of
the people of Israel.)

We might summarize as follows the various options that a trans-

lator has when dealing with the figurative language of the Scriptures:

a) The first choice, whenever this is possible, is to retain the figure

in the translation, that is, if the corresponding form in the SL
conveys the same meaning/function/significance in the R L . This does
not happen often, but the possibility should not be discounted. This is
especially true as we have seen in the case of images of a more
general nature, culturally speaking; e.g., " s a n d " (Gn 32:12), " r o c k " (Ps
18:2), " r i v e r " (Ps 105:4), "snakes" (Mt 3:7), the " w a y / p a t h " (Jn
14:16), or the " d o o r / e n t r a n c e " (Jn 10:9). Notice that the context has
to be specified, because the same form may have different meanings,
depending on the context in which it is found.
At times even a rather specific image will have a close corres-
pondent in terms of the receptor setting; e.g., the "bowels" or intes-
tines as the seat of deep emotions is a familiar concept to the Tonga
who have a similar expression, i.e., kumyongwa 'to have the intestines
twisting in compassion/sorrow for someone' (cp. Mt 15:32; Lk 15:20).
The Chewa saying that applies when one's hunger is satisfied is
exactly the same as the Hebrew, "and his eyes became bright" (1 Sm
14:27) and an idiomatic expression for anger is very similar, i.e., " h e
burned with respect to his heart" vs. "it burned in h i m " (1 Sm 15:11).
The same policy applies to figurative actions; e.g., "lay your hand
upon your m o u t h " (Jb 21:5) becomes in Tonga "to grab yourself on
the lip" (i.e., in amazement). With a little searching a R L figure that
is relatively near to the original in form can often be found; e.g.,
"grass torch" (T) for " l a m p " (Jb 18:6), or in place of "I have escaped
by the skin of my teeth" (Jb 19:20), the Tonga reads, " m y teeth are
outside" (i.e., he is so thin [hence near to death] that his lips are
stretched tightly, thus exposing his teeth!)

b) However, in cases where the biblical figure would lead to mis-

understanding in the R L , and often (not necessarily always, depending
on the context) when it would produce no meaning, or else ambiguity
or obscurity in the text, then some adjustment has to be made. The
ideal now would be to retain the form of the figure, but to include
the focal aspects of function which are necessary in order to enable
receptors to interpret it correctly. The figure is thus "filled out" by
making explicit certain focal semantic components, such as those
pertaining to the ground of a metaphor or simile; e.g., " I am as
worthless as dust and ashes" (Gn 18:27); "shield of defense" (Ps 91:4);
"you are like trees and even now the axe of God is laid at your
roots" (Mt 3:10); "Archippus, our fellow soldier for the Lord" (Pm 2).
At times all that is required is to shift a metaphor into a simile; e.g.,
"these are like waterless springs" (2 Pt 2:17). Another possibility is to
add a connotative touch with an ideophone; e.g., "his body [i.e., of
the rich man] full of fat" (Jb 21:24) becomes in Chewa " h e is fat, his
body is see!" (i.e., sleek and shiny, the product of a "good" life).
The retention of form is particularly important where key biblical
symbols or thematic motifs are concerned; e.g., " h e redeemed us by
pouring out his blood in death" (Eph 1:7); "if that were true, then my
preaching about Christ's death on the cross would cause no trouble"
(Ga 5:12). It is necessary, of course, that the exercise of making
implicit information explicit be based upon sound exegetical procedures
at all times.
c) Replace an unknown or misleading biblical figure with a functionally
and stylistically equivalent figure from the R L . This option is espe-
cially applicable in passages where the form of the figure is not in
focus, either in the original (e.g., poetic, didactic references) or in the
RL; i.e., a dead metaphor or idiom is involved; e.g., from "[his] heart
. . . will utterly melt with fear" (2 Sm 17:10) to "they were broken
off in their knees" (C); from "[your sins] shall be as white as snow"
(Is 1:18) to "they shall be as white as the lukobo b i r d " (T); from "[I
did not] cause the eyes of the widow to fail" (Jb 31:16) to " I did not
cause the widows to grab on to a stone" (C); from "stiff-necked" to
" h a r d - h e a d e d " Jews (Ac 7:51-C); from "Jews do not use dishes
Samaritans have used" (Jn 4:9) to "Jews and Samaritans do not step
on each other's toes" (T) or "look one another in the eyes" (C).
Where the R L figure is live, on the other hand, the matter of
form needs to be carefully considered in context; e.g., from " h e shall
be a wild ass of a m a n " (Gn 16:12) to "he shall become a wildcat"
(C); the form is quite different, but the function from the Chewa
cultural and literary perspective is exactly the same, i.e., an unruly,
destructive, troublesome individual. Notice, however, that in Jb 24:5 a
closer formal equivalent to "wild asses" can be used, i.e., the "zebra"
(T), for the character of the beast is not at issue in this context—
only its isolated, far-off habitat (from the Tonga perspective, no
"donkey of the bush" [the literal correspondent of "wild ass"] could
be expected to live very long, due to predators like lions, etc.)

d) In situations where the form of the SL figure cannot be retained at

all without causing a problem of comprehension for the receptor, it
may be necessary to remove it and translate only the meaning—minus
any impact and emotive force that may have been conveyed by the
original (in the case of dead metaphors this does not apply); e.g., from
"shall the sword devour forever" (2 Sm 2:26) to " d o we have to go
on fighting forever" (GNB); from " h e does not bear the sword in
vain" (Ro 13:4) to " h e has the authority indeed to punish you" (C).
But there are two corollaries here that must be kept in mind. The less
important is this: in the few instances where a figure is reported as
not having been understood by the original receptors, it would be a
distortion to clarify it in translation. For example, when Christ warns
his disciples to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" (Mt 16:6),
they misunderstand and get into a discussion about real bread. Jesus
then has to explain the meaning of his figure for them (16:11-12).
Similarly Nicodemus interpreted literally Christ's metaphor of being
" b o r n again" (Jn 3:3-4), as the Samaritan woman did with the expres-
sion "living water" (Jn 4:10-15). In these cases, the translator must
more or less leave the task of elucidation up to Christ himself (or to
his church.)
A more important principle is this: since it is likely that a
considerable number of biblical figures will be lost due to problems of
message transfer, it is necessary that some sort of "compensation" be
made so that the text is not stripped of all of its dramatic and
rhetorical p o w e r — a feature which is just as much a part of the
original message as is informative content, indeed, more so in some
contexts. One does not have to keep a balance sheet of plus and
minus figures, but one should be alert to employ a R L image wherever
it would fit naturally into the text—where that would be the expected
way of saying things; e.g., " A m n o n could not lay down in sleep
because of T a m a r " (C) instead of he "was so tormented" (2 Sm 13:2);
" h e is like talking to a stone" (T) instead of "one cannot speak to
h i m " (1 Sm 25:17); "food makes his heart black" (T) instead of "his
life loathes bread" (Jb 33:20); "the time of yesterday's mother" (C)
for "months gone b y " (Jb 29:2); "we have been broken off [like a
twig] with respect to work, and the sun has spent its strength upon
u s " (C) instead of "we have borne the burden of the day and the
scorching heat" (Mt 20:12); "then Jesus smashed the matter [like a
gourd]" (T) instead of he "told them plainly" (Jn 11:14). Such
examples could of course be multiplied. All that is necessary is a
translator (but this is a big " i f " ) who has an appreciation for, and a
certain literary competence in, his own language, coupled with a basic
understanding of the SL text and the ability to recreate the sense of
the original using the formal building blocks that are available in the
RL.
Figures of speech, both live and dead, and idiomatic language
comprise a greater share of Scripture than many people realize or care
to admit. The problems which they present are so diverse—yet so
crucial to the understanding of the SL text—that one could say with
some justification that this is the touchstone according to which a
translation stands or falls. If a translator can do a satisfactory job of
conveying the meaning of the Bible naturally in this area, he should
also be able to handle the other aspects of interlingual message
transfer without much difficulty. But as the preceding examples have
shown, he will succeed only if he gives the "cultural factor" (both SL
and R L ) some serious consideration in his search for the closest
functional equivalent of the original. This is particularly true where
matters of style are concerned, notably in direct speech, a subject to
be taken up in the next chapter.
 CHAPTER 6

T he Sociocultural Aspects of Direct Speech

Direct speech presents the Bible translator with some special

problems as well as some unique opportunities in his effort to produce
a dynamic equivalent version of the original text in his language. We
might explore the sociocultural setting, as this pertains to the
representation of direct discourse in Bible translation, by considering
it in terms of three interrelated facets: impersonal, personal, and
interpersonal. They all converge, of course, in any given speech event,
but it is useful to maintain the threefold distinction, since each aspect
affects the communication process somewhat differently.
The IMPERSONAL component encompasses a number of factors
which influence the transmission of verbal messages, but we will limit
our discussion to the three most important ones from the point of
view of the translator, namely, time, place, and circumstance. Here we
are dealing with external elements which from the R L perspective
exert pressure to alter the linguistic form of speech that would be
expected in a given communication situation. Notice, for example, how
the temporal setting is specified much more precisely in Chewa than in
Hebrew:

" . . . And do you not remember? When I broke the

five loaves for the five thousand . . . ." (Mk 8:18-19,
RSV)

" . . . Don't you remember those things-these (i.e., the

events which happened at a time we all know about and
which have a relevance also now). As vou know then
(only a single demonstrative in Chewa, i.e., Muja) I
broke
Quite a different problem is that of anachronism, in which reference is
made to an object or event which could not possibly have been found
or could not have occurred in Bible times. The representation of
biblical weights and measures, for example, by their modern equi-
valents is doubly anachronistic in direct discourse, since the text
thereby suggests that the speakers were perfectly familiar with these
forms of mensuration in their particular historical environment; e.g.:

" . . . He gave one 5000 kwacha (instead of 'five

talents'), another 2000, another 1000 . . . ." (Mt 25:15,
Chewa)

Some of these contradictions in time may be avoided by paying a little

more attention to the temporal context in passages such as the
following (from Peter's Pentecost sermon):

" . . . (David) foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of

the Christ . . . ." (Ac 2:31)

The use of Kristu here (Chewa NT) implies that David already knew
the person Jesus Christ by name when he made this prophecy.
Actually, however, according to Peter, David was referring to the
"Messiah," i.e., Mpulumutsi wolonjezedwa uja 'that promised Savior
(whom we all know about)', a formal designation which should
therefore be employed in this instance.
The spatial setting is also very important in a Bantu language,
since a speaker must continually orient both himself and his addressees
with respect to any references which he happens to make to items in
the physical environment. Normally this is accomplished quite concisely
by means of various sets of demonstrative qualifiers and locative
prefixes which operate in conjunction with the concordial copy system
to specify and reinforce notions of time, place, space, direction, and
so forth. Consider the following quotation:

The watchman called to the gate and said,

"See, another man running alone!" (2 Sm 18:26)
In both Chewa and Tonga direct speech, the fact that the person
referred to was at a considerable distance from and yet also moving
toward the speaker would have to be made explicit:

"Another one (front-shifted for emphasis, cp. v. 24)

thaaaat one (distance implied by the demonstrative,
accompanied by a distinct intonation and perhaps also a
gesture as well) messenger is coming here at a r u n . "

Similarly in the next passage it has to be overtly indicated that the

addressee is being sent to a place not in the immediate presence of
the speaker:

"Tell the man who sent you to me . . . ." (2 Kg 22:15)

" G o tell he who has sent you here . . . ." (Chewa)

(Note: a literal rendering of " m a n " [somebody] would be
impolite in this context, especially since the king is
being referred to; "to m e " is implicit in the locative
adverb "here.")

The position of the referent (over and above his social status [see
below]) is important in the quote below, for since he is in the
company of the speaker, he has to be acknowledged in a more polite
way than if he were off the scene:

" D o you want to go with this m a n ? " (Gn 24:58)

In Tonga the reference is made as obliquely as possible, " . . . go

with t h e m . " with no mention of the intended destination (notice also
the honorific third person plural pronoun). Depending on the circum-
stances (see below), the spatial factor may be emphasized in speech in
a variety of ways; e.g.:

He said to his brothers, " M y money has been put back;

here it is in the mouth of my sack!" (Gn 42:28)

"Comrades! as for me, my money—here it is in the

sack!"
 ([Tonga] conciseness, syntactic positioning, and a
demonstrative-copula construction adds the dramatic
force which was felt to be a part of these words.)

The spatial distinctions that are possible in a Bantu language are very
subtle, and the translator must make sure that he fully understands
the setting that he is trying to recreate for his readers; e.g.:

(John) looked at Jesus as he walked and said, "Behold,

the Lamb of God!" (Jn 1:35)

In Tonga the use of one demonstrative-copula compound (nguulya)

implies that the addressees (John's two disciples) are able to see Jesus
walking in the distance, while the use of another (ngooyo, as found in
an early draft) would suggest that Jesus is attempting to hide from
their view! The old Tonga Bible renders the utterance literally, and
this means that John is telling Jesus himself to "look." These are
seemingly minor matters, but when neglected or disregarded through-
out a translation, the readers will be left wondering where they are in
relation to the speakers of the text.
The dramatic circumstances surrounding a speech event in the
original may also affect one's perception of it today, and in a
considerable number of cases this will have a corresponding influence
upon the representation of direct discourse in the R L . The language
has to be fashioned so that it will sound appropriate in the particular
situation in which it is being uttered. A literal rendering of the
following quote, for example, might easily convey the exact opposite
of the intended meaning:

And Sarah said, " G o d has made laughter for me;

everyone who hears will laugh over m e . " (Gn 21:6)

It would not take much for a naïve reader to conclude that Sarah was
not at all pleased about what had happened to her; God had caused
her to become the laughing-stock of the community! Such an erroneous
conclusion would probably be reinforced by ancient oral tradition in
Central Africa, for a number of narratives tell about an aged barren
woman mysteriously becoming pregnant, only to give birth to some
strange creature (usually attributed to witchcraft); e.g„ a dog, a
bodiless head, a child who is able to walk, talk, etc. Thus the text has
to be restructured slightly to point the reader in the direction of the
correct interpretation; e.g. (Chewa):

Now Sarah said, "Hedee! this laughter of mine has come

from God! Indeed, everyone who hears about this will
laugh together with me!"

The initial exclamation sets the exultant tone for the words to come.
The intensifier that begins the second utterance helps to emphasize
the play on Isaac's name, i.e., 'he laughs', as well as the dual purpose
of the speech act as a whole, i.e., praise and prediction (with a
possible allusion also to G n 18:15).
The situational context may also suggest a sharpening of e m p h a -
sis or the specification of an implication that lies implicit (from the
translator's perspective) in the original. For instance, when Moses
confronts Aaron concerning the golden calf incident, the latter
attempts to excuse himself by pleading ignorance, while he attributes
the calf to some sort of magical trick:

" . . . they gave (their gold) to me, and I threw it into

the fire, and there came out this calf." (Ex 32:24)

The Tonga emphasizes the climax of Aaron's account, which would

seem to absolve him from any direct blame in the affair, by trans-
lating in this way:

" . . . Then I put it (i.e., the gold) in the fire and—lo

and behold this calf here! (ngomoombe ooyu)"

The sudden break in syntax (anacoluthon), coupled with a verbless

utterance with a focus upon "this h e r e " calf, brings out the assumed
wonder in Aaron's words. A commonplace but vitally important event
in a Tonga cultural setting served to shape the rendering of the
following passage:

And Pharaoh answered, " G o u p , and bury your father,

as he made you swear." (Gn 50:6)
For the Tonga, a funeral needs no excuse (cp. G n 50:4-5), and so
Pharaoh answers simply:

" N o , so be it (Pe mbubo, i.e., you needn't have said

anything), go and bury your father."

The circumstances under which a conversation is conducted can

become rather complex, as we see in Genesis 23, where Abraham is
dickering with the Hittites over a burial plot for his wife, Sarah. In
verses 8-9, for example, Abraham puts his request to Ephron, the son
of Zohar, indirectly through the elders of the land, as custom dictated.
Nevertheless in Chewa he would still be obliged to employ honorific
(plural) references, since Ephron was actually present on the scene.
For his part Ephron observes the Middle Eastern practice of first
offering to freely donate the property which has been requested (not
expecting, of course, that his offer will be accepted). He then directly
proposes a selling price, which would normally be followed by further
direct negotiations:

" M y lord, listen to me; a piece of land worth four

hundred shekels of silver, what is that between you and
me? Bury your dead." (Gn 23:15)

In Chewa (and any language) the problem facing the translator is to

communicate something of the covertness of the original, without
allowing the dialogue to become too obscure to follow:

" A place like this (to clarify the reference), they buy it
for 400 pieces of silver. But that is nothing as far as I
am concerned (i.e., a pretense to suggest a lack of
concern about the selling price). Go ahead and bury the
body of the deceased in that grave."

An earlier draft stated the proposed selling price far too explicitly:
"Listen, friend, the price of this place is 400 silver coins." Notice, on
the other hand, how the reference to " w i f e " must be phrased more
indirectly, in a manner which befits a conversation with the bereaved.
Examples like this emphasize the importance of carefully rethinking
direct speech within the context of the R L culture before attempting
to transform it into text. The effect of the setting of a particular
conversation upon the emotive tone that colors its constituent speech
acts will be considered in more detail below.
As the dramatic circumstances surrounding a pair of participants
change, so does the way in which they speak to and about one
another. Sometimes this shift is verbally marked in the SL text, at
other times it is not, but the R L may need to indicate the distinction
on every occasion so that a natural style may be maintained. All of
David's deference and well-wishes in addressing Nabal (1 Sm 25:6f.)
disappear after the latter has rudely rejected his request for some
food:

"Surely in vain have I guarded all that this fellow has

in the wilderness " (1 Sm 25:21)

If the anger and frustration inherent in David's words is not clearly

conveyed in the translation, the seriousness of Abigail's mission to
plead for mercy (25:23f.) will not be fully appreciated. A similar
contrast needs to be forcefully made in order to heighten the impact
of the account of Amnon's rape of Tamar:

" C o m e , lie with me, my sister." (2 Sm 13:11)

"Arise, be gone." (2 Sm 13:15)

In an interesting counterbalance which sets in relief the opposing

emotions conveyed by these two utterances, Tamar's reply in each case
remains the same: " N o , my brother . . . " (v. 12,16). An explicit
manipulation of honorific forms, i.e., word order, use of singular
versus plural forms, pronominal enclitics, etc., draws attention to the
difference in Shimei's manner of addressing David, first as he is
leaving, and later as he returns to Jerusalem after Absalom's rebellion:

"Begone, begone, you man of blood, you worthless

fellow!" (2 Sm 16:7)

" L e t not my lord hold me guilty or remember how your

servant did wrong on the day my lord the king left
Jerusalem." (2 Sm 19:19)
The speech of Shimei should accurately reflect the great reversal that
has taken place in David's fortunes. Thus biblical dialogue, especially
in the OT, serves as a graphic commentary on the narrative in which
it performs such a vital dramatic function (e.g., in characterization,
commenting on the action, highlighting the theme, and so forth). This
issue will come up again when we discuss certain facets of the
interpersonal setting.
The second aspect of the extratextual context that pertains to
direct speech on the internal (embedded) level of communication in the
Scriptures is the PERSONAL factor. There are two major subgroups
under this category. One concerns the more permanent and stable
personal influences that may, at least on certain occasions, affect
one's speech, namely, sex, age, and in-group. While these are very
important Sociolinguistic considerations, they do not really play into
the present discussion, since the effect of their operation on speech
events is not clearly determinable in the original text, and frequently
they have not been fully explored in the R L either. There are reports
of a female speech code in some Bantu languages, that is, a form of
speaking peculiar to women in certain situations (primarily p h o n o -
logical, which, of course, would not affect the Scriptures in any case,
but also with regard to lexical choice and preferred syntactic pat-
terns). But in the absence of an explicit description of such features,
including their context of use, one cannot make an application to
Scriptures—in a book like R u t h , for example, where women fill the
major speech roles in dialogue (there is a shift, however, at the
climax which occurs in Chapter 4). The same is true of the language
of elders (e.g., Jacob or Isaac in their later years, or Simeon who
blessed the baby Jesus in the Temple), which would also be distin-
guished no doubt from the speech of younger people in vocabulary and
possibly grammar as well. These are areas in which much socio-
linguistic research remains to be done in the languages of Africa, and
the implications for Scripture translation are potentially very great.
Other aspects of the personal factor are more internally oriented
and variable. Three in particular are of special relevance to the
rendering of direct speech in the Bible: mind set, psychological state,
and communication intention. Mind set refers to one's basic beliefs, or
presuppositions, about life, death, and the human condition, together
with the value system that is associated with this conceptual frame-
work, as well as a person's assumptions with regard to the different
d a y - t o - d a y situations in which he finds himself interacting with the
various members of his society. This is primarily designative, or
cognitive, information which a speaker more or less takes for granted
when he communicates with others. It would include any content that
he has already conveyed to them, whether on the same occasion or
previously. In other words, he assumes that they, too, already know
such information, and therefore he does not have to make it explicit
in the text of his present message to them, whether oral or written
(though he may certainly do so if it suits his communication purposes).
"Outsiders," however, namely those who do not possess all of this
background knowledge, may at times have difficulty in interpreting the
message, because they are not fully aware of the presuppositions and
assumptions on which it is based. This is particularly true of today's
readers/hearers of the Scriptures who are unfamiliar with the times,
the culture, and the language of the original author and his receptors.
Thus there are places where this type of information has to be stated
overtly in the text in order to prevent misunderstanding and to help
readers "bridge the conceptual g a p , " as it were, between the two
messages.
There are various types of assumptions which a person may have
to make explicit in a translation: linguistic, literary, theological, and
cultural, to mention some of the more important ones. These are not
limited to direct speech, of course, but they are especially crucial
there, particularly in the development of an argument. The conditional
construction in Greek, for example, may be based upon different
assumptions, depending upon the perspective of the speaker (i.e., t r u e -
to-fact, contrary-to-fact, possible, and doubtful). These distinctions
are all linguistically marked in Greek, but they are not similarly
distinguished in a Bantu language. There is particular difficulty with
the true-to-fact type which requires a different introductory conjunc-
tion than the others; e.g.:

"If the world hates you, know that it has hated me

before it hated you." (Jn 15:18)

There is no doubt conveyed by the "if" clause (ei with the indicative
mood) as a literal rendering would suggest. Christ's assumption is
rather that "the world" indeed does " h a t e " his followers (cp. v. 19;
for another example, see Ro 5:15). The conjunction therefore has to be
changed to "since," so that the translation will imply the same thing
as the original did. Another Greek construction which may carry an
important implication is the present prohibition (note: an "implication"
is simply an assumption which is considered from the point of view of
the receptor instead of the source of the message); by its use the
speaker tells the addressee to stop some action which he assumes to
be already in progress; e.g.:

" L e t not (do not continue to allow/stop allowing) sin

therefore reign in your mortal bodies . . . ." (Ro 6:12)
(In Chewa, the continuative aspect of this prohibition
is indicated on the second verb, i.e., 'keep on
ruling'.)

Below is an example of an assumption carried lexically, rather than

grammatically as in the preceding passages:

"In times past, even when Saul was king, it was you
that led out and brought in Israel . . . ." (2 Ch 11:2)

The Hebrew author could assume that his readers would understand
that a military campaign was being referred to by the expression "lead
o u t " and "bring in." That is not the case, however, in Chewa and
Tonga, and consequently the translations in these languages must state
the purpose explicitly, " . . . you were the one who was leading the
people of Israel in battle."
Literary assumptions are based upon a common knowledge of the
various poetic devices employed and their operation in discourse, as
well as an understanding of the principal themes and motifs of the
literary tradition concerned. As we saw in the preceding chapter, one
of the most difficult areas of interpretation is that of figurative
language, since it is so closely bound up with the specific culture of
the SL. The image of the lion, for example, appears quite frequently in
Hebrew poetic works. The relevant associations of meaning were
obviously familiar to the receptors because they are rarely elaborated
upon. But the significance of the following metaphor, given by Eliphaz
the Temanite in answer to Job's passionate cursing of his birthday,
would certainly escape a Chewa/Tonga reader were he presented with
a literal translation:

The roar of the lion, the voice of the fierce lion, the
teeth of the young lions, are broken.
The strong lion perishes for lack of prey, and the
whelps of the lioness are scattered. (Jb 4:10-11)

The topic of this extended metaphor, which features five different

terms for "lion," is not given here. For that one must look back to
verse 8: "those who plow iniquity and sow trouble." The use of the
lion as an image of the wicked is a common one in the OT Scriptures
(cp. Ps 7:2; 29:9; Ezek 29:3,5; Na 2:12; Zph 3:3). The ground or basis of
comparison is multiple: like the lion, an evildoer is viewed as being
powerful in this life; he employs violent means to satisfy his desires;
he continually " r o a r s " warnings and threats of oppression—and his
final end is the same. One day his strength, as symbolized by his
" t e e t h , " will be broken by one more powerful than he, and then he,
too, will perish. He will reap the evil he has sown (v. 8). Eliphaz does
not attack Job directly, but the allusion is plain enough; how could
Job, in the wretched condition that he was in, be entirely "innocent"
in the matter (v. 7)? This is a basic theological presupposition that
runs throughout the speeches of Job's three "friends": if a person
suffers in life, then he must have done wrong—the greater the
wickedness, the more severe the punishment that God metes out.
Not all of this background information, of course, ought to be
built into a translation in order to clarify the text's meaning. Not all
of it is necessary. But certainly enough needs to be made explicit so
that the receptor can at least grasp the main point which the poet
was seeking to express by means of his metaphor. This is especially
true in cases where there is some clash between the source and the
receptor perspective on how the figure should be interpreted. In the
Chewa literary (oral narrative) context, for example, the lion is a
representative of strength, danger, and occasionally also of leader-
ship—but rarely of moral wickedness, as in the Bible. GNB did an
admirable job of restructuring this passage to bring out the essence of
Eliphaz' oblique criticism of Job:

" T h e wicked roar and growl like lions,

 but God silences them and breaks their teeth.
Like lions with nothing to kill and eat,
thev die, and all their children are scattered."

The literary aspect of presupposition includes the various assumptions

that a speaker makes as he formulates his discourse with regard to
both his manner of composing the text, i.e., the conventions of
narrative, lyric poetry, argument, exposition, etc., or the matter of the
text, that is, content which he may take for granted as being known
to his receptors. For instance, when God states in G n 6:7, " I am sorry
that I have made t h e m , " in reference to all the wicked in the world,
he is implicitly assuming, at least from a Chewa perspective, that he
made a mistake by creating human beings in the first place. This
introduces an unwanted contradiction into the text, for it is a basic
theological presupposition—in traditional religious belief as in Chris-
tianity—that in the beginning, when God made man and all things,
they were "good"; there were no flaws. The focus of the passage must
therefore be shifted slightly to accommodate this viewpoint so that
there will be no misunderstanding: "I am sorry that I will have to
destroy t h e m " — w h i c h essentially repeats what Yahweh said at the
beginning of this quotation. We find a somewhat different example of
this type of problem in Job:

" G o d stores up his iniquity for his sons;

he repays him, and he shall know it." (Jb 21:19,
literally)

In the first line Job is obviously citing an argument of one or another

of his three opponents (cf. 5:4; 20:10), which was based upon the
Mosaic law (cf. Ex 20:5; Dt 5:9). It is decidedly not his opinion, at
least not their legalistic application of the principle involved, for he
immediately proceeds to refute it (vv. 19b-21). A literal rendering of
this passage would be completely misleading in any language (the
ambiguity of pronominal reference only compounds the problem). In
order to prevent this, the assumptions of the speaker have to be
clearly spelled out:

"You claim God punishes a child for the sins of his

father.
 No! Let God punish the sinners themselves;
let him show that he does it because of their sins."
(GNB)

Similarly, in hortatory discourse such as we find in the epistles of

Paul, where he is, in a sense, "arguing" with his readers, the
translator must recreate the text in such a way that today's receptors
do not get lost in the author's sometimes elaborate method of logical
development. Romans 7:12, for example, appears to stand out of place
until one recognizes that it serves as a conclusion to the section
(paragraph) which began in verse 7. Verse 12 "answers" the (rhetor-
ical) "question" of verse 7, and this connection may have to be
overtly signalled; e.g.:

So what can we say? Are the laws of Moses sinful? Not

in the least . . .
From this we see that the laws of Moses are from God,
and every law . . . is holy . . . .
(Ro 7:7,12—Chewa)

Translators are sometimes misled by an implicit assumption upon which

is based a subsequent stage of Paul's argument; e.g.:

Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died . . . .

(Ro 8:34)

The unspoken response to Paul's initial rhetorical question is a

resounding "Nobody!" (just as in the corresponding sequence of v. 33).
He then goes on to give the theological reason for this unconditional
response, i.e., "Because Jesus Christ . . . . " A literal translation,
however, makes it sound as if Christ himself condemns—the very
opposite meaning.
Presuppositions may be just as wrong as right, and these, too,
might have to be clarified in the text; e.g.:

" . . . Do not trust in these deceptive words: 'This is

the temple of the L O R D , the temple of the L O R D , the
temple of the LORD.' " (Jr 7:4)
Unless the mistaken assumption is revealed, the reader may have a
hard time determining why the words cited are "deceptive" and
strongly condemned by Yahweh; e.g.:

" . . . Do not merely deceive yourselves into thinking

that vou are safe by saying . . . ." (Chewa)

Thus, the repetition was simply a reinforcement (a liturgical set-piece,

perhaps) of the people's false sense of security. They put more trust
in their Temple than in the One who was supposed to dwell there.
The most important kind of presuppositions and assumptions for
the translator to be aware of are those of a cultural nature. This
category covers a wide variety of information relating to the world
view and way of life of the Hebrew people in particular, which may
differ in certain respects from the corresponding aspects of the
receptor culture. Among the Tonga, for example, it is impossible for a
person to " c u r s e " God, as Naboth was falsely accused of doing (1 Kg
21:10), for the use of this word implies wishing death upon God, and
that constitutes a contradiction in terms. One could, however, "despise
with w o r d s " or "insult" God, but even that action would be rare,
since any person in his/her right mind would certainly dread the
consequences. A somewhat more complex example is found in Yah-
weh's speech to install Joshua as Israel's new leader:

" . . . From the wilderness (in the south) and this

Lebanon (in the north) as far (east) as the great river,
the river Euphrates, (through) all the land of the
Hittites to the Great Sea (westward) . . . ." (Js 1:4)

The original author could take for granted that his receptors knew
where all these places were and that he was in effect tracing the four
boundaries of the promised land. The central reference point was
undoubtedly Jerusalem. But all of this information (in brackets) would
be lost to today's receptors unless it were introduced into the text (in
a stylistically appropriate way).
The translator must continually be on guard lest he inadvertently
introduce unwanted implications into the text, thus attributing
misleading, even erroneous, assumptions to the various characters/
authors of Scripture; e.g.:
 "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and
they died." (Jn 6:49)

A w o r d - f o r - w o r d translation like this (and duplicated in the old Chewa

Bible) implies that the people of Israel died because they ate manna! A
simple change in conjunction to 'but stilP corrects this. For some
reason the book of Acts, when rendered in a literal fashion, seems to
be particularly prone to this type of mistake; e.g.:

And the Lord said to Paul, "Do not be afraid . . . no

man shall attack you to harm you; for I have many
people in this city." (Ac 18:9-10)

If Paul were a Mchewa, he would be led to assume on the basis of the

Lord's words here that the reason he will not be " h a r m e d " in Corinth
is that there are " m a n y people" present who would defend him from
danger. Rather, it was for the sake of these people that the Lord
commanded Paul to remain in Corinth and keep on preaching (v. 9),
despite the difficulties he was experiencing. A rearrangement of
clauses can remove this misleading implication. Paul is made to sound
like a complete atheist in Ac 26.11 as he claims:

" . . . Often I would punish [the Christians] in all the

houses of prayer [i.e., synagogues], and try to force
them to despise God . . . ." (Chewa)

"Despise G o d " is a phrase that is used elsewhere to translate " b l a s -

p h e m e " (RSV), but in this case it does not work, because it introduces
the assumption that Paul (or rather "Saul") was opposed to Jews as
well as Christians, i.e., to any God-fearing person. A more correct
equivalent here would be "to reject their faith."
The psychological state concerns a person's continually fluc-
tuating attitudes and emotions. In this case the SL text may give no
overt indication of the mental condition of a biblical personage, while
the context clearly suggests that such influence is present. The R L , in
turn, may require that certain feelings, opinions, sentiments, perspec-
tives, etc., be formally marked in direct speech so that the manner of
speaking does not contradict the personal setting out of which it
arises. Attitudes and emotions are often difficult to differentiate from
one another, and inevitably there will be various degrees of overlap-
ping in any description of such a complex phenomenon, particularly
one that is not subject to empirical verification. Our purpose, h o w -
ever, is not to attempt a strict categorization, but simply to point out
the two aspects that a translator needs to take into consideration.
In general we might say that attitudes involve the speaker's
subjective evaluation of the communication situation that he is in,
especially who he is talking to and what they are talking about; e.g.,
certainty, doubt, desirability, necessity, sincerity, and so on. In Tonga,
for example, a speaker must indicate his opinion with regard to the
truthfulness of the predicate in an existential utterance by the form
of the copula that he uses, i.e., more or less certain. The translator,
then, after a careful study of the context, has to make a choice either
one way or the other on each occasion; e.g.:

Others said, "This is the Anointed One of God." (Jn

7:41)
{ngo is used, not ngu, indicating that this was a sure
conclusion, one based upon personal experience,
namely, Christ's " w o r d s " (vv. 37-39).)

How did Christ view his disciples' continual lack of faith and u n d e r -
standing concerning himself—with a question such as the following,
for example:

" . . . Are your hearts hardened?" (Mk 8:17)

The context clearly shows that this is not a real question, nor is it
one that indicates any doubt or surprise. Rather it should convey the
Lord's frustration, even impatience, at their slowness of perception.
They should have known better than to worry about where their next
meal was coming from (v. 16), as the Chewa suggests:

"So it is that your heads are hard, yes indeed!" (A literal

" h a r d hearts" would mean that they are stingy, quite a
misleading notion in this situation.)
Determining the attitude of the speaker can be a crucial part in the
interpretation of a passage; e.g.:

Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David,

and said, " H o w the king of Israel honored himself today
. . . ." (2 Sm 6:20)

If the appropriate attitudinal cues are not employed here, the reader
might be tempted to construe MichaFs apparent greeting as a word of
praise to her famous husband. Her statement is, as her later words
clearly show, bitterly sarcastic; she was disgusted, upset, and perhaps
even humiliated, by David's public dancing exhibition before the ark of
the L O R D (cp. v. 16). A translation should set the reader/listener off
on the right course of interpretation; e.g.:

"Ha! today the king of Israel has really honored

himself, isn't that so?" (Chewa)

A hasty translation can easily reverse the whole import of a passage

in this regard; e.g.:

But John tried to refuse saying, "Why come to me? I

am the one who ought to be baptized by you." (Mt 3:14,
Chewa)

The initial question (a shift in order from the original) and the way in
which it is phrased here gives one the impression that John is upset
with Jesus for coming to him first, as if this were not the proper way
of doing things!
The matter of politeness enters in here, since a person who has
too high an opinion of himself will normally adopt just the opposite
attitude over against those whom he is speaking to (and vice-versa).
This issue is of major concern in a Bantu language, since its structure
makes it virtually impossible to remain neutral. Thus, one must always
adopt a specific attitudinal stance with regard to one's addressee(s)—
will it be a position of superiority, inferiority, or equality? That is the
question which must continually be addressed when preparing a text in
which two or more persons are engaged in conversation. For example,
what is Christ's opinion of the man whom he had just healed at
Bethzatha when he says:

"See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse

befall you." (Jn 5:14)

A literal translation in Tonga gives the impression that Christ is

extremely rude here, to the point that he even considered the man as
being unworthy of his healing miracle. A restructuring corrects this
erroneous notion as follows:

" A s you are now healthy like this, it would be good for
you not to do wrong lest even worse troubles arrive at
your door."

Similarly in Mt 20:21, if Christ's words in Greek are transferred

unchanged into Chewa, the result is an insult, a verbal slap in the
face, given to the mother of James and John:

And he said to her, "What do you w a n t ? "

The polite way of acknowledging a petitioner (v. 20) is simply, "Yes,

mother," or to be somewhat more specific by adding, "Can I help?"
An underlying dramatic commentary that accompanies the gospel
of Christ's life, in a Bantu language at least, is the attitude of
different people over against him as reflected in their various conver-
sations both with and about him. At times the Jewish leaders, for
example, could be most respectful, especially when they were attemp-
ting to catch him off guard with a leading question or a difficult
"pastoral" case; e.g.:

"Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of

adultery." (Jn 8:4—Chewa would employ an honorific
plural, "Teachers . . . .")

At other times they treated him disrespectfully, like an ordinary

uneducated man:
 They said to him therefore, "Where is your father?" (Jn
8:19)

The Chewa translation of these words indicates that the Pharisees had
no regard either for Jesus or his Father; his answer to this question
would make absolutely no difference to them: "That father of yours
(depreciating reference), where is h e ? " The common man, on the other
hand, was put off by Jesus' own apparent commonness, and this, too,
was communicated by their speech:

"Is not this fellow right here not Jesus, that son (whom
we all know) of Joseph? His mother and his father
(front-shifted for emphasis), isn't it true that we know
t h e m ? " (Jn 6:42, Chewa)

The emotive aspect of one's psychological state is also expressed

by direct speech in the Scriptures. Virtually the whole gamut of human
emotions is involved, and this, in turn, requires translators who are
able to empathize with the specific situations that the biblical
personages are in and can then "speak" as they would normally do
under those same circumstances in their own language. Often the form
of the utterance will have to be altered in order to give expression to
the emotional equivalent in the R L . For example, in place of Jacob's
cry of distress over the ruthless behavior of his sons, "You have
brought trouble upon m e " (Gn 34:30), the Chewa says: "Hi! you have
incited a war against me . . . ." This passage illustrates one of the
most effective emotive indicators in the language, namely, the
exclamation. There is an exclamation for just about every emotion
possible, and while care must be exercised in their use (just as in the
case of ideophones), they cannot be ignored if one's aim is to
translate the Bible into the natural idiom of everyday speech; e.g.
(from Chewa):

"Heel (fear, apprehension) how have we provoked you,

Jesus of Nazareth? Ah (disappointment), have you come
here to destroy u s ? " (Lk 4:34)

"Ha! (frustration) how can I understand without

someone to interpret for m e ? " (Ac 8:31)
 The people said to her, "Ogwe! (anger + scorn) you're
mad!" (Ac 12:15)

Some particles convey a particular attitude together with the speaker's

sentiments; e.g.:

"Perhaps it is that (kapenatu) you, too, you want to

become his disciples, isn't that so (ati)V" (Jn 9:27)

Thus at both the beginning and the end of this utterance, the healed
(lame) man expresses his surprise at the great interest which the
learned teachers were showing in him, and yet he couples this with a
certain degree of (ironic) pessimism concerning their motives for doing
so.
A speaker's emotive frame of mind can also be indicated syntac-
tically in languages such as Chewa and Tonga through a shift in the
word order, for example, which may function to convey increased
intensity; e.g. (from Chewa):

"So many people like this, how can one possibly find
them enough food to be satisfied here in the b u s h ? "
(Mk 8:4—surprise mixed with doubt)

"Indeed, such people God will punish them severely!"

(Mk 12:40—righteous indignation against oppressors)

Back-shifting, as well as front-shifting, may be employed in this way

to help give vent to the feelings of the speaker; e.g.:

[Jesus] said, " I tell you that if these [disciples] here

would remain quiet, they would shout these very stones
here!" (Lk 19:40—sternness in rebuking the complaints
of the Pharisees; C)

Indirect speech must frequently be transformed into direct speech at

points of high emotive tension in the discourse; e.g.:
 [Rhoda] ran back inside and told the others saying,
"Peter is at the door here!" (Ac 12:14; C)
(RSV: . . . [she] ran in and told that Peter was standing
at the gate.)

The author himself, Paul in particular, may also inject his personal
feelings into the text; e.g.:

"Wretched man that I am!" (Ro 7:24) becomes:

"Maawe, nde mucangu!" in Tonga (i.e., 'Mercy me, I am

my own younger brother' [that is, I have no one to
look to for help in this situation].)

Additional examples of emotive speech will be given below. This is a

crucial aspect of dynamic equivalent translation, and yet it is one
which is so often completely neglected.
The intention of the speaker is the third important consideration
under the "personal" factor. Under the various general communication
"functions" of verbal discourse (e.g., expressive, affective, phatic,
etc.) we might make a number of finer distinctions which relate to the
purpose of the source in transmitting a certain message to his
receptors. This is sometimes termed the "illocutionary force" of the
utterance, while its actual effect upon receptors is called the " p e r -
locutionary force." It is the job of a translator, then, to carefully
study the SL text in order to correctly determine (insofar as he is
able) the intention, or combination of intentions, which motivated a
speaker in the biblical setting, and then to faithfully reproduce this
same " f o r c e " in the R L so that a functional balance is maintained
between the two messages. In cases where a literal rendering would
distort this communication process in any way, then it will be
necessary to adjust the form of the message so that its function
remains the same. Often this will involve making explicit certain
elements of meaning in the translation that were implicit in the
original, a technique which we see illustrated in the following
examples:

The official said to [Jesus], "Sir, come down before my

child dies." (Jn 4:49)
 The official said, " I am pleading with vou. Lord, come
before my child dies." (This personal expression of
urgency is necessary in Chewa to make the official's
plea sound more genuine; without it, the man does not
really seem to be emotionally involved with his child's
plight.)

When they [i.e., of the "circumcision party," v. 2]

heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God,
saying, " T h e n to the Gentiles also God has granted
repentance unto life." (Ac 11:18)

In the preceding passage a problem arises because the quotation does

not appear to correspond very closely in function to the intention
which is specified in the introduction to the quotation, "glorified."
The Chewa thus restructures to include both an element of amazement
on the part of the speakers as well as a more natural introduction to
what should sound like a word of praise:

When the Jews [the referent needs specification] heard

this, they gave in [literally 'were defeated']. Then they
praised God and said, "Is that so?! Let us thank God
who has given people of other tribes too the oppor-
tunity to repent and receive this life [i.e., through
Christ]!"

In the next passage it is an "affective" reproof which is made explicit

in the speaker's opening words:

And [Jesus] said to [the Pharisees], "Have you never

read what David did, when he was in need and was
hungry . . . ?" (Mk 2:25)

Without the proper "introduction" this question would be interpreted

either as real, or as a pedagogical device employed as a means of
instruction:
 He answered them saying, "Why do vou act as if you
never read at all about those things [i.e., that we all
know about] which David did, at that time [i.e., again,
assumed to be known to the addressees] when he and
his comrades were plagued with h u n g e r . . . ?" (Chewa)

When the Jewish leaders objected to the "title" that Pilate had put on
Christ's cross, Pilate responded, "What I have written I have written"
(Jn 19:22). The Chewa translators saw here an implicit sense of
frustration with and also a word of reproof for these troublesome
Jews, which would not be conveyed by a literal rendering. So they
phrased Pilate's reaction as follows:

" T h e things I have written, I have written [this

construction is emphatic also in Chewa]. I'm finished,
that's the end of it!" (ndatha bast)

The matter of politeness and appropriateness also enters the picture in

passages where a form-oriented translation would be understood, but
would sound unnatural in the sociolinguistic situation of use; e.g.:

[Some G r e e k s ] . . . came to Philip . . . and said to him,

"Sir, we wish to see Jesus." (Jn 12:21)

That request is entirely too blunt in Chewa, which would say rather:
"Excuse us [Pepani 'sorry'], mister, we sav [i.e., is it possible] could
we see Jesus."

" P h a t i c " speech, to keep the lines of communication open and in good
repair, cannot be ignored either, despite the fact that we are dealing
with a written text. This would include expressions as basic as
everyday greetings; e.g. (Chewa):

" R u n at once to meet her, and say to her, 'Is it well

there [i.e., at your place]? How is the man [i.e., your
husband]? And what about that child?' . . . " (2 K g
4:26)
 He said to him, " G o and reach [there! well." (2 K g
5:19) (In place of the Hebrew, " G o in peace.")

And he brought the letter to the King of Israel, which

said, "Your letter. King [salutation]: When you receive
this letter . . . ." (2 K g 5:6)

and as subtle as a particle of continuation in a conversation; e.g.:

That teacher of the Laws said, " O k a y (lit. 'no') you

have answered well, Teacher." (Mk 12:32, Chewa)

The circumstances under which the speech act occurs will (or should)
also have its effect on a particular rendering in the R L , in the use of
a euphemism, for example:

There came from the ruler's house some who said,

"Your daughter is dead." (Mk 5:35)

In Chewa such sad news would be stated with much greater concern
for the feelings of the father: "That child has left us." As we have
seen, the physical setting influences in particular the demonstratives
of direct discourse. Thus the familiar "Behold, the Lamb of God . . .
This is he . . . " (Jn 1:29) becomes in Chewa:

"Suyu, Mwanawankhosa wa Mulungu . . . lyeyu ndiye

uja . . . ." 'Isn't this the one, the Lamb of God . . . .
This one here he is that one (whom we all know about)

By means of such specification, the reader is almost able to imagine

himself on the scene as these events are transpiring. At times this
situational marking is necessary to avoid ambiguity in the text; e.g.:

" E v e n the angels of heaven do not know. I. the Son-L

I do not know, the one who knows is the Father
alone." (Mk 13:32)
A literal translation ("nor the Son"—RSV) would imply that somebody
else's " s o n " (literally 'child') was being referred to, certainly not the
speaker, who was known to be an adult in any case. The Chewa
translators interpreted the various responses to the ministry of Jesus
in Mk 6:14-15 as having been spoken by a single group of people. Thus
it was necessary to add some contextual links so the utterances would
cohere more naturally:

Some said, " N o [in contrast to the preceding opinion,

v. 14], but [an alternative is forthcoming] it is the
prophet Elijah."

And finally, the poetic function is served by reproducing in the R L a

similar style that is in keeping with the discourse genre—the oracles
of the prophets, for example:

Mayo, mayo! ndikumvatu kupweteka! Ha! mtima wanga

uli kuwawa zedi—uli kugunda, ndili wef u-wef u! Sindi-
gathe kukhala chete ayi! 'Help, help! I am really feeling
pain! Ha! my heart is burning terribly—it is pounding,
I'm panting WEFU-WEFU! I cannot remain silent CHETE!
no!' (Jr 4:19)

Though it has no precedent in traditional Chewa oral poetry, this

piece would approximate the type of style that is becoming popular in
current literary works—a modern expressive, highly idiomatic verse
form (ndakatulo) in which the poet is free to discourse on just about
any of life's experiences.
It is obvious that the linguistic form of the original must often
be recast in the R L in order to convey the intended communicative
function. However, it is also important to recognize that at times
adjustments are also necessary with regard to the referential content
of a passage for the same reason. When Lot, for example, pleads that
he be allowed to flee to Zoar, the angel replies:

"Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not

overthrow the city of which you have spoken." (Gn
19:21)
In Chewa this turns out as:

"Chabwino, mudzi wnenewu sindidzauononga" 'Alright,

5
this village I will not destroy it.

Actually, the word chabwino 'alright' would have been sufficient to

indicate to Lot that his request had been granted; it is the locus of
the illocutionary force of this utterance, and hence its principal
element of communication. Similarly, in 2 K g 7:6 the affective nature
of the quotation recorded there requires a referential shift in the
Chewa:

"Behold, the king of Israel has hired against us the

kings of the Hittites . . . to come upon us!"

The initial "Behold" must be changed to "Just listen to that noise!"

(tamvani phokosolo!) in order to more accurately reflect the cause
which elicited this exclamation of terror.
The third aspect of the situational setting that may bring
pressure to bear to alter the shape of direct speech in the R L is the
I N T E R P E R S O N A L factor. This concerns the respective roles and
statuses of the speakers as well as the degree of formality that is
associated with the situation in which the communication event is
taking place. " R o l e " refers to the dynamic, functional relationship
that one person has with another member of his family or society as a
whole—one that involves mutual obligations and expectations with
regard to their behavior. Each role, in turn, has a certain "status," or
prestige level, which is connected with it, and this element governs
the style of language that they use as well as how they refer to one
another in direct discourse. These interpersonal features are also
closely related to the assumptions and attitudes which are held, either
by certain individuals or the linguistic community as a whole. The
following examples illustrate how such factors interact to modify the
forms of speech in the dialogues of Scripture. Generally the text as
realized is, of course, the product of a number of these sociolinguistic
influences operating at once.
Whoever the man "Theophilus" was, to his name is attributed the
status marker "most excellent," so this ought to be reflected in the
salutation which begins Luke's Gospel and Acts as well—in Chewa, an
honorific plural (Ateofilo olemekezeka, which is shifted from its
position at the end of v. 3 to head the text). The same "elevation" in
form is employed where " m o c k " status is called for, as when the
Roman soldiers address Jesus in the praetorium, "Hail, King of the
Jews!" (Mk 15:18)— Tikuoneni Amfumu a Ayuda literally 'we see you
Kings of the Jews'. Generally, however, throughout his trial, whether
before the Jewish leaders or Pilate, Jesus is spoken to in disrespectful
familiar language (singular forms); e.g.:

" N o w how is it that vou don't answer? What is it [all

about] these things which they are accusing vou o f ? "
(Mk 14:60, Chewa)

Notice that there is also a shift in style to make the language

correspond to the level to which the speakers had verbally " d e m o t e d "
Christ. A literal translation would turn out to be too polite. Thus, the
Jewish leaders refused to accept Jesus' role as "the Christ," or even
as a genuine "Teacher" any more, and this must be revealed in the
reduced status that they attribute to him in their speech. At what
point in Jesus' ministry this shift in attitude takes place (and becomes
overt) cannot be stated precisely, for this feature is not made explicit
in the original. The translators must allow the context to be their
guide. It is a decision which cannot be avoided; Jesus (just like any
individual) must either be respected in speech in a language like
Chewa, or he is not; there is no middle ground. This can be a matter
of some exegetical significance as we see in the following passage:

So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, " H o w

long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the
Christ, tell us plainly." (Jn 10:24)

In Chewa the use of familiar forms here immediately suggests to the

listener that the Jews' concern here was not genuine. They had
already come to the conclusion that he was not the promised Messiah,
and their speech thus betrays this opinion. Not all Bantu languages are
alike in this regard. In Tonga, for example, not even the chief is
addressed in honorific terms. Status in such languages is conveyed
rather in the manner of speaking; e.g., deferentially versus bluntly.
The latter would apply in the situation mentioned above:
 " N o w , when are you going to reveal yourself so that we
do not have to doubt that you are the Anointed One of
God? Tell us openly, let us be enlightened."

An instance of "deferential" speech occurs in Jn 4:26, where in effect

Christ depreciates himself so that it will not sound as if he is
bragging as he reveals himself as the Messiah to the Samaritan woman:

"Is it not true that I who am speaking here, it is I

whom you are referring t o ? " (Chewa) (cp. original: " I
who speak to you am he.")

An interesting example which illustrates how assumed status may

affect the forms of speech (Chewa) occurs in Jn 9 in two different
reactions to the blind man whom Jesus had healed. The man's neigh-
bors and acquaintances address him in a familiar but polite style when
they ask him what had happened:

" T h e n how is it that your eyes see?" (9:10)

Later the Pharisees (social superiors) ask him the same question (the
indirect discourse of the SL is shifted to direct for dramatic effect),
but the linguistic form is distinctly different:

" H o w do you see?" (9:15)

Their own high opinion of themselves is also made explicit elsewhere

in the text. For example, in replying to Christ's allusion to the
spiritually " b l i n d " of this world, they say: " A r e we also blind?"
(9:40). The Chewa captures the blatant hypocrisy which lay behind
these words by rendering:

" A s for [people] such as us. are we also b l i n d ? "

A literal translation often results in derogatory speech in the R L . The

status of one speaker with respect to another may be higher, but a
socially polite manner of address ought to be maintained, unless the
context would indicate differently (e.g., as in the discourse of the
self-righteous Pharisees). When Jesus was conversing with the Samar-
itan woman at Jacob's well, for example, he was obviously interacting
with someone who was near the bottom of the social ladder in that
community. His purpose, however, was to win her, not to verbally
chastise her for her immoral life style. The form of his speech must
therefore correspond to this ultimate communicative purpose; e.g., not
"Woman, believe me . . . " (Jn 4:21), which would give his words a
reproachful tone, but "Mother, truly . . . " (Chewa). The position of
the vocative pronoun is crucial here; before the n o u n / n a m e it is
positive in connotation, but it is negative when used after the noun;
e.g.:

"You are mad, Paul vou (sg.)" [ - ] . . .

" I am not mad, no, vou (pi.) honored Festus" [+]. (Ac
26:24-25)

In some contexts the vocative pronoun is best left out altogether; e.g.:

"You wretch (Munthu iwe, literally 'man you'), your sins

are forgiven!" (Lk 5:20, old Chewa)

"Mister, (Bambo), your sins are forgiven." (new

translation)

That is quite a difference, and unfortunately such examples could be

multiplied many times over in most of the older versions that are
currently being used in Central Africa.
The issue of who is speaking to whom as it concerns the
respective role relationships involved comes to the fore in the
following passages:

" . . . but if you will not send [Benjamin], we will not

go down . . . ." (Gn 43:5)

No self-respecting Tonga son (i.e., one who properly conceives of his

role in the social structure of the clan) would dare respond to his
father so impudently as to give a direct refusal. Rather, their reply
would have to be blunted like this: " . . . as far as we are concerned,
we are not able to leave, no . . . ." On the other hand, no father
would overtly accuse his sons of wanting to kill him (i.e., they are
"witches"), as a literal transfer of the next passage would indicate in
Chewa:

" . . . you would bring down my grey hairs with sorrow

to Sheol." (Gn 42:38)

Instead he would state his concern much more impersonally:

" . . . and I, in this aged condition of mine, a sorrow

of such a nature would simply finish me off!"

Similarly, no person who valued his head would presume to come up to

the ruler of the land and demand:

" G i v e us food; why should we die before your eyes? For

our money is gone." (Gn 47:15)

Instead their plea would be put much more circumspectly as follows:

" O king, we are begging for food. See, we are dying! Is

it not true that our money has run out on u s ? " (Tonga)

Even when social equals are conversing, one must take care to employ
the proper register. When, for example, the two kings of Israel and
Judah are discussing the merits of a certain prophet, the latter
disagrees with the opinion of the former in these words: "Let not the
king say so" (1 Kg 22:8). A more courteous and hence appropriate
response would be:

"Nooo, surely you don't mean that!" (Tonga)

At times it may be necessary to change the particular terms which are

the main "status bearers" in direct speech, that is, those words that
serve to indicate one's social level and/or role relationship with
respect to his addressees. The familiar "your servant" as a verbal
marker of subservience or respect in the OT often has to be trans-
formed into its opposite, i.e., (my) lord/chief," in Chewa to produce
a natural style; e.g.:
 And [Mephibosheth] answered, "Behold, your servant."
(2 Sm 9:6)

And he answered, "Yes, O king." (Ee amfumu,

t literally
1
'Yes, chiefs ) (Chewa)

The specific situation or set of circumstances, whether personal

or impersonal, also interacts with the factors of role and status to
affect the type of speech that the biblical personages use. The result
is four general levels of formality, any of which in certain contexts,
at least, may have linguistic correlates in the R L . Frozen speech
comprises all utterances of fixed form which are more or less tied to
a particular sociolinguistic setting, especially those of a religious/rit-
ual/liturgical nature; e.g.:

"Praise God!
May he bless the one who is coming in the name of the
Lord. This one he is the King of Israel!" (Jn 12:13,
Chewa)

Where there is a functionally equivalent fixed form in the R L , that

should be used in these contexts; e.g.:

"Listen to this (Tamverani izi)

you Israelites and also those others of you who honor
God . . . ." (Ac 13:16, Chewa)

Formal discourse would be the norm in many of the broader teaching

situations of the N T , where Christ, for example, is instructing people
whom he is not necessarily acquainted with. This style is characterized
by a fullness of expression in which there is a relatively large amount
of repetition together with a lot of exposition and explanation to fill
in the necessary background information for the addressees; e.g.:

" T r u e indeed, I am telling you (Zoonadi ndikukuuzant)

that it is most difficult for a rich man to enter into
the Kingdom of Heaven. Telling the truth, it is easier
for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it
 is for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of
Heaven." (Mt 19:23-24, Chewa)

The expression that is used for "verily, verily" (KJV) might be

regarded as another "frozen" form, for all of these hypothetical levels
overlap in varying degrees, in the SL as well as the R L . The important
thing is that a corresponding style be reproduced in the translation so
that the text will not sound in any way out of keeping with its
context. Thus, one would not attempt to eliminate the redundancy—in
the last line of the passage above, for example—if that is associated
with a formal manner of speaking also in the R L .
Informal language is that which typifies most conversations
between friends. A more relaxed style develops with more idiomatic
and figurative usages and a less rigid pattern of grammatical construc-
tions, e.g., more colloquial, shortened forms will be employed, as in Jn
21:3-5 (Chewa):

Simon Peter said to them, " I ' m going fishing." (Ndi-

4
kaphe nsomba, literally I am going out to kill fish,'
4
instead of ndilikupita kukasodza I am on the way to go
and fish')

They said, "We'll go with you."

(nanu instead of pamodzi ndi inu 'together with you')

Jesus asked them, "Say, comrades, have you seen any

luck today?"
(cp. original: "Children, have you any fish?"—but
one must be careful not to let Jesus speak too
idiomatically, for this may be offensive to certain
members of the R L constituency.)

They said, " N o , there is nothing."

(The latter, Ayi, palibe is a very informal reply: one
must not allow it to sound disrespectful though, as
in Iyai 'NO!')

Familiar speech would be the style used in the home and among the
closest of friends. It is characterized by idiomatic and idiosyncratic
expressions as well as by a comparatively high degree of ellipsis and
broken grammatical constructions (anacolutha); e.g.:

" L o r d [Ambuye, which can also be a familiar form in

Chewa], the one [whom we both know about] you love
is sick." (Jn 11:3)

The following illustrates the ultimate in intimate, personal c o m m u n i -

cation:

Jesus said to her, "Mary!"

She turned and said in Hebrew, " R a b b o n i . " (Jn 20:16)

In both Chewa and Tonga, the dramatic peak that occurs at this point
can be duplicated by a literal translation because people are somewhat
familiar already with biblical usage. In other languages this might not
be the case if such one-word utterances (e.g., a name/title) turn out
to be unnatural. In a traditional Chewa setting, for example, a man
could not address an adult female by her personal name as above; it
would sound as if he considered her to be merely a child.
Once more we have seen how influence from the situational
context, in particular, the sociocultural background and world view of
the receptor group, relates directly to their perception and u n d e r -
standing of the message of Scripture. This is a critical factor in the
overall communication process, for any text, no matter how well it is
constructed linguistically in the R L , must still be interpreted within
the culturally-specific psychological (cognitive and emotive) frame-
work of the receptors. As our examples from the Chewa and Tonga
translations have illustrated, this conceptual grid will always be
divergent enough from that assumed by the biblical authors to present
some interesting barriers to the transmission and reception of the
divine message as originally intended. Today's translators must
therefore rise to meet this challenge by utilizing the full resources of
their mother tongue—forms that reflect a cultural world that may be
very different in some respects, but which, on the other hand, if
properly manipulated, have the sure potential of conveying the same
universe of human experience in a way that is a dynamic functional
equivalent of that of the original.
 CHAPTER 7

Rut h in Central Afric a :

A Cult ura l Com m e nt a ry

In this chapter we will make a selective survey of the book of

R u t h to see how the matter of culture exerts its influence on the
perception and interpretation of receptors over a longer stretch of
biblical discourse. We will proceed sequentially through the story,
commenting on some of the major sociocultural focal points that occur
in this text, which is one that raises a rather large number of
questions concerning ideas, attitudes, customs, and certain verbal
expressions from the perspective of readers in Central Africa (Chewa
and Tonga in particular). We will not go into detail on any of these
issues; the purpose is rather to briefly suggest the typeg of things
that need to be investigated when communicating the Scriptures cross-
culturally. What do our receptors really perceive and understand when
they read or hear the message that we are transmitting to them? If
the translator does not know for sure, then it is his duty to find out.
And if he is unable to resolve points of potential misunderstanding in
the text itself, then he will have to do so by some other means (e.g.,
footnote, illustration, glossary entry, etc.)

LI
It sounds rather strange right at the beginning to hear that
"judges ruled" in the land of Judah. Traditionally the position of
" j u d g e " was not all that important in the Central African community,
for it was the diviner who usually determined the question of guilt
and innocence. It might be that subsequently the council of "elders"
would decide what penalty ought to be meted out in the case of
offenders. Even later in colonial history, when government-appointed
official judges came on the scene, such men were never viewed as
functioning in any capacity of administrative rule, for this work was
being done by others. Part of the problem, of course, arises with the
English translation itself. The Hebrew shophetim is in many contexts
better rendered as "deliverers"; they acted more in the capacity of
military leaders than as judicial arbiters. They would correspond to the
paramount chief of certain African peoples, particularly those with a
strong military tradition.

il2
A family (clan) might well move to a different location at a time
of prolonged drought (= famine in Central Africa) or when the
ground/range was depleted. But in the past it would be unusual for
them to travel out of the area of their particular ethnic group (which
might include some closely related tribes, e.g., the Tonga, IIa, and
Lenje of south-central Zambia). Thus Elimelech's action of transfer-
ring his family from Judah to Moab (i.e. outside of the land of the
"twelve tribes") is atypical from an African perspective. A man might
go off to work in a "foreign" place in order to earn some hard cash,
but then he would generally travel alone, leaving his wife and children
behind.

IA
It is somewhat of a surprise to hear that both of Elimelech's
sons married foreign women. It would have been expected that
arrangements be made to have at least one of them marry a girl from
"back h o m e , " especially in the case where the family still clearly
regarded Bethlehem in Judah as the place where they ultimately
belonged (1:19,22). They had not even resided in the land of Moab all
that long, i.e., ten years at the maximum. It is no doubt true to say
that cross-tribal marriages were not the norm for the people of Judah
either, at least not among those who took their religion seriously, but
then again, the receptor would probably not know that information.
There are many reasons why intertribal marriages are generally
frowned upon by the Tonga, for example. Social and religious factors
are especially prominent, e.g., differences in liminal customs at birth,
maturation, marriage, and death; diverse religious practices, such as
how to sacrifice and to whom (which ancestors); and so forth.
M
For the Tonga, who are patrilocal and practice the custom of
giving "bridewealth" (lobola) whereby the wife's clan is " c o m p e n -
sated" for her physical loss to the group, it is normal to hear that
R u t h and Orpah were going to accompany Naomi on her return to her
homeland. There they would be married to the near relatives of their
deceased husbands. If they had refused to go along, their fathers
would be compelled to return the bridewealth, especially since these
marriages had not really been "established," as there were apparently
no children involved in either case. This situation would not be as
customary among the Chewa, who are matrilocal (at least during the
early years of a marriage) and who do not observe the bridewealth
tradition.
While it is normal to attribute the "giving of food" to God, it
would be most unusual to hear that he had "visited his people."
According to traditional belief, God lives, estranged from man, far
away in the sky. The Hebrew verb in this context refers to Yahweh's
gracious care for his people; i.e., he "blessed" them " b y giving them
good crops" (GNB).

M
The literal form of Naomi's suggestion turns out to be very
misleading in both Chewa and Tonga (it is somewhat problematic
culturally in Hebrew as well; see the commentaries). It would be a
grave insult indeed to tell a girl to "go back home and stay with your
mother" (GNB), for this would imply that she has failed somehow as a
wife and needs to be sent back to her village in order to receive
further domestic "training." In fact, the marriage would probably end
there. In this situation there is the added complication that Naomi
seems to be acting contrary to custom by refusing to allow her
widowed daughters-in-law to be married again to close relatives of the
clan of the deceased (i.e., her own sons). Other possible negative
implications are that Naomi is here verbally abusing her daughters-in-
law (after luring them away from their village) because they had not
been properly married to her sons, or worse, that Naomi did not want
them along since she suspected them of being "witches"; for what
other reason should her husband and only sons die in that foreign
land? Her subsequent words would then be taken ironically—a curse in
the form of a blessing: may God do to you as you have done to my
two sons and me myself (i.e., through my husband—you and your
people have killed them all off!).

lia
Adults, whether of the same or the opposite sex, do not kiss one
another publicly in traditional African society. A mother, however,
may affectionately kiss her small child or baby. One must therefore
indicate the social significance of this act in the original; e.g., "she
bid them farewell by kissing them." The reason for the daughters'
"weeping" is also not clear from the text. Loud public crying or
wailing is normally done only at the time of a funeral.

1:11
Naomi's apparent suggestion that she might bear more sons for
her daughters-in-law to marry sounds crudely out of place in a Tonga
setting. Surely there would have been some near kinsmen available who
could have performed this vital socioreligious function, e.g., an uncle
or cousin of the deceased (from the mother's side of the family).

1:12
Here again Naomi's words are far too blunt, when translated
literally, to have been spoken to her daughters-in-law, unless she
intended to insult them! The overt reference to her bearing children
(which they had not) and the implicit mention of sexual intercourse
(despite the euphemism: to "have a husband this night") are particu-
larly troublesome from the point of view of Chewa/Tonga verbal
etiquette. Naomi sounds as if she is despising her daughters-in-law.

1:13
Naomi's complaint that God was afflicting her is typical enough,
but that would be understood only in a very general sense. If she
were an African, she would be likely to press this further to find out
why all this trouble had befallen her. A more crucial question,
however, would be to ascertain who was the underlying cause. In this
situation one might expect that a diviner would be consulted in order
to determine either in what way she had offended her ancestral spirits
that they should allow this to happen, or who was the " w i t c h " that
was bent upon destroying her family, and thus also herself.
1:15
The expression "her gods" is problematic in Tonga because Leza
is regarded as being sui generis; therefore, no plural is possible,
except perhaps as a reference to the ancestral spirits. But for Naomi
to say that Orpah had "gone back . . . to her ancestors" would
represent a direct transculturization of the original, and this is not a
valid translation option when producing a version that takes the
biblical sociocultural context seriously. The solution in this instance is
not difficult, namely, to adopt the alternative (and more likely)
interpretation, "her god" (i.e., Chemosh, 1 K g 11:33).
We also note in passing that the Tonga would generally consider
their God to be the same as the Chewa God, Chauta, except for the
mere variation in name, and vice-versa. The difference between these
two peoples in specific religious belief and practice, however, is
recognized and forms an important barrier that separates them.

1:17
A natural Chewa cultural substitute for the Hebrew oath and
curse formula, " M a y the L O R D do so to me and m o r e , " is "May
lightning (i.e., viewed as being sent by God) tear me!" But this
expression may convey negative ("heathen") overtones as far as the
Christian constituency is concerned, thus making it unacceptable for
use in the Scriptures. Ruth's expressed desire that she be buried at
the home of her husband's relatives is a very significant pledge of
loyalty also from a Chewa point of view, for normally (unless too
great a distance is involved) a man, or woman, will be taken back to
his (her) own village for burial. Ruth's promise that even death will
not be able to separate her from Naomi corresponds to the C / T socio-
religious belief that the grave is no barrier to interpersonal relation-
ships, whether good or bad, for one's community includes the society
of ancestral spirits.

1:18
Instead of translating " . . . she (Naomi) said no m o r e , " which
would be an impolite type of behavior (implying that she was so angry
that she didn't want to talk to Ruth anymore), the Chewa reads "she
just kept quiet," and Tonga "she did not refuse any more."
1:19
The rhetorical question, "Is this Naomi?" may be misunderstood
if rendered literally to imply that the people did not recognize Naomi
after so many years. But the question is rather a shocked comment
upon her miserable social condition due to the loss of her husband and
sons. Thus a more appropriate expression would be (Chewa) "Ha! so
Naomi has come back like this?"

1:20
The symbolical use of personal names is common in Bantu
languages as well. It would not be surprising for a person to change
his/her name after experiencing some severe misfortune or affliction,
e.g., to Mavuto "Troubles" (C). In this case the actual meaning of the
names cited here probably ought to be put into the text, or their
significance, and in addition a certain dramatic impact, will be lost to
the listener; e.g., "Don't call me Naomi, the Happy O n e , " she a n -
swered, "call me Mara, the Sad One . . . " (GNB). An explanatory
footnote is also possible, but this has the distinct disadvantage of
diminishing the forcefulness of the original at this point, which is the
climax of Chapter 1. Since puns are as popular and appreciated in a
Bantu language as in Hebrew, it is not difficult to reproduce the play
on words which occurs at the end of this verse; e.g., " . . . because
God Almighty has troubled me very much (or caused my heart to
become bitter; C ) . "

1:22
The time reference here is important, since in a Tonga socio-
cultural setting it would immediately arouse the suspicions of the
people whose village Naomi was entering. A person does not usually
move during the period extending from after the fields have been
planted until after the harvest has been completed. One's crops mean
life, and therefore it must have been some serious offense which drove
Naomi away from her former home at such a time. Perhaps it had been
divined that she was guilty of practicing witchcraft—after all, were
not all her men now dead? No, she would not be welcomed with open
arms into a Tonga village at this time of year.
2il
Boaz is introduced at this point in anticipation of the major role
that he is about to play in the narrative, namely, as a husband to
Ruth. From the Tonga kinship perspective, however, he is on the
wrong side of the family—that of Elimelech (i.e., patrilineal descent).
If this had been a Tonga setting, Boaz would have had to come from
among the dead husband's mother's relatives, i.e., from Naomi's line
(matrilineal descent).
2;2
Instead of replying, " G o , my child," to Ruth's request, Naomi
would have sounded more idiomatic in Chewa by saying, "Alright,
mother" (Chabwino, amai). The first word indicates her agreement
with the request, the appellation shows her respect for her daughter-
in-law. The use of personal names is completely taboo in such f a c e - t o -
face dialogues (cp. GNB—Naomi: " N o w be patient, Ruth" (3:18). The
relations between in-laws in a traditional environment are kept in an
intricate social balance by an established set of status markers and
terms of avoidance. This may be a minor stylistic matter, but when
violations are compounded, especially in direct speech, it immediately
brands the translation as being linguistically foreign.
There is also a problem of implication with the words " . . .
glean . . . after him in whose sight I shall find favor" (RSV). This
would indicate that R u t h already had a specific person in mind. Thus
the reference must be generalized; e.g., GNB: " I am sure to find
someone who . . . ."

2ll
The Chewa have a similar custom to the one mentioned here (cf.
Lv 19:9-10), that is, the poor of the community are allowed to go into
the field of a wealthy farmer after the harvest to gather what has
been left behind (i.e., to "glean"). People of lesser means, however,
make sure they get all of the grain (usually maize) out of the field
the first time through.

2A
Boaz' words of greeting to his workers ("The L O R D be with
you!") and their reply to him ("The L O R D bless you!") have a
distinctly liturgical ring about them. They make Boaz sound like the
local parish pastor or priest. These were conventional formulas of
welcome in Hebrew, but their formal correspondents fit into an
entirely different speech register in many receptor languages. By
replacing them with local equivalents in the R L , however, such as
"You are seen, clansmen" . . . "Yes, we are seen" (T), would
eliminate an essential religious component that probably ought to be
retained in this story. The wish that God would " b e with" a person is
conceptually difficult for two reasons. As has been noted, according to
traditional belief, God is regarded as living far away from man,
personally and psychologically, with no real desire to come any closer
(although in times of calamity he may be cajoled into helping by
means of prayers and offerings). Secondly, the reason for inviting his
immediate presence is not readily apparent. The meaning must there-
fore be clarified with an expression such as " M a y God be good-
hearted (i.e., favorable) to you" (C).

2;5
A literal translation of Boaz' question, "Whose maiden (young
woman—NASB) is this?" would be very inappropriate in Chewa, for it
suggests that he is asking about whom she is married to (with an
ulterior motive in mind). He would have to say, "Who is this lady?"
(i.e., the assumption being that she is married, but the term used is
one of respect).

2£
The double reference to Ruth's country of origin is somewhat
awkward stylistically, especially in direct discourse. There does,
however, seem to be a special emphasis on " M o a b " in the book, and
therefore the foregrounding effect of the repetition ought to be
retained, if possible, in the translation (cp. also 1:6,22). In this
passage the reiteration also serves to stress Ruth's foreign origin.

2LZ
As the workers report to Boaz about Ruth's industriousness, they
emphasize the fact that "She . . . worked steadily . . . except for a
short rest in the shelter." This was rendered by an idiomatic expres-
sion in the old Chewa Bible, 'in the house she doesn't stay long,' but
this means something quite different. In a culture where a woman's
place is definitely in the " h o m e , " it suggests that R u t h is some sort
of busybody, or worse, of immoral character.

In a Chewa/Tonga setting Boaz could not address Ruth as " M y

daughter" (which turns out to be " m y child" in C / T ) unless he
happened to be very much older than she was. He would rather say
" m o t h e r " {mai, i.e., moderate respect, versus the ultimate honorific,
"mothers"). Neither could he refer to his laborers as " m y maidens,"
for in Tonga this could be interpreted as meaning his girlfriends.
Instead he would use "female workers" and omit the " m y . "

2i9
"Young m e n " do not normally " d r a w water" in an African
context, certainly not for any women who might happen to be present.
Boaz' rhetorical question of assertion, "Have I not charged the young
men not to molest you," has to be transformed into a direct statement
so that its illocutionary force will not be misunderstood.

2:10
U p o n hearing that R u t h "fell on her face," many receptors would
come to the conclusion that she was either suddenly taken ill or that
she was deathly afraid of Boaz. A rather different honorific gesture in
the presence of an adult male would be employed among the Tonga;
for example, to simply genuflect in ordinary cases, but to kneel when
speaking to a male in-law on her father's side. A woman would also
kneel to avoid the normal custom of shaking hands with a man at
times when she is ritually unclean, e.g., during menstruation. Ruth's
reply to Boaz should not sound as if she is insulting his kindness and
concern for her; cp. GNB: "Why should you be so concerned about
m e ? " In many languages of Central Africa, "foreigner" is rendered by
a word which has a wide area of meaning stranger, traveler, guest,
e t c (as in the old Chewa Bible). And since in local society "guests"
in particular are received with honor and well cared for, Ruth's
surprise at Boaz' good will toward her seems to involve a cultural
contradiction. Indeed, Boaz would be remiss if he did not give Ruth
special attention. Thus "foreigner" has to be translated as "outsider"
(i.e., with respect to race, religion, nationality, etc. [C]) or " n o n -
tribesperson" (T).
2:12
This image of God having " w i n g s , " even if it were recognized as
being nonliteral, is too extraordinary to be meaningful in C / T . While
God can be spoken of in anthropomorphic terms, one cannot attribute
to him the features of an animal or bird, even figuratively. The
associated ground of comparison is also quite unusual from their
perspective, i.e., wings to provide refuge, shelter, protection, etc.,
instead of as a means of rapid transportation.

2:13
In Chewa, Ruth shows enough deference by addressing Boaz as
" m y lord" (mbuye wanga 'my master/uncle'), and she does not have to
go on to refer to herself as "your maidservant" (which might well be
interpreted literally in this context). This also eliminates any possible
confusion with her subsequent words: " . . . though I am not one of
your maidservants."

2:14
Apart from the unfamiliar food being eaten ("bread" in " w i n e , "
which would seem very much like a reference to the Lord's Supper to
churchgoers today), Boaz' invitation must not be made to sound too
direct, such as "Come h e r e , " or he could be misinterpreted as having
an improper motivation. Furthermore, the whole idea of the master
preparing a meal for his servants to eat (as a literal translation into
C / T suggests) appears to be out of place, for that would signify a
great reduction in his social status. Besides, he could have expected
that they would have already helped themselves to a portion of his
harvest, and so why should he "subsidize" them even more?

2:17
Each of the proposals for rendering the measure " e p h a h "
presents its own difficulties: (a) a transliteration would mean nothing
in the RL; (b) a local substitute (e.g., mtanga 'large basket', C) would
distort the cultural context somewhat; (c) a modern equivalent (e.g.,
"twenty-five pounds," GNB) would deny the historical setting; and (d)
a combination (e.g., "an ephah, which is about a mtanga full/twenty-
five pounds") is rather too long. In C / T the cultural substitute
appears to be the best choice here because even the original reference
did not involve an exact figure: "about an ephah." "Barley," too, is
unknown, but the context does suggest at least that it was some type
of grain crop, an identification which would be supported by the use
of "basket" for " e p h a h " — a s long as the loanword bbaali (T) is not
mistaken as referring to the more common cash crop, 'burley tobacco'.

2:18
It would have been extremely impolite for R u t h , had she been an
African, to take back home with her the food which was left over
from the meal which she had eaten at Boaz' farm. That would
certainly give the impression that she had a greedy nature. The
custom is rather that she leave a little food on her plate to show that
she had been satisfied by her host (even if she was really still
hungry). This is, in fact, what was suggested by v. 14, " a n d she had
some [food] left over."—only to be apparently contradicted now in v.
18. Further aspersions on Ruth's character result from a literal
reproduction of the final clause of this verse: "(Ruth) gave (Naomi)
what food she had left over after being satisfied" (cp. old Chewa
Bible: mkute 'food remaining from the night before'). A woman would
be considered most selfish if it were discovered that she had filled
herself with food first and then had given the left-overs to her
m o t h e r - i n - l a w . In a traditional African society, greed, or gluttony, is
one of the most abhorrent of characteristics, as attested to by many
proverbs and folktales.

2:20
Naomi's statement that God (Yahweh) cares for both "the living
and the dead" corresponds to the Bantu world view, not so much due
to the agency of God as mentioned, but because the dead are seem-
ingly put on an equal plane with the living—they comprise but one
social community.
It is difficult to render the Hebrew term go'el adequately in C / T
due to the cultural differences involved. In general, the function of
this person in society was to protect the interests of the family and
clan: their land, property, freedom, and posterity. Thus he had the
obligation to " r e d e e m " (through personal purchase) what had been
lost, to avenge the death of kinsmen, and should he happen to be the
closest relative to a deceased male of child-bearing age, to marry the
widow. The problem is that, not unexpectedly, there is no single term
which would cover all of these functions in any Central African
language. There would be a "clan representative" (C: nkhoswe), usually
the senior woman's eldest brother, who does conduct negotiations with
his counterparts in matters such as marriage and legal disputes
(customary law). But he would never personally be responsible for
carrying out acts of revenge or to act as husband in a levirate
marriage (not as nkhoswe, that is). The best, then, that can be done
in translation is to employ a descriptive phrase which focuses upon
the most relevant components of the term's meaning in this particular
context; e.g., C: "(he is) one of our relatives, the one who has the
responsibility of nourishing us" (or: bringing us up, i.e., caring for us).

A section heading such as that proposed by GNB is culturally

very inappropriate. Unless she is someone of loose morals, a woman
does not go out to "find a husband" (or " m a n , " the word is the same
in both C / T ) . Rather, it is his task to find her. It would be contrary
to custom for a woman to arrange a marriage for her daughter. That
is the job of the clan representative, as pointed out above, a male in
any case, and the initiative in the proceedings must be taken by the
suitor. However, where a remarriage is concerned, especially in the
case of a son who has died, a woman's involvement would not be
uncommon, since the person to "succeed" to the place of the deceased
would have to come from her family line. In such a situation she
would not actually go out herself to " f i n d " a husband (RSV, GNB),
but she would be in charge of the formal arrangements aimed at
establishing the widow once again "in a family" (C). Furthermore, a
woman would never suggest that her daughter-in-law herself take steps
to "engage" a man, as Naomi now advised Ruth to do. U n d e r such
circumstances among the Chewa and certain other Central African
peoples, a wife would be justified in taking her mother- in-law to (the
traditional) court for meddling in her marital affairs.

£3
Naomi's instructions to Ruth sound very out of character for a
God-fearing " m o t h e r " — t o actually teach her daughter how to make
herself attractive so that she can go out and entice men in the
practice of prostitution! In this context it would seem as if Naomi is
encouraging R u t h to carry on as a harlot so that she can earn enough
money to support the two of them. It would be difficult to think of a
more immoral proposition. The careful instructions about the need for
secrecy as well as the time of action—at night (v. 2) and after the
man had finished eating and drinking (the latter bearing a certain
negative connotation in itself)—would serve to confirm this suspicion.
So would the advice to "lie d o w n " at his feet under his blanket (v.
4). This was apparently (since we have this as the only clear instance
[but note Ezek 16:8]) a culturally symbolic act which was intended to
dramatize for Boaz the responsibility that he had to protect, care for,
and possibly even marry, Ruth. It is difficult to remove from the text
the suggestion that sexual relations, and an illicit encounter at that,
were a part of this rather elaborate procedure. An explanatory
footnote is therefore necessary at this point.

3:7
The report of the carrying out of Naomi's plan occasions the
same problems for the C / T receptor that her preceding words did (v.
3). In fact, the clash in customs is reinforced. One must be careful in
this account not to employ an expression for the original "his heart
was m e r r y " (after drinking) which would suggest that Boaz was in a
drunken condition. Furthermore, it is necessary in both C / T to add the
words, "While he (Boaz) was asleep . . . ," in order to reduce the
likelihood of overtones of illegitimacy being mistakenly attached by
receptors to Ruth's actions here.

3:9
It is a valid translation procedure to indicate that Boaz was
"surprised," perhaps even a bit shocked, as he asked the question,
"Who are y o u ? " This attitude is definitely implied in the vivid Hebrew
expression immediately preceding, "behold, a woman lay (lit. '[is]
lying') at his feet!" (3:8). The "surprise" could easily be included as
part of the quote margin or, more idiomatically, as an exclamation
introducing Boaz' words; e.g., "Ah-ah, you—you are w h o ? " (C). By
making this sentiment explicit in the text, the translator also helps to
dispel any errant idea that some sort of immoral activity was taking
place there at Boaz' threshing floor.
According to the C / T norms of social decorum, Ruth is entirely
too forward in informing Boaz of his responsibility over against her. A
literal (RSV) rendering of her request that he "spread (his) skirt"
over her would definitely convey improper sexual overtones. To overtly
mention " m a r r i a g e " (GNB), on the other hand, would be forbidden as
well (e.g., T: " t o eat the n a m e " of the deceased). Only an immoral
woman would attempt something as blatant as that. Ruth's situation, as
complicated as it was, would have to be handled by the family
representatives, for this was not an individual matter. In an effort to
remain more indirect, the Chewa translates "Since you are a relative,
you have the responsibility of caring for me. Please 'bring me up!' "

3:10
The cultural implications of the Hebrew expression, "you have
made this last kindness greater than the first," need to be brought
out in the RL; e.g., GNB: "You are showing even greater loyalty in
what you are doing now than in what you did for your m o t h e r - i n -
law." The problems connected with Boaz' introductory words, " M a y
you be blessed by the L O R D , my daughter," have already been
discussed. Boaz is not a priest, and thus it is not at all clear (if the
expression is rendered literally) why he is wishing God's "blessing"
upon Ruth.

3:12
Among the Tonga, the procedure for determining the person who
is to assume responsibility for the widow (i.e., to inherit his " n a m e " /
ancestral spirit and familial responsibilities) is somewhat more compli-
cated. The primary consideration is not only the "closeness" of the
relationship of the potential husband to the deceased (as in the
Hebrew), but also his social suitability, which involves a complex of
factors; e.g., present marital status, personality, economic ability to
support a(nother) wife, etc. The dead man's relatives (on the mother's
side) would decide upon several possible candidates, and the woman
would then be able to select from among them. She might even choose
not to get married again, but not normally if she were childless as
R u t h was.
There is also a linguistic problem in conveying the concept of
"closer" relative. In Tonga, for example, kinsmen/women are distin-
guished as being either "nearer" or "farther" in relationship accor-
ding to an elaborate set of social criteria. Closest are one's own blood
brothers and sisters; these form the mukwasyi as they sit around the
same fire fueled by dung from their common herd of cattle. Next are
those who are regarded as being equivalent to one's "father,"
" m o t h e r , " " b r o t h e r , " or "sister"; they belong to one's cikombo or
"umbilical cord." The final group comprising the inner circle of
relatives (or " c l a n , " mukowa) would include all those males who would
be allowed to "eat one's n a m e " (kulya zind), that is, succeed to one's
position upon death. Normally only a man who was in a "brotherly" or
"fatherly" relationship to the deceased (on his mother's side of the
family) would be allowed to "inherit" his wife. The great difficulty in
this case is that Boaz, being a relative of Elimelech, does not qualify
at all according to the Tonga kinship perspective, and therefore the
usual terminology cannot be employed. As a musazinyina, or one who
would sit around the same fireplace at a funeral, he could legally
" m a r r y " R u t h , but he could not enter the place of her dead husband
to preserve his line of descent.

3:13
The Chewa equivalent for the strong Hebrew oath, "as the L O R D
lives," is pali Chauta 'it is on God', the implication being that if the
speaker proves to be lying, he will be punished by some extraordinary
punishment sent by God, e.g., lightning.

3:14
Boaz' desire for secrecy was to avoid any gossip, or worse, an
open scandal in the community. But in view of everything that has
preceded, his actions do arouse suspicions in the minds of readers who
are very familiar with the opposite situation—where subterfuge is
necessary in order to cover up an illegitimate relationship and to
avoid a court case. Thus a footnote explaining his motivation here may
be required.

3:15
A literal translation of the G N B , i.e., "Take off your cloak and
spread it h e r e , " could easily be mistaken as an overt suggestion on
the part of Boaz that Ruth offer herself sexually to him. The outer
cloth (chitenge) which Central African women wear is occasionally
used for such a purpose. The grain which Boaz gave her would be
understood then as payment for her compliance with his request.
3:17
The use of metric units in Ruth's report of what Boaz did for
her sounds particularly inappropriate here; e.g., Chewa (draft): " H e
gave me twenty kilograms of barley . . . ." It's as if she greedily
watched the scale as he measured out for her his gift of grain. Since
the Hebrew does not really specify the exact amount of grain involved
(i.e., simply "six [measures]"), one can be equally vague in the R L ,
e.g., "all this barley" (GNB), or employ the nearest cultural equiva-
lent, e.g., "six winnowing baskets full" (C).

4ii
The "city gate" (actually the public square within the main gate
leading into the city) was where the local Hebrew elders would meet
to discuss and decide the major issues affecting the community. The
Chewa functional correspondent would be the mphala, an open area in
the village (often situated near the c h i e f s house) where similar
activities are carried out and more; i.e., the men often eat here and
gather also to play games and to work at various trades (e.g., basket
making, wood carving, carpentry, etc.) Since the " g a t e " was so
important in Hebrew culture, and hence in biblical literature, it would
be advisable to retain the reference to form, if possible, coupling this
with an indication of its function, either by a descriptive phrase (e.g.,
"at the meeting place") or in combination with the culturally specific
term (e.g., "at the mphala by the gate of the city").

4;3
In Central Africa, land—specifically a " g a r d e n " — i s not regarded
as being the property of an individual. Land rather belongs to the
community as a whole and is administered through the chief or
headman. A person may allow a relative or friend to use a field which
he has worked in the past, but there is no thought of selling it. Once
the ground has lost its productivity, a farmer will simply leave it and
request a new piece of land from the chief. The translator must also
make sure that the term " g a r d e n " (munda—C) is not understood as a
metaphoric allusion to Ruth herself in this context, for as the
subsequent discussion clearly indicates, an actual piece of land was
being referred to.
 We note also that in Chewa one must make explicit the fact that
Elimelech was no longer alive, namely, by preceding the personal name
with the term malemu 'the late/deceased'.

4i5
A literal translation of Boaz* proposition, " . . . you are also
buying R u t h , " is in fact a misrepresentation of both Hebrew and
Tonga social culture. In neither societies was a wife, or a widow,
" b o u g h t , " for the "marriage present" (Hebrew mohar [Gn 34:12]; T —
lobold) was in effect a gift of compensation, presented from the
family/clan of the bridegroom to the family of the bride which served
to seal the marriage and bind the two families together. In this
particular situation, i.e., levirate succession, not even the lobola was
involved; the man was simply making a public agreement to marry
Ruth.
It is difficult to convey the full meaning of the original expres-
sion: " i n order to restore the name of the dead to his inheritance."
This is due to the different perspectives between the biblical and the
Bantu cultures with regard to the land. The importance of preserving
the " n a m e " of the deceased through offspring begotten on his behalf
is present in both, but in an African context this practice was more
intimately connected with their religious beliefs; i.e., a dead man's
children had the obligation of preserving his presence in the c o m m u -
nity of the "living dead" (spirits) by " r e m e m b e r i n g " him in sacrifices
and prayers. But that this child (or children) would then inherit his
property so as to "keep it in the family" is a foreign notion and
would thus require some additional explanation.

4;6
The problem of v. 5 reappears here in the words " . . . lest I
impair my own inheritance." To a C / T reader, this excuse for the
man's refusal to marry R u t h just does not make sense. Even a more
explicit statement of what was actually involved here does not help all
that much; e.g., " . . . because it might mean that my own children
would inherit less" (GNB). To be sure, the financial burden of
polygamous marriages in Africa is being increasingly recognized, but
that would not be regarded as a valid reason for refusing to carry out
one's familial responsibility. Fundamentally different presuppositions
are being applied to this situation, and these cannot be reconciled in
the text of a translation.

±1
The custom described here of exchanging a shoe to confirm the
act of " r e d e m p t i o n " is completely unfamiliar to the peoples of Central
Africa. Neither an ordinary business transaction nor the practice of
marrying the widow of a dead relative would require any such witness
or attestation. The word of the elders who made the arrangement
would be sufficient. It is possible that in this case the custom could
be mistaken for the nearest (but still distant) equivalent, which among
the Chewa would be the gift made by a man to the father of the girl
whom he desires to marry, i.e., chikole 'engagement pledge*. There is
indeed some correspondence in the respective situations (i.e., a
marriage is ultimately concerned), but there are also enough differ-
ences in detail to direct readers away from such an interpretation;
e.g., the individuals involved, the fact that only one shoe was given
(surely a useless gift!), the comments by the original author, etc.

4;9
The reference to "buying from Naomi" is difficult for receptors
to grasp, not only due to the cultural disparities which lay behind this
conclusion of Boaz (as outlined above), but also because there is no
previous hint in the text that Naomi was actually "selling" her land.
In fact, this would seem to be a very strange thing for a poor widow
to do, for how then did she expect to support herself?

4:10
The importance of the preservation of one's " n a m e " in both
Hebrew and Bantu society has been noted on a number of occasions
throughout this narrative. We might call attention once more to the
slight difference in orientation underlying this desire: the Tonga
concern is focused upon the past and the need for the children of the
deceased to keep in "contact" with his spirit through the established
religious ritual; the Hebrew was interested more in the future and
perpetuating the influence of the deceased "in the land" through his
descendants.
4:11
The wish of the people that Ruth be blessed with a large family
would be welcome in a Bantu context as well. As the family and clan
become more firmly established in number through the new generation,
the potential links with the past are thereby strengthened, thus
preserving " c o m m u n i t y " in both directions.

4:12
The relationship between and significance of the names mentioned
in the first part of this verse would not be grasped by most receptors
in Central Africa. The focus of the original is upon the unorthodox
levirate union between Judah and Tamar which resulted in the birth of
Perez, who became the ancestor of the clan of Ephrath, to which Boaz
belonged. Readers who would be acquainted with the J u d a h / T a m a r
episode (Gn 38) would undoubtedly have some negative feelings about
it due to the surface consideration that an act of prostitution was
involved between a father and his daughter-in-law, a most inauspicious
event from an African perspective. This is regarded as incest and
behavior which would be sure to bring down the wrath of the
ancestors upon the offending clan, and perhaps even the community at
large. Furthermore, the emphasis upon the line of Boaz in these final
verses of the book seems a bit strange, since the children that R u t h
bore were technically the foster offspring of Mahlon. The fact that
these men were of the same clan would not be obvious to the average
reader, nor would the book's thematic emphasis on Boaz' faithfulness
to the ancient traditions of Israel in his dealings with Ruth.

4:13
Section headings should not be ignored when one is considering
potential problem areas from a cultural point of view. One suggested
heading which begins the section starting at v. 13 reads "Boaz and his
descendants" (GNB). The average reader, however, is not likely to be
very familiar with Boaz. But he has undoubtedly heard of King David.
It would seem that this is also the point of emphasis of the original
author as well; otherwise, why give this listing at all and have it
conclude with this climactic name? Therefore a more appropriate
heading would be " T h e ancestors of King David" (C).
4:14
In C / T the expression "Blessed be the LORD!" produces a
collocational clash, for God (Chauta/Leza) is the ultimate dispenser of
blessings, and consequently he cannot exist in a state of being
"blessed" himself. He can, on the other hand, be "praised," which is
what parents and relatives would normally do at the birth of a long-
awaited child.

4:15
The hyperbole in these words of praise to Naomi sounds to be
rather overdone in a Bantu context. No mother would be expected to
value a daughter-in-law more than her own children, particularly in a
matrilineal situation (as most of the tribes are in Central Africa),
where a man's offspring are reckoned as part of his wife's family line
and not his own. In effect, he begets children on behalf of another
clan group; in other words, a daughter-in-law would be bearing for the
lineage of another woman. This would not, however, lessen the joy
that a woman would have at becoming a grandmother for the first
time. In an African society, the relations between grandparents and
grandchildren are especially close (paradoxically, they interact with
each other as "age-mates"), and the former often do "take care of"
(v. 16, GNB) the latter in a village setting.

4:18
The importance of one's ancestors notwithstanding, the elaborate
genealogies of the Hebrews are rather overwhelming for receptors in
Central Africa. This is especially true among those peoples, like the
Tonga, who do not have a strong royal institution, and hence have no
associated tradition of "remembering" departed chiefs. Only o u t -
standing individuals, usually with regard to their magical-supernatural
powers, find a place in formal recitations, such as in a prayer for
rain.

***********

The culturally-oriented comments given above are not intended to

suggest that each and every Tonga/Chewa receptor would have
difficulties with all, or even most, of these passages. But the average
person could be expected to encounter conceptual problems with at
least some of the issues that were pointed out. Exactly which ones, as
well as the degree and nature of the difficulty that might be experi-
enced, is a matter which still needs to be determined through compre-
hensive testing procedures on a representative sample of the R L
constituency. Thus not every potential problem area must, or even can,
be resolved either textually or extratextually. Some issues may have to
be reserved for the educational ministry of the churches, or alterna-
tively, they might be handled in a new type of Bible, a "study Bible,"
which would incorporate more extensive explanatory and descriptive
comments concerning both the biblical and the Bantu cultures as they
would apply to the interpretation of the text of Scripture.
In order to eliminate all of the areas of difficulty connected with
the way of life and world view as presented in the Bible, one would
have to completely "transculturize" the message, that is, to replace
the problematic biblical forms with those which serve a similar
function in the sociocultural environment of the receptor community.
One would, for example, change the " k i s s " of R u 1:9 to "shake
hands"; "her gods" (1:15) to "her ancestral spirits"; " T h e L O R D be
with you" (2:4) to "You are seen" (T); or "bread and w i n e " (2:14) to
"maize-meal porridge and relish." But as we have suggested, this is
not translation, since the original message is thereby cut off from its
historical and cultural (especially religious) roots—that is, the
surrounding context which contributed to its total meaning in the
initial event of communication and continues to do so today.
It is impossible, therefore, to fill all of the gaps in a person's
understanding as he encounters the sacred text, but one can minimize
the meaning-loss that results from their occurrence, and one can also
take steps to prevent, whenever possible, any real misunderstanding
from taking place. This is achieved by "contextualizing" the text—by
employing natural R L forms wherever this can be done without any
unwarranted gain, loss, or distortion of the original, and by providing
sufficient extratextual aids in the form of footnotes, etc., where these
would be helpful and available to the "average reader" (the latter is,
of course, a myth, but a concept that may be made more concrete in
the form of an actual acquaintance or two for whom the translator
imagines that he is producing his text). As examples of such a
contextual process, we might cite the use (in Chewa) of " M a y
lightning (viewed as the agent of God) tear me!" in place of " M a y the
L O R D do so to me and more . . . " (1:17); Mulungu Mphambe 'God,
the powerful ruler of thunder and storms' (i.e., the second word being
a Chewa praise name for the deity) instead of "the Almighty" (1:20);
"Alright, mother" for " G o , my daughter" (2:2); or "six winnowing
baskets" for "six measures" (3:15). There will always be some
disagreement over where to draw the dividing line between transcul-
turation and contextualization, but that is not necessarily a bad thing,
for as long as translators and their constituency continue to concen-
trate their efforts upon understanding the Scriptures more fully, with
the help of God's Spirit they will succeed—and be blessed for it
besides (Jn 14:16-17,26; 15:26; 16:13-15).
It is interesting to note in closing that an exercise in cross-
cultural comparison such as the one that was carried out above would
lead one to question the commonly-voiced assumption that it is
automatically easier for Bantu receptors in contrast to Westerners to
comprehend the Old Testament because so many of their customs and
so forth are " t h e same." To be sure, there are many important
similarities, but upon closer examination one discovers that a large
proportion of these correspondences are rather superficial in nature,
and that these broad resemblances actually mask some significant
underlying incongruities with respect to form, function, usage, and
association. Nida and Reyburn make the important observation that
" h o w the receptors of a translation interpret the form and content of
a message depends in considerable measure upon the extent to which
they understand the original culture-language setting" (1981, p . 24).
This is undoubtedly true, but as we have seen illustrated in the
preceding sample from Ruth, an even more basic consideration that
affects the interpretation of a biblical text concerns the degree to
which today's receptors in a non-Western context realize that their
own sociocultural setting is actually different from that of the
original. That is to say, the recognition of distinct variations in belief
and behavior must come prior to the capacity to comprehend what the
language-culture situation of the Scriptures was.
Language learners often find that some of their greatest problems
are caused by so-called "false friends," that is, lexical and gram-
matical forms which closely resemble those present in one's mother
tongue, but which are different enough in actual meaning to cause
conceptual confusion and consequent performance errors. A person
whose language is not as close linguistically simply has to learn the
difference, just as he does for all the forms of the language. The
same thing may also be true in the case of certain cultural forms,
whether these concern overt behavior or patterns of thought and
belief. Here, too, "false friends" may abound, as they do when one
compares the Bantu with the biblical cultures. Undoubtedly the
problems of interpretation are thereby increased a great deal—all the
more so because they are probably not recognized as such. So who is
to say for sure that, given the same amount of "exposure" (length of
time as a Christian, Bible study, personal instruction, etc.), the
tradition-bound African always has an easier time arriving at a
culturally correct understanding of the Scriptures than the techno-
logically-bound American?
 CHAPTER 8

Cult ura l "Condit ioning" of the Com m unic a t ors

As was noted in our diagram of the communication process in

Chapter 2, the Bible translator functions as a surrogate "source" when
transmitting the message of Scripture for his people, the receptors of
today. He is not an independent source, for his task is to convey the
meaning of the original text as faithfully and dynamically as possible.
He is bound, therefore, to the message which he himself has received,
and is not free to alter the essential content in any way. Thus the
translator is roughly analogous to the potter, who can take the same
lump of clay and fashion it into many different types of a certain
artifact—a set of water pots, for example—all, despite their varied
shapes, having the same basic function, namely to draw/carry/store
water. Where Bible translation is concerned, then, the content and
intent of the source and the receptor texts are to match as closely as
possible, and in order to achieve this goal, the form will generally
(not always) have to be changed. The translator will have plenty of
opportunity to exercise his artistic ingenuity and creativity as he
carries out the task of reproducing the message of God's Word in a
different set of linguistic forms.
But as we have stressed throughout this book, translation is not
simply a matter of manipulating the forms of language in order to
produce an intelligible text in the R L . Different languages are not
alternative codes for the same reality. Rather, they reflect a variety
of perspectives on life as viewed by the speakers of each one under
the influence of their respective cultures. Language is just part of a
people's total symbolic system—just one among many distinct codes
for signifying meaning. Together with the other forms of symbolizing
the universe and its constituents (e.g., in music, painting, sculpture,
carving, etc.), a language represents to its speakers the world as they
conceive of it and a particular way of life as they live it. F u r t h e r -
more, any message, whether verbal or nonverbal, has meaning only
with reference to and in terms of this cultural setting—this complex,
but closely integrated system of belief and behavior. The problem, as
many of the previous examples have shown, is that no two cultures,
just as no two individuals, have the same perceptions or the same
experiences, sensory or psychological. Thus the difficulty of deter-
mining meaning equivalence across languages, let alone reproducing it,
is increased tremendously. In fact, many consider the task to be
impossible—not so much because the linguistic forms are so divergent,
but because the respective cultures which determine the significance of
those forms vary so greatly in their world view, and frequently in
their total life styles as well.
Nevertheless it is a fundamental presupposition of "dynamic
equivalence" translation that adequate (with reference to the S-text
meaning conveyed) and acceptable (with reference to R-response)
intercultural communication is not only possible, it is an obligatory
part of our Christian witness. When Jesus Christ commanded his
disciples to bring the gospel to all peoples (different languages and
cultures implied, Mt 28:19-20), he was not setting them an unattainable
goal—difficult, yes, but not impossible. That was amply demonstrated
on Pentecost, when he sent the Holy Spirit as promised, not only to
teach them the " t r u t h " but also to give them the power and ability to
preach it to others (Jn 16:5-15). Along with the many different
tongues in which the Apostles spoke on that wonderful day t A c 2:4)
was instilled, we believe, also an understanding of the diverse cultures
that they reflected. But besides spiritual enablement, there are other
reasons for approaching the challenge of Bible translation positively,
with every confidence that the job can be done despite the barriers
imposed by differences in language and culture. There are three main
reasons, based upon the commonality of mankind, for such optimism
(after Nida, 1960, p. 90):

(1) the processes of human reasoning are essentially the same,

irrespective of cultural diversity (which results in different
underlying presuppositions);

(2) all peoples have a common range of human needs and experience
(physical, social, aesthetic, spiritual, etc.); and
(3) all peoples possess the capacity for at least some adjustment to
the symbolic " g r i d s " of others, notably in their ability to
recognize similarities and differences in behavior and even in
ways of interpreting reality.

This basic human universality, coupled with the renewing power of the
divine Spirit, makes it possible for the Good News of God's salvation
to penetrate resistant hearts the world over.
But the fact remains that the Bible translator is not an unbiased
source in his function as the transmitter of God's Word in another
language. His "neutrality" is always undone through pressure from one
or more of the following four forces:

(1) historical situation—the period of time in which he is living; local

and world events of the past as well as those which surround
him in the present obviously affect his mind-set and behavior.

(2) cultural heritage—encompasses both the world view and the way of
life of the society in which he is living (cp. Chapter 1), thus
shaping his " w i n d o w " on the universe, according to which he
organizes all his cognition and actions.

(3) ecological environment—the world of nature, both animate and

inanimate, which provides the setting for and hence shapes his
life in so many ways, perceptibly and imperceptibly.

(4) personal background—his individual experiences in all aspects of

human endeavor: social, educational, political, religious, etc.,
which modify to a greater or lesser degree the influence from
the first three factors to ultimately determine his personal
beliefs, values, goals, interests, attitudes, and so forth.

Every act of interpreting the Scriptures, then, whether for translation

purposes or for something else, involves a definite cultural perspective
and all that this entails (as outlined above). Moreover, the interpreter
himself is often not even aware of this culturally-specific grid which
he automatically superimposes upon any text that he happens to be
working with. Is it then possible at all for him to avoid distorting the
source culture in favor of the receptor culture when translating?
 Not really—not if a truly meaningful translation is being
produced, for as we have tried to show, all meaning, whether verbal
or nonverbal (e.g., as conveyed by facial expressions, gestures, body
position, customs, etc.) is ultimately culturally coded, that is to say,
motivated by, manifested in, and interpreted according to a specific
cultural framework. Just as the proverbial leopard cannot change his
spots (Jr 13:23), so a text cannot be divested of influence from the
culture that underlies the language in which it is realized. Thus there
will always be instances—on every page of Scripture, in fact—where
the biblical culture(s) has to be compromised to a greater or lesser
degree in order to communicate at all in the R L . In observance of one
aspect of the fundamental principle of "fidelity," the translator must
try his best to avoid an outright contradiction or deculturization of
the original in historical passages (e.g., not to render " s h e e p " [SL] by
"cattle" [RL], " b a p t i s m " by " m a l e / female initiation rites," " d e m o n "
by " w i t c h , " and so on). But since there are no complete synonyms
between languages—or even within the same language—a certain
amount of transculturization is inevitable when contextualizing the
message within its new linguistic and social environment. This occurs
even in the most literal of translations (such as the K J V or NASB),
and as a number of the examples cited earlier have demonstrated, it is
necessary in order to prevent people from misunderstanding what God's
Word has to say—either in its original setting or to receptors today.
However, the problem which affects many translators is not
usually a result of their being overly contextualized in the direction of
the receptor culture; rather, it is more frequently a matter of being
wîrfercontextualized in this regard. As we have seen, there are two
major reasons for this deficiency:

(1) a literal method of translation, which places more emphasis

upon the SL form of the message than upon its contem-
porary meaning in the RL; and

(2) a lack of cultural awareness generally, with regard to both the

biblical context as well as that of the translator himself and his
constituency.

The result is a text which simply does not communicate to receptors

as it should, either formally (i.e., the language is unnatural) or
functionally (i.e., the communicative intentions of the original source
are not realized). And in both cases, for the two faults frequently go
together, we are dealing with a failure in message transmission that
need not have occurred.
It is one thing to call attention to a particular problem in
communication; it is quite another to propose a workable solution. For
some translation situations there is little hope for improvement. For
example, a formal correspondence version (or various degrees of the
same) may be the stated goal of the project—perhaps in the misguided
attempt to preserve accuracy in content by the apparently "objective"
means of measuring the closeness in linguistic form between the SL
and the R L texts. Then too, the translators themselves may not be
equal to the task; the "spirit" may be willing enough, but the "flesh"
(in terms of basic competence) is too weak. Or they may simply be
ignorant of modern translation procedures and lack someone to teach
and work with them. But in many other cases something can be done,
provided there is a willingness, a certain ability to start out with, and
a bit of guidance as to how to proceed.
We will conclude this chapter (and the book as a whole) with a
few practical suggestions as to how translators might go about
preparing themselves to deal specifically with the cultural factor of
communication. As the chapter title indicates, this is really a " c o n d i -
tioning" process whereby the translator becomes accustomed to the
various types of inequivalence that may occur, and at the same time
sensitizes himself to the main cultural correspondences and contrasts
as they appear in a comparison of the source and the receptor
settings. Recognition, then, is the first vital step towards a solution,
since many of these difficulties lie beneath the surface of the normal
form-meaning problems of message transfer (as dealt with in most
manuals on translation).

a) ANALYSIS:
The place to begin is with one's own culture, despite the fact
that a number of significant focal points may not be recognized as
such until a comparative study is undertaken; see " b ) Comparison"
below. A translator must first learn to appreciate something of the
richness and diversity of his own belief system and way of life before
he will be encouraged to apply this knowledge continually and
consistently to his task. Conversely, if a man, no matter how qualified
otherwise, demonstrates a negative or even an indifferent attitude
toward his own culture, then it is highly unlikely that he will be able
to contribute effectively to a team which takes such matters into
serious consideration in their work. Such a cultural (re-)education is
also necessary in order to reduce the "interference" that naturally
results when one examines and interprets the biblical texts from his
particular inborn perspective.
A person might well start off by reading through already existing
anthropological studies that have been made of his own people a n d / o r
a culturally related group. From such works he can determine some of
the topics or categories of thought that are relevant when investi-
gating a culture systematically: its physical/material aspects, social/
kinship organization and interrelationships, hierarchy of values, system
of religious beliefs, and so on. It does not matter if such studies were
carried out many years ago, for part of the analysis will be to match
critically the past with the present in order to determine the nature
and direction of social change in the community. Already at this stage
the translator must learn to cultivate a rigorously comparative
approach as he notes points of correspondence and contrast with
regard to various parameters, such as—time: elders vs. the youth;
place: rural vs. urban; outlook: certain social groups may be more
conservative/progressive than others; and so forth. For this reason,
too, he will not reject out of hand the descriptive work of foreigners,
missionaries in particular. For one thing such research, though
sometimes suffering from an ethnocentric bias, often does contain
many valuable anthropological and sociological comments, especially
with regard to a past age. And even where their presuppositions,
observations, a n d / o r conclusions are completely wrong, it is neverthe-
less a valuable exercise to train oneself to specify precisely where,
how, and why, thus opening up new areas of investigation.
It will not always be easy to find these works (many will be out
of print) or to gain access to them. A good place to begin is at the
African Studies (or some similar) department at a local university or
theological seminary. From there one can move out to inquire at the
national Ministry of Culture (or an analogous government bureau),
long-established mission stations, the national archives, back issues of
the local newspapers, or various publications in the R L (frequently
consisting of small booklets on a wide range of culturally relevant
topics). One source will lead to another, and before long the serious
investigator will have accumulated quite a collection of valuable, if
varied in quality, ethnographic material. Once the owners or overseers
of such documents understand the translator's aims and objectives,
they will usually be more than happy to give permission to make use
of them, and they may even have suggestions as to where additional
information can be found. In this connection one would also profit
from consulting more general works on African culture, particularly
those which focus upon its socioreligious characteristics, such as the
books by Idowu, Mbiti, Parrinder, Smith, Shorter, and others.
But the translator should not content himself with merely reading
through and analyzing what others have written. He must be prepared
to carry out his own anthropological research into the way of life and
thinking of his people. He will not have the time, of course, to
investigate everything, but he might focus his attention on specific
areas where the literature gives evidence of a difference of opinion
with respect to a particular subject, or where he himself disagrees
with published findings and would like to test his own hypothesis on
the matter. Topics of special relevance to Bible translation and the
communication of Christianity in general would be those which deal
with a people's system of values or their religious beliefs. One fruitful
area of cultural research is the oral literature of a people: their
myths, legends, proverbs, riddles, oral narratives, praise poetry, and so
forth. Frequently one will find that some work in this field has
already been done, but that should not stop the translator from
making his own collection, of folktales for example, and analyzing
these with regard to their relevance for Bible translation—in matters
pertaining to culture (e.g., the points of social tension in the c o m -
munity) as well as those concerning the language itself (i.e., as a
source of specific items of vocabulary, idiomatic and figurative usages,
etc.)
At a more advanced stage of his personal research, the translator
might proceed to make analytical notes on certain aspects of his
people's religious practice, e.g., sacrificial rites, initiation ceremonies,
marriage arrangements, funeral customs, etc., again concentrating his
attention on those features which may be of special importance when
translating the Scriptures. Several team members may divide the
various subjects of significance, and each can write up a little report
to circulate among the others for their comments. Such anthropological
studies are not in the first instance intended as technical or profes-
sional contributions to the field (though they may one day be devel-
oped as such). Rather, their purpose is to broaden the translator's
background (or better yet, that of the team as a whole) and to extend
his perspective with respect to the wide range of conceptual resources
to be found in his own culture, so that this information might later be
mined in the process of composing a verbal structure suitable for the
expression of God's Word in his language.

b) COMPARISON:
Once the translator has completed a thorough analysis of his own
culture, either directly or indirectly through the contributions of
others, he is ready to conduct a similar study of the SL culture,
which, it should be remembered, is represented by various forms in the
Bible. In this case no direct investigation is possible, and so he will
be dependent upon the published research of experts in the field. A
large number of works might be recommended, but the following would
be good for a start (one can always branch off from these, following
bibliographic references, as time and resources permit): Ancient Israel:
Its Life and Institutions (R. de Vaux), Sketches of Jewish Social Life
(A. Edersheim), The Life of the People in Biblical Times (M. Radin),
Anthropology of the Old Testament (H. Wolff), Jerusalem in the Times
of Jesus (J. Jeremias), The Old Testament Against Its Environment (E.
Wright), The New Testament World (B. Malina), The Social Context of
the New Testament (D. Tidball), The Social Setting of Pauline Chris-
tianity (G. Theissen). From books such as these the translator would
begin to develop some ideas as to the principle themes of O T / N T life
and thought as they relate to a theological perspective, e.g., practices
(inheritance, fasting, blessing/cursing, polygamy, oath-taking, anoin-
ting, adoption, covenant-making, e t c ) as well as beliefs (the "sacred,"
Sheol/hell/heaven, the Kingdom of God, the Messiah, sinful nature,
salvation, and so on). The analyst would make an effort to examine
these themes in the light of concrete Scriptural contexts, noting any
points of scholarly controversy concerning the interpretation of their
meaning and spiritual significance. He will soon discover that even the
so-called experts are not in agreement on many matters, and so he
will have to learn to be independent and to chart his own course
through the maze of conflicting opinions. It will not be easy at first,
but with continued practice and as his experience broadens, the
translator will feel increasingly confident about coming to his own
conclusions, based upon the evidence of the original first of all, and
secondly upon the interpretation of reliable commentators in thé field
of biblical studies (the UBS Translator's Handbook series is especially
valuable in this regard).
The goal of his investigation at this stage is to develop a basic
procedure for comparing objects and events of cultural interest and
importance in the original with corresponding elements in the receptor
setting. The points of similarity, once firmly established, are merely
noted in passing (but one cannot j u m p to conclusions here, cp.
Chapter 7). It is the differences, no matter how seemingly insignifi-
cant, which are his major concern, for these will almost certainly
affect one's understanding of the message in the receptor context.
Areas of interrelationship should always be recorded, for example, in
the OT regulations about holiness and purification as they link up with
the levitical sacrificial rites. Here is where works written from a
Christian communications perspective are particularly helpful in
showing the way, books such as: Christianity and Culture (C. Kraft),
Worldview and the Communication of the Gospel (M. Kraft), Gospel
and Culture (J. Stott and R. Coote, eds.), Meaning Across Cultures
(E.A. Nida and Wm. Reyburn), Message and Mission (E.A. Nida),
Culture and Human Values (J. Loewen), The Church and Cultures (L.
Luzbetak), Christianity Confronts Culture (M. Mayers).
As the translator encounters various differences in life style and,
more important, in world view, he will pay special attention to those
issues where an outright contradiction is involved (e.g., in many Bantu
contexts a " s h a d o w " is associated with life, not " d e a t h " [Ps 23:4; Lk
1:79), i.e., as long as a person has a "shadow/shade," he is still
alive!)—or to issues where the receptor culture is not acquainted with,
nor does it lexically distinguish, a particular concept (object, event,
state); e.g., among the Tonga: virginity, the deity as "spirit," eunuchs,
homosexuality, a future " h o p e , " "brotherhood" based upon belief
rather than blood, and so forth. A twofold "familiarization-defamil-
iarization" process is the key to success in this venture: the trans-
lator has to learn about the many new concepts, customs, attitudes,
and connotative associations that comprise the biblical culture; at the
same time he should try to overcome his accustomed, unquestioning
way of viewing reality within the framework of his own culture. He
must therefore seek to be as objective and analytical as possible about
everything in the text. A real reorganization of his thinking is
required—not that he must abandon or deny his culture. But he has to
be able to think diagnostically and critically about it. And as the
translator becomes more experienced with this technique of contrastive
comparison, he will not only learn to recognize more quickly points of
potential conceptual conflict in the SL text, but he will also be in a
much better position to propose a culturally appropriate solution in the
RL.

c) APPLICATION:
During this stage in the conditioning process, the translator puts
into practice what he has learned in steps one and two. Here is where
the SL text confronts the R L setting in the production of a transla-
tion that will convey meaningfully, yet also reliably, the biblical
message with an impact and appeal which matches that of the original.
In order to make this application successfully, the translator will have
to be already familiar with the basic techniques of linguistic transfer,
whether this concerns individual words (considered contextually, of
course, not in isolation), grammatical constructions (e.g., genitives,
passives, word order, etc.), rhetorical features (e.g., figurative lan-
guage, repetition, direct speech, etc.), or the formal characteristics of
the larger discourse structures which comprise the text (i.e., its
overall organization in terms of a hierarchy of interrelated segments,
some bearing special prominence with respect to the others). Excellent
instruction in these and many other topics pertaining to translation
procedure is readily available in books such as The Theory and
Practice of Translation (E.A. Nida and C. Taber), Language Structure
and Translation (E.A. Nida), Translating the Word of God (J. Beekman
and J. Callow), Discourse Considerations in Translating the Word of
God (K. Callow), Meaning-based Translation: A Guide to Cross Lan-
guage Equivalence (M. Larson), and also in periodicals such as The
Bible Translator and Notes on Translation.
It would be a mistake to imply that a linguistic analysis can be
divorced somehow from a cultural analysis, for it is a fundamental
semantic principle (yet one which has not always been fully a p p r e -
ciated or applied) that meaning and culture go hand in hand. One
cannot consider one without the other, as the many examples in the
preceding chapters have demonstrated. A major reason, then, for
making special mention of the cultural factor, both here and through-
out this book, is simply to make sure that it does not get overlooked
or completely ignored in the translation process, as has happened so
often in the past. Another reason is to stress the fact that culture is
analyzable, and that it is possible to apply the results of this analysis
in a systematic fashion when translating the Scriptures. An important
aspect of such systematization is to organize one's options. This is
what we attempted to do with respect to issues such as unfamiliar
concepts (Chapter 4), figures of speech (Chapter 5), and direct
discourse (Chapter 6). The examples and discussion of these chapters
focused upon textual solutions, that is, how to deal with problems of a
conceptual/cultural nature within the translation itself.
But for one reason or another, it is not always possible or
acceptable for the translator to say exactly what he wants to in the
text (i.e., to get the intended meaning across with the same impact) or
to say as much as he wants (i.e., in order to convey the idea clearly
in the R L ) . In such situations, then, he must devise other means of
supplying the sociocultural information necessary to contextualize the
biblical message sufficiently so that its essential elements may be
adequately understood and responded to. As was mentioned, some of
the more useful of these extratextual aids are items like section
headings, footnotes, a glossary, and illustrations (for additional
discussion, see Nida and Reyburn, 1981, Chapter 7).
However, it is not enough merely to show the translator a Bible
which contains such features and to tell him to use that as a model.
Rather, he must be thoroughly instructed in their proper format,
content, purpose, and use (i.e., which device to employ where). These
auxiliary techniques of translation need to be practiced and perfected
like any of the others. If this is not done, there is a good chance
that they will be used improperly, inappropriately, or not at all. And
as we have seen in the case of a book like Ruth, for example (Chapter
7), there is too much underlying meaning at stake to leave its
communication to chance, naively hoping or assuming that the receptor
is going to understand the text correctly.

d) E V A L U A T I O N :
It is a vital part of the cultural conditioning process to carefully
test the results of one's solutions to the problems encountered in the
text. The translator cannot be satisfied with a policy of continual
innovation on an ad hoc basis. Simply to hope that he has c o m m u n i -
cated is not enough; he has to know for sure, one way or the other.
He must, in addition, constantly strive to perfect his translation
procedures, and in order to do this, he needs at least to make an
attempt to organize his results—his degree of success, or failure—by
thoroughly testing receptor reactions to the R L text: which devices
work, which do not, and why? Testing, through various means and for
different purposes, is therefore an essential aspect of the translation
task. The point we wish to make here is that such testing can also
serve to help the translator to grow in his cultural awareness. He
needs to sensitize himself also to the response of his readers/hearers
so that he can more effectively act as their official representative in
bringing them the Word of God in their language.
Receptor response can never be predicted, assumed, or taken for
granted. It is surprising sometimes to find out just where misunder-
standing arises in a text. Even the most straightforward of passages,
linguistically that is, can mask a conceptual problem of considerable
complexity. A n d more often than not, the underlying cause, once
discovered, will turn out to be some matter which pertains to cul-
t u r e — v e r y likely a difference in viewing and interpreting the everyday
world of persons (including spirits!), roles, objects, events, and
experiences.
How does one avoid mismatched meanings? For wrong meanings
are sometimes conveyed, though unintended. It is impossible, really, to
prevent them all. But careful attention given to the sociocultural
context will help keep such errors to a manageable minimum. And the
only way to detect those that do slip through is by means of a serious
testing of the translation before it is finalized. Time and again the
translator will be forced to repeat the cycle—steps (a) to (d)—before
an acceptable rendering, or way of handling the problem, is d i s -
covered. This, too, is part of his "testing"—a trial by experience that
will progressively make him a better translator, one who becomes
increasingly competent to put together the jigsaw puzzle of biblical
content in a new cultural setting, where many of the meaningful
pieces have been changed and rearranged.
There are several advantages to having a compatible and capable
"expatriate" (any person who is not an indigenous member of the
receptor culture) participate in a nationally-run translation program.
These are over and above any technical expertise that he might give
in areas such as exegesis, linguistics, biblical languages, computer
operation, etc. Below are summarized three of the more important of
these points of potential input to the team:

a) The most helpful contribution, perhaps, arises from the basic fact
that he is different. He is thus able to function as a catalyst to add
another perspective to the understanding of a text, especially when a
problem is encountered, or to stimulate a new approach to overcome
some "sticking point" in procedure. Just as an African, on account of
his particular background and experience, will often interpret a text
somewhat differently from his American (for example) colleague, so
the reverse is also true and ought not to be overlooked as a possible
aid in the translation process. The expatriate may be able to shed
some light upon a certain aspect of the situation which the national
did not recognize or consider sufficiently. As a result, a more
complete and balanced analysis of the difficulty can be undertaken,
and hence also a more satisfactory solution can be determined (which
may involve the footnoting of an equally valid alternative interpreta-
tion).
A Chewa proverb sums up this potential expatriate role in a
typically colorful way: mlendo ndi amené ayenda ndi kalumo kakuthwa
'a stranger is the one who travels about with a sharp razor.' That is
to say, a traveler must insure that his essential gear is in excellent
condition so that he will be prepared to meet any eventuality along
the way. Similarly, an outsider often comes to a domestic or legal
dispute with a fresh outlook so that he is able to lend a new insight
which may well bring about a resolution of the matter. However, once
the expatriate has made his contribution to the discussion, whether in
the form of some advice, a piece of technical information, or a
pertinent comment or two, he ought to hold his peace in order to
allow the national members of the team to reach a final decision. The
expatriate undermines his invaluable " n e u t r a l " position by continually
involving himself in the argumentation, or worse, by attempting to
persistently defend his point of view or to force his opinion upon the
group.

b) In serving as a resource person, it is important that the expa-

triate not content himself with merely providing the "answers" in
textbook (or computer-like) fashion. Rather, with every piece of advice
or information that he has to offer in response to a particular
problem, he can also function as a "how-to" guide to shed some light
upon the problem-solving process itself. This is a familiar procedure to
most successful consultants, but it is one which frequently has to be
taught in repeated step-by-step fashion to a translation team. Basi-
cally, these five steps are involved: (1) recognition: one cannot deal
with a problem unless one knows that it is there in the first place;
(2) specification: one must be clear about what the problem is all
about and be able to state it in explicit terms; (3) suggest alterna-
tives: there is usually more than one way of dealing satisfactorily with
a problem, each with its own implications and probability of working
out successfully in the specific context concerned; (4) arrive at a
decision: this step is not as easy as it might seem, not if the stipula-
tion is made that the decision must be defensible, not only before the
wider review committee, but also in the opinion of the receptor
constituency at large; (5) testing: one must accurately determine and
evaluate the various reactions to the decision that has been m a d e — d o
these generally support the team's choice or suggest that they go back
and try again by repeating the procedure?
As he goes through the problem-solving process again and again,
in passage after passage, the expatriate will also have the opportunity
of explaining some of the underlying theory or methodology inyolved—
some basic linguistics perhaps (e.g., on discourse organization), or
literary analysis (e.g., on the use of irony), some translation theory
(e.g., categorizing words in terms of their semantic class: object -
event - abstract - relational), or even some general facts about the
Hebrew and Greek languages (e.g., the main types of predication and
their significance). Through this means the expatriate may be able to
enlighten translators not only with regard to what is wrong (or right),
but also why and on what basis the decision was made, and how a
workable solution may be arrived at. He thereby aims to teach them
how to be more independent in their approach to translation and thus
also free to be bolder and more innovative in their efforts to allow
God to speak their language—without sounding like a foreigner!

c) In a final distinct but related area where the expatriate can

contribute to a team of national colleagues, he functions as a mirror
to reflect their culture back at them. This is part of the process of
"defamiliarization" referred to earlier. Most facts pertaining to the
receptor life-view and life style are taken for granted by translators
because that is "tradition," and that is the way things have always
been thought about and done. But once the informed (i.e., by an
extensive period of personal study) expatriate begins to probe these
different topics together with them by asking specific, clearly-phrased
questions, the national, in seeking to formulate a satisfactory reply for
his alien brother, will himself be compelled to think more perspica-
ciously about these same issues. This type of exercise will teach him
to be more discriminating with regard to his own culture, and it will,
in turn, enable him to more readily recognize some of the crucial
differences between his own and another culture.
Another useful way in which the expatriate can act as a mirror
to teach the method of contrastive comparison to nationals is by
making periodic reference to his own culture, which they will be more
or less familiar with. He should be openly critical, yet humorously so,
about some of the "strange" things that his people think, say, and do.
By pointing out some of the unique and unusual (as far as they are
concerned) features of his own life style, including the various foibles
and failings connected with his way of doing things, he can encourage
them to do the same with respect to their own customs and traditions.
This same procedure can then be applied to the biblical context and
the cultural characteristics present there. By thus setting up a t h r e e -
way comparison, e.g., Hebrew - African - European, the process of
noting and recording similarities and differences can be made much
more interesting, especially in cases where the national discovers that
his cultural framework is much closer in form and function to the
biblical source than that of the expatriate. Obviously, there will be a
progression in difficulty as the discussion gradually moves from the
more superficial aspects of a people's behavior, to the typical attitudes
and assumptions associated with their overt activities, and finally
leading to an exploration of some of the fundamental presuppositions
which motivate whole complexes of thought and action.
The aim of this entire mode of operation is, as was mentioned
above, to promote a problem-solving approach toward translation. It is
a procedure based upon a simple question-answer technique, for that is
the key to discovery and an effective method of critical inquiry.
Under the guidance and stimulation of the team leader (if an expatri-
ate, for whatever reason, starts out in this capacity, he should be
replaced as soon as is practical by the most qualified national), the
translators learn to direct increasingly more precise questions toward
the original text, queries aimed at ferreting out as much as possible of
the intended meaning from a communications point of view. They then
turn around and apply similar questions to their own cultural context
in the search for the closest functional equivalent to express the SL
message naturally in their language. Initially this will be a very
explicit heuristic procedure, carried out under the direction of the
team leader. But gradually, after repeated exposure and further
experience, the translators will learn to ask these same questions on
their own, almost subconsciously, as they carry out their work. From
then on, fueled by the joy of discovery and the satisfaction derived
from finding that "closest" equivalent time and again, the process will
move forward on its own as the Word of God establishes its home in a
new cultural environment.
There is one final issue that needs to be discussed, one that
concerns not so much the communicators themselves, but those with
whom they are seeking to communicate, namely, the intended receptors
of the translated Word of God. They, too, need to be culturally
"conditioned" to receive the message correctly. If this is not done,
there is always the possibility that they will misunderstand or
misinterpret a dynamic rendering of certain passages and perhaps even
reject the new version as a result. The matter of thoroughly testing
the text of a translation upon the constituency has already been
mentioned. But the need goes considerably beyond that, for unless the
Christian community in particular as the sponsors of a project (though
the message is not directed solely at them) understands what is going
on in a dynamic equivalence translation, there is a strong likelihood
that they will not appreciate either its aims or its results. Conse-
quently they may well be influenced to ignore the new version in
favor of an older Bible that they are already familiar with and perhaps
have grown quite attached to. This is obviously a matter of public
relations, one which the local Bible Society staff will undoubtedly be
responsible for. But it may be useful here to summarize a few of the
ways in which the translators can contribute to this effort, that is,
how to initiate and sustain such a conditioning program as a means of
preparing the way for a new popular language version. It is not only
the cultural factor that is concerned here, of course, but the entire
purpose of and approach to Bible translation.
a) trial publications
The publication of selected portions of Scripture plays an
essential role in preparing the public for a new translation. A care-
fully composed introduction can be an effective means of explaining
the basic principles of the dynamic-functional equivalence method
which has been employed. Sometimes selections may also be circulated
and popularized in the form of fixed liturgical readings which certain
churches prepare for their membership.

b) radio broadcasts
In certain countries, such as Zambia, the radio can also be
utilized quite freely to promote the new version. This is what was
done with the recently completed Tonga New Testament. After a series
of general presentations which explained and illustrated the new
method of translation (via a discrete comparison with the old Bible),
subsequent programs discussed individual passages of a problematic
nature, eliciting listener response in the form of letters. Another
series is envisioned in which some of the cultural difficulties referred
to in this book (and how to deal with them) will be discussed by a
panel. The purpose will again be both informative/explanatory and also
to encourage feedback by inviting comments from the listening
audience.

c) testing program
The oral and written tests already referred to can also serve to
introduce the receptor constituency to the new translation. It is
important that these tests not merely be administered and left at that.
But they should whenever possible be accompanied by at least a brief
explanation of why the test is being carried out, namely, as a way of
determining whether or not the translation is "speaking their lan-
guage." At this time, perhaps, some of the general apprehensions and
specific complaints about the new version "spoiling" the Word of God
can also be responded to.

d) church meetings
Synod conventions, conferences, training institutes, and so forth
may also provide a wider forum for telling people about the goals and
procedures of a new translation. Often a more popular type of
presentation is effective at such gatherings; for example, a short play
which dramatizes the use of the new Bible, its intelligibility and
naturalness in particular. We might include under this category the
lectures that translators might be invited to give about their work to
various theological schools and seminaries. Such talks offer an
important means for influencing and soliciting the reactions of the
next generation of clergy.

e) musical compositions
Songs based upon the new translation, especially the poetic
portions such as the Psalms, have a great potential for popularizing a
dynamic equivalence version. This practice can be of mutual benefit in
that the translators will carefully observe where the composers adapt
their text in order to fit a rhythmic style of presentation. This
knowledge can, in turn, be applied to rendering such material more
"poetically" in the biblical version so that the form of the translation
more closely matches the original on the generic level of discourse.
New songs spread like a bush fire among the church choirs which have
recently sprung up all over Central Africa, and it will be interesting
to see whether this interaction between God's Word and his people's
response in song will lead to a more culturally relevant form of
expressing at least the compositions of the biblical poets.

Culture, context, and the receptor constituency—all three are

vital elements in the contemporary effort to communicate the ancient
texts of Scripture so that their beauty and forcefulness, in addition to
their content, can under the transforming power of the Spirit continue
to " t u r n the world upside down!" (Ac 17:6).
 References Consulte d

Adeyemo, Tokunboh. 1979. Salvation in African Tradition. Nairobi:

Evangel Publishing House.

Ayisi, Eric. 1972. An Introduction to the Study of African Culture.

London: Heinemann.

Baeta, C G . , ed. 1968. Christianity in Tropical Africa. London:

Oxford University Press.

Barrett, David. 1971. African Initiatives in Religion. Nairobi: East

African Publishing House.

Beekman, John, and John Callow. 1974. Translating the Word of God.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Bullinger, E.W. 1968. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. Grand

Rapids: Baker Book House.

Callow, Kathleen. 1974. Discourse Considerations in Translating the

Word of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Colson, Elizabeth. 1962. The Plateau Tonga of Northern Rhodesia:

Social Religious Studies. New York: Humanities Press.

de Vaux, Roland. 1961. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions.

London: Daron, Longman, and Todd.

Dickson, K.A., and Paul Ellingworth, eds. 1969. Biblical Revelation

and African Beliefs. New York: Orbis.
Dyrness, Wm. 1979. Themes in Old Testament Theology. Exeter:
Paternoster.

Edersheim, Alfred. 1979, reprint. Sketches of Jewish Social Life in

the Days of Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Forde, Daryll, ed. 1954. African Worlds: Studies in the Cosmological

Ideas and Social Values of African Peoples. London: Oxford
University Press.

Fortes, M., and G. Dieterlen, eds. 1965. African Systems of

Thought. London: Oxford U.P.

Grunlan, Stephen, and Marvin Mayers. 1979. Cultural Anthropology:

A Christian Perspective. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Hiebert, Paul. 1976. Cultural Anthropology. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Idowu, Bolaji. 1973. African Traditional Religion: A Definition.

London: SCM Press.

Jeremias, Joachim. 1969. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Phila-

delphia: Fortress.

Kaiser, Walter. 1983. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan.

Keesing, Felix. 1958. Cultural Anthropology: The Science of Cus-

tom. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Klinck, Arthur. 1947. Home Life in Bible Times. St. Louis, MO:
Concordia.

Koehler, Ludwig. 1957. Old Testament Theology. Philadelphia:

Westminster.

Kraft, Charles. 1979. Christianity in Culture. Maryknoll: Orbis.

Kraft, Marguerite. 1978. Worldview and the Communication of the
Gospel. South Pasadena, CA: Wm. Carey Library.

K u h n , Thomas. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Larson, Mildred. 1984. Meaning-based Translation: A Guide to Cross

Language Equivalences. New York: University Press of America.

Lawson, E. Thomas. 1984. Religions of Africa. San Francisco: Harper

& Row.

Loewen, Jacob. 1975. Culture and Human Values. South Pasadena,

CA: Wm. Carey Library.

.1979. The Gospel: Its Content and Communication—An A n -

thropological Perspective. In Stott and Coote, eds., Gospel and
Culture, pp. 154-174. South Pasadena, CA: Wm. Carey Library.

Louw, J.P. 1985. Lexicography and Translation: With Special Re-

ference to Bible Translation. Cape Town: Bible Society of South
Africa.

Luzbetak, Louis. 1970. The Church and Cultures. Pasadena, CA:

Divine Word.

Malina, B.J. 1983. The New Testament World. London: SCM Press.

Mayers, Marvin. 1974. Christianity Con fronts Culture. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan.

Mbiti, John. 1969. African Religions and Philosophy. New York:

Praeger.

. 1970. Concepts of God in Africa. London: SPCK.

. 1971. New Testament Eschatology in an A frican Background.

London: Oxford University Press.
McFall, Ernest. 1970. Approaching the Nuer of Africa Through the
Old Testament. South Pasedena, CA: Wm. Carey Library.

M u g a m b i J . , and N. Kirima. 1976. The African Religious Heritage.

Nairobi: Oxford University Press.

Nida, Eugene A. 1960. Message and Mission. Pasedena, CA: Wm.

Carey Library.

. 1968. Religion Across Cultures. New York: Harper & Row.

. 1975. Componential Analysis of Meaning. The Hague:

Mouton.

. 1975. Language Structure and Translation. Stanford, CA:

Stanford U.P.

, and Wm. Reyburn. 1981. Meaning Across Cultures. Mary-

knoll: Orbis.

, and Charles Taber. 1969. The Theory and Practice of

Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

, et. al. 1983. Style and Discourse. Cape Town: Bible Society
of South Africa.

Ottenberg, Simon and Phoebe, eds. 1960. Cultures and Societies of

Africa. New York: Random House.

Parrinder, Geoffrey. 1962. African Traditional Religion. London:

Sheldon Press.

. 1969. Religion in Africa. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Radin, Ma^. 1929. The Life of the People in Bible Times. Phi-
ladelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America.

Shewmaker, Stan. 1970. Tonga Christianity. South Pasadena, CA:

Wm. Carey Library.
Shorter, Aylward. 1973. African Culture and the Christian Church.
London: Geoffrey Chapman.

. 1975. African Christian Theology. London: Geoffrey C h a p -

man.

Smalley, Wm. 1967 (reprinted, 1974). Readings in Missionary Anthro-

pology. South Pasadena, CA: Wm. Carey Library.

Smith, Edwin. 1950. African Ideas of God. London: Edinburgh.

, and Andrew Dale. 1968. The Ila-Speaking People of

Northern Rhodesia. New York: University Books.

Sperber, Dan. 1975. Rethinking Symbolism. Cambridge, London:

Cambridge University Press.

Stott, John, and Robert Coote, eds. 1979. Gospel and Culture. South
Pasadena, CA: Wm. Carey Library.

Taber, Charles. 1979. Hermeneutics and Culture: An A n t h r o p o -

logical Perspective. In Stott and Coote, eds., Gospel and Culture,
pp. 109-131. South Pasadena, CA: Wm. Carey Library.

Taylor, John V. 1963. The Primal Vision. London: SCM Press.

Tempels, Placide. 1959. Bantu Philosophy. Paris: Presence Africaine.

Tenney, Merrill. 1965. New Testament Times. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans.

Theissen, G. 1982. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity.

Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark.

Tidball, Derek. 1984. The Social Context of the New Testament.

Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Turner, Victor. 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu
Ritual. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Weiss, G. 1972. Insights into Bible Times and Customs. Chicago:

Moody.

Wendland, Ernst R. 1985. Language, Society, and Bible Translation.

Cape Town: Bible Society of South Africa.

Wight, Fred. 1953. Manners and Customs of Bible Lands. Chicago:

Moody.

Wilson, Robert. 1984. Sociological Approaches to the Old Testament.

Philadelphia: Fortress.

Wolff, Hans W. 1974. Anthropology of the Old Testament. Philadel-

phia: Fortress.

Wood, Derek, ed. 1980. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Wheaton,

IL: Tyndale.

Wright, G. Ernest. 1950. The Old Testament Against Its Environment.

London: SCM Press.

Young, Robert, (n.d.) Analytical Concordance to the Bible. 22nd

edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
 Index of Scripture References

Genesis 29:17 2
2 34 30:37f 44
2:22 34 31:9 44
2:24 96 31:35 79
3:9 34 32:12 128
3:24 63 34:12 182
4:1 101 34:30 151
4:6,9 34 37:25 69
6:1 18 38 184
6:3 89 38:15 109
6:7 144 38:16 102
6:13 34 42:28 135
8:21 125 42:38 162
9:1-7 34 43:3 93
9:4-6 11 43:5 161
15:9 61 47:15 162
16:12 130 49:4 . 102
17 31 50:4-5 . 138
17:11 61 50:6 137
18:2-7 23 Exodus
18:15 137 3:8 104
18:27 129 7:1 115
19:8 23 9:3 125
19:21 157 14:7 73
20:8 93 15 12
21:6 136 15:16 111
23 138 16:31 66
23:8-9 138 19—24 12
23:15 138 19:4-6 12
24:2 31 20:2,6 12
24:58 135 20:5 127, 144
26:30 23 20:7 90, 101
 22:26 24 1:4 167
24:8-12 23 1:6 168
26:12 126 1:6,22 173
27:1 . . 76 1:8 168
28:17 60 1:9 169, 186
28:17-21 63 1:11 169
28:33 61 1:12 169
32:24 137 1:13 169
33:8 70 1:15 170, 186
34:19-20 11 1:17 170, 186
Leviticus 1:18 170
4:10 77 1:19 171
13 22 1:19,22 167
14:1-9 53 1:20 171, 187
18—20 12 1:22 59, 171
19:2 12 2:1 172
19:9-10 172 2:2 172, 187
19:36 77 2:3 172
Numbers 2:4 172, 186
13:12 69 2:5 173
20:5 66 2:6 173
Deuteronomy 2:7 173
5:9 144 2:8 174
16:1 60 2:9 1*74
32:2 .115 2:10 174
33:29 118 2:12 175
Joshua 2:13 175
1:2 69 2:14 175
1:4 146 2:17 175
24:27 128 2:18 176
Judges 2:20 176
5 xii 3:1 177
7:12 Ill 3:2 177
7:13 . . : 24 3:3 177
9:51 80 3:4 177
16:21 25 3:7 178
Ruth 3:8 178
1.1 166 3:9 178
1:2 167 3:10 179
 3:12 179 13:2 131
3:13 180 13:11 139
3:14 180 13:12 139
3:15 180, 187 13:15 139
3:17 181 13:16 139
3:18 172 13:19 108
4:1 181 14:14 106
4:3 . . 181 14:25-26 22
4:5 182 16:7 139
4:6 182 16:17 27
4:7 183 17:10 130
4:9 183 17:13 97
4:10 183 18:24 135
4:11 184 18:26 134
4:12 184 18:32 102
4:13 184 19:19 139
4:14 185 24:25 11
4:15 185 1 Kings
4:16 185 1:40 98
4:18 . . . . . . . . . 185 1:50 29
1 Samuel 3:2 65
1:14 60 8 30
12:19 28 9:15 30
14:27 129 10:18 78
15:2 101 11:33 170
15:11 129 12:5 29
24:3 22 19:4 104
24:8 108 20:11 107
25:6f 139 21:10 146
25:17 131 22:8 162
25:21 139 2 Kings
25:23f 139 2:23 22
2 Samuel 3:7 104
2:26 130 3:11 103
6:16 149 4:26 155
6:20 149 5:6 156
9:6 163 5:19 156
10:19 105 7:2 103
11:11 70 7:6 158
 9:7 92 20:10 144
10:10 105 21:5 129
10:15 .104 21:11 117
12:18 62 21:19 144
14:8 105 21:19b-21 144
15:29 69 21:24 129
16:3 101 24:5 130
17:9 97 28:28 12
17:9,29 65 29:2 131
18:4 30 31:7 127
22:15 135 31:16 130
1 Chronicles 32:8 46
11:13 68 32:10 106
2 Chronicles 33:20 131
11:2 142 38-42 33
26:23 13 40:15-24 78
Nehemiah Psalms
2:4 32 7:2 143
4:14 32 11:4 125
5:14 31 14:1 12
Job 17:12 112
4:7 143 18:2 128
4:8 143 18:31 .120
4:10-11 143 22:7 108
5:4 144 22:12 70
7:9-10 45 23:1-3 37
8:4 33 23:4 14, 197
10:10a 14 23:5 2 3 , 119
10:10b 14 25:2 100
10:21 101 27:1 25
11:9-10. 125 29:9 . . . 143
11:14 33 31:5 46
12:7 127 32:4 127
13:12 116 34:16 126
18:5 25 40:7 74
18:6 129 44:11 112
19:9 120 45:6 91
19:20 129 45:8 69
20:8 116 49:14 112
 51:17 99 56:7 88
66 12 56:10 123
74:13 73 60 13
75:10 90 Jeremiah
78:38-41 126 4:19 157
78:52 112 7:4 145
84:11 99 7:11 88
91:4 129 13:23 192
105:4 128 23:28 116
148 12 23:29 116
Proverbs 12 23:30 116
30:17 22 25:10 25
Ecclesiastes 42:10 126, 127
12:5 69, 103 Lamentations
Song of Songs 5:13 25
1:2 1 Ezekiel
4:1 2 6:11 109
4:2 2 8:18 125
4:9 3 16:8 178
4:12 3 22:18 63
4:14 63 27:15 78
4:15 4 28:13 63
5:11 22 29:3,5 143
6:6 113 45:10 77
Isaiah Daniel
1:10 119 4:24 100
1:11-15 13 Hosea
1:18 72, 130 1:10-11 13
1:21 124 4 13
1:22 124 8 13
2:1-4 13 13:14 126
5:18-19 13 14:5 114
8:14 119 14:9 12
9:18 112 Amos
11-12 13 5:21-23 13
13:14 112 8:11-14 13
27:1 73 9:11-15 13
53:6 112 Micah
53:7 112 6:16 110
Nahum 11:18 95
2:12 143 12:12 113
Zephaniah 12:22 81
3:3 143 12:25 88
Malachi 12:45 64
3:3 126 13:4f 72
Matthew 13:9f 73
1:20 62 13:10,36 124
2:1 69 13:19f 72
3:4 74 13:24f 78
3:5 85 13:45 78
3:7 128 14:3 93
3:10 129 15:6-9 xii
3:12 72, 74 15:11 91
3:14 149 15:32 129
4:5 81 16:6 130
5:13 120 16:11-12 131
5:15 74 17:8 91
5:29 96 17:20 66, 117
5:40 96 17:22 90
6:3 103 18:6 25
6:9 90 18:17 115
6:28 59 19:23-24 164
6:30 70 19:24 75, 96
7:15 72 20:12 131
8:5,8 68 20:20 150
8:11 23 20:21 150
8:23 72 21:7 88
8:24 72 21:25 85
8:28 80 21:33 80
8:29 104 22:4 19
9:11 94 22:17 94
9:17 78 23:5 65
9:32 81 23:23 63
9:36 113 23:24 75
10:10 113 23:27 72
10:16 114, 117 25:15 134
10:34 91 25:30 . . . 25
11:17 74 25:32 .113
 26:15 69 3:1 59
26:23 23 4:9 81
26:31 122 4:34 151
27:39 110 5:20 161
27:53 80 7:2 64
27:60 80 7:45 72
28:3 80, 114 7:46 23
28:19-20 190 11:24 . 87
Mark 11:25,26 87
1:4-5 69 11:52 123
2:19-22 124 13:32 120
2:25 154 14:8-10 24
3:24-26 87 14:34 120
3:25 86, 87, 88 15:20 129
3:26 87 16:21 23
5:35 102, 156 16:22 23
6:4 88 18:29 88
6.5 97 19:4 72
6:14-15 157 19:40 152
8:4 152 22:48 72
8:16 148 23:43 64
8:17 148 24:13 76
8:18-19 133 John
9:41 23 1:4-9 25
10:37 23 1:12 90
12:14 71 1:19 94
12:32 156 1:29 6 1 , 156
12:40 152 1:35 136
13:32 156 2:6 76
14:3 77 3:3-4 131
14:5 76 3:32 95
14:60 159 4:9 130
14:61 100 4:10-15 131
15:18 159 4:21 161
Luke 4:26 160
1:3 .159 4:37 72
1:37 99 4:49 153
1:69 78 4:53 88
1:79 197 5:14 150
5:18 14 16:5-15 190
6:2 94 16:13-15 187
6:35 73, 83 18:25 72
6:42 151 19:22 155
6:49 147 20:16 165
7:37-39 148 21:3-5 164
7:41 148 21:16 122
8 14 Acts
8:4 150 1:1 158
8:19 151 2:4 190
8:56 89 2:17 27
9 160 2:31 134
9:2 33 5:5 101
9:3 33 7:51 130
9:10 160 8:28 73
9:15 160 8:31 151
9:22 62 9:37 107
9:27 152 11:2 154
9:40 160 11:18 154
10 14 12:13 74
10:9 121, 128 12:14 . 153
10:11 118 12:15 152
10:1 If 73 13:16 . 163
10:24 159 14:14 108
11:3 165 15:21 91
11:14 131 17:6 206
12:13 163 18:6 28
12:19 97 18:9-10 147
12:21 155 20:23 91
12:24 121 20:33 94
12:32 35 22:23 109
13:23 23 26.11 147
14:2 87 26:24-25 161
14:16-17,26 187 27:9 89
15:18 141 27:10 89
15:19 141 Romans
15:20 99 1:13 99
15:26 187 1:16 100
16:4 89 3:3 98
 3:15 94 2 Timothy
5:15 142 2:5 122
6:12 142 Philemon
7:7 145 2 129
7:7,12 145 Hebrews
7:12 145 1:8 91
7:24 153 4:12 Ill
8:3 27 6:19 120
8:33 145 9:19 69
8:34 145 11:28 98
9:13 97 12:1 42
10:21 99 13:2 23
13:4 92, 130 13:4 85
13:13 85 13:10 85, 86
16:16 72 James
1 Corinthians 1:12 120, 122
1:18 93 1:14 128
1:26 28 1:15 128
7:1 101 3:1-12 119
9:19-23 35 3:6 119
10:16 85 4:1 98
10:32 37 1 Peter
11:17-26 23 1:19 .115
12:12 35 2 Peter
Galatians 2:17 119, 129
3:24 121 1 John
4:4 35 2:1 79
5:12 . . . 129 2:2 62, 80
Ephesians Revelation
1:7 92, 129 1:14 114
2:20 65 3:3 112
6:22 94 3:20 74
Colossians 4:4 120
1:18 124 12:13 80
1 Thessalonians
5:8 . 64
1 Timothy
2:4 95
3:8 79