BIBLE TRANSLATION AND CONTEXTUALIZATION

Bible translation is extremely difficult because the translators must convey the same message with no additions, subtractions, or changes.  Contextualization (customs, values, traditions, etc.) instead is very important.  How much contextualizing occurs then during Bible translation?  In this article, which is a reprint from The Lamp, from Malawi (January-February 2001), Ernest Wendland, United Bible Societies' Translation Consultant, addresses this question.

The terms contextualization and inculturation are rather popular in Christian communication circles nowadays.  They both refer to various attempts by the ''sender'' of a particular religious message to adapt that message in one way or another to fit the context, or selling of those ''receivers'' (readers/hearers) for whom it is intended. 

These two terms are similar in meaning, but contextualization tends to emphasise the linguistic or content-related aspects of the process of adaptation where verbal texts are concerned.  Inculturation, on the other hand focuses more on the cultural and society-related dimensions of human behaviour.  Each of these areas of modification is necessary of course during a complete communication event, but in this article I will be dealing especially with textual message transmission, hence contextualization.

CONTEXTUALIZATION IN BIBLE TRANSLATION

Bible translation is an important part of Christian communication, and therefore it too requires some form of proactive message contextualization.  In fact, many would claim that Bible translation is the most difficult type of religious communication.   This is because two (or more) different languages, and thus also cultures, are involved.  Bible translation is also challenging because the translators must try their best to convey the same message that is represented in the original (Hebrew/Greek) text of Scripture.  No additions, subtractions or changes in essential content are allowed, especially in favour of one's own doctrinal position.  

But there will always be a greater or lesser degree of contextualization that has to be effected since use of another language automatically, by default as it were, situates the original message within the total thought world of the people who speak it-their current belief system, life view, customs, values, traditions, social institutions, physical and geographical environment.

How much contextualizing occurs then during Bible translation?  This is not an easy question to answer since it all depends on the circumstances.  Again, the issue of intended audience is of utmost importance because this will determine both the type and the extent of the adaptations that are made. 

A translation that is suitable for one target group may not work out so well for another in terms of grammatical style, wording, or even the spelling system (orthography) that is followed.  There are some obvious differences in these respects, for example, that may be observed in the three major Chichewa versions that are available in Malawi.  The old (1992) Buku Lopatulika translation was intended mainly for Protestant Christians who wished the Chichewa text to be very similar in wording to the King James Version in English, which in turn follows the original Hebrew and Greek texts quite closely.  Another older (1966) missionary translation, Malembo Oyera, on the other hand, was prepared for Catholics in a style of language that was slightly more idiomatic as far as the Chichewa is concerned. 

The recently published (1999) Buku Loyera translation is intended to be acceptable to both Protestants and Catholics and it was deliberately composed so that the Bible's meaning would be expressed in the form of natural, everyday (popular-language) Chichewa, without following the text of any particular English version.

POSSIBILITIES FOR CONTEXTUALIZATION

As has been noted, it is not a matter of if a Bible translation will be contextualized, but how much and where this will be carried out within the text.  There are various strategies and possibilities available as such an exercise is performed, depending upon the nature of the translation that has been decided upon, whether more literal or more idiomatic in character.  Since I participated in the preparation of the Buku Loyera version, I am taking that as my primary point of reference.

Bible translation consists in representing as much as possible the overall communicative significance of the biblical text in the Chichewa language and cultural setting in a functionally-equivalent way. 

Such a meaning-oriented version is one which the intended audience, namely, an average lay-Christian constituency, considers to be contextually most appropriate in terms of both efficiency (ease of understanding) and effectiveness (message impact and appeal) with respect to the primary socio-religious settings of use (i.e., evangelistic outreach, personal devotions, Bible study, contemporary worship services).

It is important to recognise, however, that even a literal version must be contextulized, at least to some degree, since the original text was verbally represented in a different language-culture.  In the Buku Lopatulika, for example, it was decided that the term Kachisi, a traditional ancestral shrine, should be used to designate the ''Temple" in Jerusalem. 

One wonders what sort of an impression was (and perhaps still is) conveyed, however, since there was only one Temple, but many akachisi shrines.  The respective modes of construction of these two types of religious building are also radically different.  To give another example, the name ''Holy Spirit" presents problems in every Bantu language.   The concept ''holiness'' is itself hard to convey (i.e., woyera, someone who is white, clean, light, pure), but ''spirit'' is even more difficult.  Mzimu refers to an ancestral ''spirit'', i.e., some human being who has died and been transformed to live on in a reduced, ''spiritual'' manner of existence. 

In such cases of linguistic or cultural inequivalence, it is sometimes necessary for less, rather than more information to be expressed in the vernacular.  When Jesus Christ is referred to as ''the Son of God" or "the Good Shephered'', for example, most Bantu languages utilise more generic designations, e.g., ''Child (Mwana) of God".  "Good Herdsman (Mbusa)''.  In all these instances the biblical text is greatly dependent upon the continued teaching ministry of the churches in order to contextualize, that is to explain, the foreign or otherwise problematic concepts in question.

HOW MUCH CONTEXTUALIZATION?

It is important to point out, however, that only the forms of the original document (its sounds, grammar, discourse structure, etc.) may be changed in order to render the message in such a way that it may be more readily and accurately comprehended by the intended audience.  

The biblical content must not be altered, or any modification kept to the least possible minimum in cases where there are no other options, for example, when a more general expression must be used, such as kumwamba (to above) for ''heaven'' or mpingo (crowd, gathering, congregation) for "Church" (ekklesia).  How far this formal contextualization process is pushed, or "theologizing'' is allowed, depends on the  purpose for which the translation is being made and for whom.  In addition, on occasion it is necessary to reach a compromise, especially during the selection of certain "key terms", as in the designation for the new Bible, i.e., Buku Lopatulika + Malembo Oyera = Buku Loyera, or in the case of a controversial term like ''baptise'', where the only possible solutions was the use of a loanword --batiza.

The Buku Loyera is intended to be a ''popular language'' version, one that is easily understood and largely appreciated by all speakers of Chichewa.  Therefore, it goes much farther in restructuring certain biblical concepts and in naturalising its manner of expression than either Buku Lopatulika or Malembo Oyera.

The most obvious instance of this concerns the personal convenantal name for God in the Old Testament -- HWHY in Hebrew -- variuosly rendered as ''Yahweh,'' ''Jehova,'' or the "LORD" in English versions.  Here Buku Loyera employs the traditional, pre-Christian name for the High God of the Chewa people -- Chauta.  This is an outstanding (and no doubt debatable) example of local contextualization in action.

This term was not chosen to accommodate the biblical message to indigenous ancestral religion (''ATR''). It simply represents the translation committee's best efforts to communicate who "God" was and is to people today in a functionally equivalent way.  There is need for a manner that is both referentially and connotatively more familiar to the readers.

Many other, perhaps less disputable, instances of such conceptualisation are found in Buku Loyera, e.g., "sheol/hades'' =malo a anthu akufa, "place of dead people."

Ernest Wendland
Consultant (Bible Translation)
Lusaka