Contextual Frames of Reference in Translation: A Coursebook for Bible Translators and Teachers [1° ed.] 1905763026, 9781905763023

Citation preview

Contextual Frames of Reference in Translation A Coursebook for Bible Translators and Teachers

Ernst Wendland

St. Jerome Publishing Manchester, UK & Kinderhook (NY)

Published by St. Jerome Publishing 2 Maple Road West, Brooklands Manchester, M23 9HH, United Kingdom Telephone +44 (0)161 973 9856 Fax +44 (0)161 905 3498 [email protected] http://www.stjerome.co.uk

InTrans Publications P. O. Box 467 Kinderhook, NY 12106, USA Telephone (518) 758-1755 Fax (518) 758-6702

ISBN 978-1-905763-02-3 (pbk) © Ernst Wendland 2008 All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the Publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA), 90 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1P 9HE. In North America, registered users may contact the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC): 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers MA 01923, USA. Printed and bound in Great Britain by Alden Group Ltd, Osney Mead, Oxford, UK Typeset by Delta Typesetters, Cairo, Egypt Email: [email protected] British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Wendland, Ernst R. Contextual frames of reference in translation : a coursebook for Bible translators and teachers / Ernst Wendland. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-905763-02-3 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Translating and interpreting. 2. Bible--Versions. 3. Intercultural communication. 4. Discourse analysis. I. Title. P306.2.W43 2007 228’.05963918--dc22

2007038538

Dedication For Katy Barnwell, Jake Loewen (), and Gene Nida – Bible scholars who impressed upon me the importance of translator training and impressively modeled their methods in the classroom as teachers.

Contextual Frames of Reference in Translation A Coursebook for Bible Translators and Teachers Ernst Wendland Contextual Frames of Reference in Bible Translation shows both the daunting complexity of Bible translation and ways to deal with it, to reduce complexity and make it manageable. By doing so the book is a tremendous help in teaching students of Bible translation to make informed and balanced decisions. (From the Foreword by Lourens de Vries)

Bible translation theory and practice rightly tend to focus on the actual text of Scripture. But many diverse, yet interrelated contextual factors also play an important part in the implementation of a successful translation program. The aim of this coursebook is to explore, in varying degrees of detail, a wide range of these crucial situational variables and potential influences, using a multidisciplinary approach to the task. Thus, in order to expand and enrich the field of vision, a progressive study of this complex process of intercultural, interlinguistic communication is carried out according to a set of overlapping sociocultural, organizational and situational cognitive orientations. These contextual factors provide a broader frame of reference for analyzing, interpreting and communicating the original Scriptures in a completely new, contemporary setting of transmission and reception. The three dimensions are then applied in a practical way to explore the dramatic “throne-room” vision of the Apostle John (Revelation 4-5) with reference to both the original Greek text and also a modern dynamic translation in Chewa, a southeastern Bantu language of Africa. A variety of exercises and assignments to stimulate critical and creative reflection as well as to illustrate the theoretical development of Contextual Frames of Reference is provided every step of the way. A valuable feature of this presentation is the number of other translation consultants, teachers and practitioners who have contributed to the effort through quotations from their scholarly as well as pedagogical works. This gives readers a much broader, more diverse perspective – or frame of reference – with regard to the different text and context-related principles and problems that are discussed in the coursebook. Not only is translation per se discussed, but the teaching and evaluation of translated texts and versions are also considered from several points of view in the final three chapters. An Appendix offers a foundational essay by Professor Lourens de Vries on the subject of primary orality and the influence of this vital factor in the crosscultural communication of the Bible. This book has been prepared with advanced courses in Bible translation and translation studies in mind and as a teaching aid to accompany Bible Translation: Frames of Reference (Wilt 2003). It could also function effectively as a background or reference text for teachers and students of university or seminary courses in biblical exegesis and crosscultural communication.

vi

Ernst Wendland

Ernst Wendland is a Translation Consultant for the United Bible Societies, based in Lusaka, Zambia, where he also teaches at the Lutheran Seminary. He is a Visiting Professor in the Department of Ancient Studies at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa and is also affiliated there with the Centre for Bible Interpretation and Translation in Africa (CEBITA). His research interests include structural, stylistic and rhetorical studies in biblical texts and the Bantu languages.

Contents List of Figures List of Tables Acknowledgments Foreword Preface

x x xi xiii xv

1.

Contextual frames of reference: The mind’s construction of meaning Analogy of an onion The interaction of frames Prominence, perspective, perceptibility

2.

The context of the mind: Cognitive frames of reference Dimensions of world-view: Cultural orientations Cognitive filters Cognitive environment A grid-group perspective

19 19 23 27 31

3.

Why we do things the way we do: Sociocultural frames The constraint of “custom” High-context versus low-context communication Mental representations Semantic domains Discerning the fitting frame Gender bias Signs make meaning in context

36 36 37 40 48 51 57 59

4.

The rights and responsibilities of allegiance: Organizational frames What is an organization? Empowering the organization Competing organizations

68 68 80 85

5.

Situational frames: Communicating in different circumstances A sociolinguistic model: S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G Speech-act analysis Addressing the audience The underlying “text” of a situational context

92 92 95 101 106

6.

Textual frames of reference: The pervasive influence of intertext Intertextuality and genre markers Examples of intertextual influence The intertextual pressure of a prior translation Primary versus secondary (and tertiary) translations

110 110 112 116 120

1 1 6 9

viii



Ernst Wendland

Which “text”? The need for textual criticism Textual support of the canon

124 128

7. Intratextuality: A text’s internal frame of reference Literary hermeneutical clues Genre specification Compositional disjunction Patterned recursion Artistic-rhetorical accentuation Phonic enhancement Formatting the textual form

131 132 135 143 148 156 160 168

8. Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne room (Rev. 4) The general cognitive environment of Revelation 4 The ANE milieu of Revelation: Its sociocultural and organizational frames The situational setting of John: Apostle, pastor, prophet The conceptual context presupposed by the throne room vision The formal representation of Rev. 4: Textual frames Co-text: Demarcating the pericope beginning at 4:1 A literary analysis of the text Categorization: What is the genre of Revelation? Articulation: How was the original text proclaimed? Disjunction: How is the discourse demarcated into segments? Recursion: What syntagmatic and paradigmatic patterns appear? Accentuation: How is the text artistically and rhetorically heightened? Varied intertextual notes and chords resound in Revelation 4 (5)

173 174

9. Sharpening John’s vision for contemporary Chewa text auditors The current communication setting of the text Textual techniques: Contextualizing the translation from within A comparison of versions, old and new (Rev. 4:6b-11) A literary rendition for oratorical equivalence Paratextual and extratextual tools for enriching one’s frame of reference

207 207 212 212 216 222

10. Evaluating the overall quality of communication via translation Applying a multiple framework for qualitative assessment Assessing a specific conceptual context of text reception Problems with “the powers”: A case-study of recontextualization An idiomatic translation of the biblical text The provision of a situation-specific conceptual context The need for a relevant contextualization

226 226 234 240 241 242 244

174 179 180 182 185 186 187 192 194 196 198 202

contents

ix

11. Framing the text of Revelation 5 for its analysis and translation Identifying the cotext and context of Rev. 5 Analyzing the source language text Providing an appropriate and relevant paratext Specifying, composing, and assessing the translation

259 259 261 265 268

12. Creating a contextualized framework for teaching and learning Towards a more setting-sensitive pedagogy Interactive Inductive Indigenized Communal Developmental Comparative Applied The power of dialogue-based, student-centered education A process model for translator training Expanding the teaching-learning context through networking

272 272 273 273 274 274 275 276 276 279 286 291

Appendix: Bible translation and primary orality Introduction Primary orality according to Ong Primary orality in transcribed texts from New Guinea Oral genres and Bible translation Conclusion

297 297 297 300 303 308

References

311

Index

317



Ernst Wendland

List of Figures Figure 1: Onion layers Figure 2: A “nested” Russian doll set Figure 3: Mighty Fortress Retirement Community Figure 4: Cline of referential generality Figure 5: Prioritizing contextual frames during communication Figure 6: Four cultural orientations according to grid/group theory Figure 7: Four general cultural orientations in Christianity Figure 8: Four cultural perspectives on “faith” Figure 9: High versus low context communication Figure 10: Representative high- versus low context cultures Figure 11: SDBH entry for Hebrew ’ab ‘father’ Figure 12: Where are Ruth and Boaz? Figure 13: The performance management cycle Figure 14: Philip and the Ethiopian Figure 15: Layered communication setting of Revelation Figure 16: Variables that affect the ACCEPTABILITY of a translation Figure 17: Lampstand Figure 18: A scroll with seven seals Figure 19: The Lamb of Rev. 5

List of Tables Table 1: Idioms related to “a cross to bear” Table 2: Framing a funeral oration Table 3: Ancient versus modern Western personalities compared Table 4: Aspects of organizational frames in Bible translation Table 5: Comparison of roles – “coach” and “consultant” Table 6: Cognitive contextual possibilities Table 7: Grid of text-types and translation priorities

Acknowledgments I must acknowledge the enlightenment from many minds that I gained during the preparation of the present coursebook. Indeed, such a significant input during various stages of the writing made the entire process also a great learning experience for me. This coursebook in fact features not so much my work, but rather the diverse contributions of a number of expert scholars and practitioners in the field of secular as well as biblical translation studies. I made an effort to mention all those whom I have explicitly quoted as well as those whose ideas I have less specifically referred or alluded to. Let me note in particular the scholarship of Prof. Lourens de Vries (whom I also thank for his Foreword) and Dr. Robert Bascom, who have generously allowed me to cite several longer portions of published materials or research and writing in progress. I have also benefited indirectly from the works of many other translation colleagues, past and present, over the years. I therefore thank all concerned most sincerely; however, at the outset I should also express my sincere apologies if I have inadvertently misrepresented or misused your material in any way. While engaged in this project, I much appreciated the great support and guidance that I received from Prof. Mona Baker (St. Jerome Press). In closing, I wish to acknowledge the following for granting permission to quote assorted or more extensive published selections: Roger Omanson, Editor of the Bible Translator (Technical Series) – general permission. Donald Slager, Editor of the UBS Translator’s Handbook and Monograph series – general permission. Mary Molegraaf of the Baker Publishing Group for permission to cite selections by Charles Campbell (“Apocalypse now: Preaching Revelation as narrative”) in Joel B. Green and Michael Pasquarello III (eds.), Narrative reading, narrative preaching: Reuniting New Testament interpretation and proclamation. Sheo Prasad of Augsburg-Fortress Publishers for permission to cite selections from Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-science commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. The Scripture quotations used in this publication, when not my own literal or concordant translation of the Hebrew or Greek text, are in the main taken from the following English and Chewa versions: New International Version (NIV) © 1984 by the International Bible Society; Revised Standard Version (RSV) © 1973 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches in the USA; New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches in the USA; Good News Translation (GNT;

xii

Ernst Wendland

formerly Good News Bible), second edition © 1994 by the American Bible Society; Contemporary English Version (CEV) © 1995 by the American Bible Society; English Standard Version (ESV) © 2001 by Crossway Bibles; New English Bible (NET), second beta edition © 1996-2003 by Biblical Studies Press; Buku Lopatulika (BL – ‘Sacred Book’) © 1923 by the British & Foreign Bible Society; Buku Loyera (BY – ‘Holy Book’) © 1998 by the Bible Society of Malawi. All these versions are used by permission, for which I am grateful.

Foreword Translating is an extremely complicated and ultimately intuitive decision-making process involving very many factors, perspectives, uncertainties and pluralities. Translators have to make decisions fast and consistently, under all sorts of pressures and constraints. This is especially true for translators of sensitive, sacred texts. They are very closely watched while making their decisions, by scholars, believers, publishers, commissioners. All these critical observers have different perspectives and they confront translators with often conflicting demands. Bible translators have to think of many things at the same time, so many in fact that they may easily feel overwhelmed and intimidated. The usefulness of a coursebook for Bible translators and teachers of Bible translation stands or falls with how well it meets the challenge to provide tools to deal with the complexity of the task of Bible translating, tools that translators can rely on when making decisions. Contextual Frames of Reference in Bible Translation shows both the daunting complexity of Bible translation and ways to deal with it, to reduce complexity and make it manageable. By doing so the book offers tremendous help in teaching students of Bible translation to make informed and balanced decisions. Students learn to look at Bible translation from multiple perspectives at the same time, called contextual frames of reference in the book. These contextual frames are presented in an ordered fashion, from the most abstract to the most concrete. The book thus starts with the most abstract and encompassing frames, the cognitive contexts of the mind as shaped by deep, often unconscious cultural orientations that are at work behind source and target texts. This is followed by sociocultural, organizational, and textual frames, and the book ends with the most concrete internal frames formed by the text of Scripture itself, with its patterns of genre specification, recursion, disjunction, rhetorical accentuation, and phonic enhancement. The coursebook does not argue for a particular theoretical standpoint nor does it tacitly assume one, and this is a strength for a book aimed at teaching Bible translation. By naming these contextual frames and ordering them from the most abstract to the most concrete, students have a wonderful analytical tool to distinguish and label the many kinds of multiplicity and plurality they inevitably encounter and to gradually zoom in on the text itself without losing sight of the wider cognitive, sociocultural, organizational and situational contexts in which those texts function and are communicated. Perhaps the most significant and lasting contribution of Ernst Wendland to the field of Bible translation is the strong bridges he built between the academic world of literary and rhetorical study of the Bible and the world of practising Bible translators, teaching translators not only to understand the literary features of the Hebrew and Greek texts but also to work those insights in a correspondingly “literary” (artistic, poetical, rhetorical) manner into their translation. This special expertise and passion of Ernst Wendland is reflected in many places in the coursebook, especially in the chapter on internal frames and in the grand application of the frames approach to the translation of Revelation 4 and 5 into Chewa, a beautiful Bantu language of Malawi

xiv

Ernst Wendland

and Zambia. This literary-rhetorical aspect finds a natural, integrated place in the coursebook, and this is important because the literary-rhetorical perspective should have an integrated place in every translation project alongside the other perspectives, and not just in special niche translations for highly educated audiences that want to enjoy the Bible as literature. Translators can only move from complexity and plurality to single translation decisions in a responsible manner when they do two things: first, they have to reduce the complexity and plurality by analyzing, listing and labelling the pros and cons of each decision from the perspectives of the various contextual frames. This is the descriptive, analytical aspect of the decision-making. Second, they have to weigh the pros and cons of decisions from the perspective of the skopos of the translation, the goal of the project as determined by the commissioners and communities they serve. In this weighing of factors from the perspective of the goals of the translation project, intuition as shaped by wisdom, prayer and experience is the ultimate guide of Bible translators. In the skopos of Bible translations theological and hermeneutical aspects of the traditions of communities find a place. It is not the task of scholars or coursebooks to prescribe the goals of Bible translation projects; they emerge from the traditions and needs of communities. That is why the coursebook is neutral with respect to the various types of Bible translations. But the contextual frames offered as a tool in this book help students both with the first task of analyzing, listing and labelling pros and cons of translation decisions, and with the second aspect of understanding what communities expect from Bible translations and how the Bible functions in the various communities, the theological and hermeneutical side of the decision-making process. The tools offered in this book are not meant to replace that wonderful faculty of the human brain we call intuition, a faculty that helps us to weigh the many, often competing and contradictory factors that are involved in decision-making in all aspects of our lives. Rather, the book serves the ultimately intuitive decision-making process in the heads and hearts of translators by creating awareness of contextual frames of reference, by helping competent translators to explicate and critically reflect on their intuitions and to engage in informed dialogues with their partners in the translation project. That, after all, is the ultimate frame of reference: a community of individuals, working together cooperatively in the multifaceted effort to communicate the Word of God meaningfully unto themselves. Prof. Lourens de Vries Faculty of Arts Dept. of Language and Communication Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Preface: The plan and purpose of this coursebook Communicative Bible translation is at the same time a science, a technology, and an art. Thus it is (or should be) based on generally accepted knowledge derived from interdisciplinary sources as well as extended observation, study, and experimentation; it operates according to specific, experience-based principles and practical procedures; and equally important if not always recognized, it is at some point also carried out intuitively, in response to the artistic genius and sensitivity of the translator. It is the primary aim of Contextual frames of reference in Bible translation to provide translators and their trainers alike with a heuristic framework for exploring all three of these key dimensions of translation, with primary reference to the Christian Scriptures. I thereby wish to encourage a more broadly-based perspective on this multifaceted task and, to this end, also provide translation staff with the opportunity to progressively practice as well as to reflect upon these insights in relation to their own specific sociocultural setting and work situation. This coursebook offers a practical, step by step way to follow up on some of the main ideas that are presented in the influential text Bible translation: Frames of reference (Wilt 2003). The collection of studies proposed a more diverse and flexible “holistic” approach to Bible translation, as summarized by the following critical points of view (ibid:xii): • viewing the translation project in terms of its community, organizational, and sociocultural settings; • viewing the translation product as part of a larger communicative process; • viewing translation as an interdisciplinary subject; • viewing textual parts in terms of textual wholes; • viewing form and content, structure and function, as together contributing to the meaning of texts; • viewing informative and imperative functions of texts in relation to other functions, especially the aesthetic and ritual functions of scriptural texts. The present coursebook seeks to investigate these basic perspectives in somewhat greater detail by means of both additional information regarding the different topics involved and also through interspersed exercises, which invite readers to apply the material contextually to the particular circumstances in which they themselves are either translating or training and guiding translators to do the job. Bible translation focuses upon a single text, but the process is influenced and thus also coloured by a host of interrelated sociolinguistic and cultural variables that pertain to the many different settings in which this communicative activity is being conducted throughout the world today. Thus this coursebook intends to broaden translators’ field of vision – their “frames of reference” – with regard to the conceptual and pragmatic scope of their task in relation to the original text and, on the other hand, to lead them to apply this vision with more focused clarity and conviction to their specific work situation, ideally in close interaction with colleagues in a “team” approach to the task. This text is itself very much the product of teamwork, as the many quotations and exercises contributed by others clearly indicate.

xvi

Ernst Wendland

I will discuss, largely from a practical translator’s standpoint, several important aspects of the overall cognitive, emotive, and volitional “context” that converge to influence the interpretation of an ancient religious text and its re-wording in a contemporary language-culture. In some ways, this hermeneutical procedure is analogous to unpeeling the thick leaves of an onion bulb – a compressed, composite whole, the essence and significance of which is much greater than the sum of its individual parts. Each segment contributes to the essential corporate unity and, while it can be examined in isolation, one component cannot really be understood without reference to each of the others. But this analogy does not take one very far. The difficulties of comprehension and integration increase exponentially when one attempts to dismantle a creative literary text in a particular language-culture and to reassemble it again in an entirely new communication setting. In this coursebook, I offer one possible method of approaching this challenge in a progressive, systematic manner. My context-sensitive, function-oriented, “frames of reference” approach is certainly not the only way to accomplish this, but it does offer a practical set of tried-and-tested procedures that are compatible with many other translation tactics and techniques. First, a general introduction is made to the concept of frames, that is, distinct culturally-conditioned cognitive perspectives which serve to orient as well as to contextualize all our perception, evaluation, integration, and organization of data (Chapters 1-2). Four distinct, but closely interrelated conceptual domains (sociocultural, institutional, situational, and textual) are then individually described and exemplified to provide a more detailed introduction to the subject (Chapters 3-6). The original biblical author presumably accommodated these varied mental viewpoints, prioritizing them according to the manifold principle of relevance in order to localize a given passage of Scripture when composing it for an envisioned audience in a particular Ancient Near Eastern situational setting. Special attention is given in Chapter 7 to the overt textual frame of reference as this applies to the study of biblical documents, especially from a literary perspective. A sequence of examples and exercises has been incorporated into the coursebook as these different issues are presented in an effort to render the discussion more “interactive” and contextually relevant for Bible translators and team supervisors or instructors. These projects may be assigned for individual study or, more profitably perhaps, as corporate tasks to be discussed and responded to as a group (2-3 participants). The same four culturally-specific frames of reference must also be accessed during the re-compositional activity of Bible translation, first when analyzing the source text for “meaning” (Chapter 8), and then when extracting this from its linguistic form (whether Hebrew or Greek) in order to regenerate it in a new communicative environment and sociocultural setting. As an example of the latter set of circumstances, the case of translating meaningfully into Chewa (Nyanja), a south-eastern Bantu language of Malawi and Zambia, is selectively considered (Chapter 9). The pressing challenge here concerns the complex process of conceptual engineering whereby a sacred literary text is expressed in a way that is relevant as well as acceptable to a specific target audience and also supplemented by suitable techniques of extratextual cognitive enrichment. By way of illustration, John the Divine’s graphic depiction of what he saw behind the “open door” in heaven (Revelation chapter 4) is given

preface

xvii

more detailed attention with respect to how to produce a more adequately framed representation of the original document in Chewa, using a combination of textual and paratextual strategies. It is one thing to reproduce a text in translation; it is another to ascertain whether or not this rendition has achieved its aim(s) with regard to a particular target audience and setting. This important topic is taken up in Chapter 10 as I summarize a diversified method for assessing a translation, that is, evaluating the overall quality of communication with regard to how much of the original unpeeled “onion” of meaning (sense and significance) was lost or distorted during its linguistic transformation. The goal is to identify and compensate for those inevitable gaps and lapses that occur in our efforts to put the meaning back together again, that is, to re-present it more accurately and appropriately in its new linguistic, literary, and cultural milieu. Chapter 11 consists of a question-driven series of exercises that focuses on Revelation 5 to give readers a chance to further apply what they have learned during an analysis and translation of this dramatic biblical passage in their language. In Chapter 12, I conclude by giving some attention to ongoing efforts to better contextualize, that is, provide a more adequate frame of reference for, the joint process of teaching and learning about Bible translation in different situations and for different ends, including the need for follow-up interactive networking. A final detailed Topical Index will hopefully serve to give some orientation and direction to readers as they make their way though this coursebook. While experienced translators and teachers might be able to select different chapters to consider in isolation, it is generally recommended to take them in the order given, since one chapter deliberately builds on and presupposes the knowledge gained in what has preceded it. This coursebook is intended primarily as a class text for use in an advanced course on Bible translation. Ideally, it would accompany the resource book Bible translation: Frames of reference (Wilt 2003) and/or Translating the literature of Scripture (Wendland 2004). It is assumed that users are students either at a tertiary educational institution, or those who have completed at least one intensive introductory course on the subject, or who are in the second year of a more exclusive translator-training programme. It would also be helpful, though not absolutely necessary, if readers already have some hands-on experience in translation, whether in the religious or secular field. This text may also be employed as a guide and source book for translation consultants and trainers who might appreciate having some ready background or lesson material available. They could thus select or adapt pertinent excerpts when preparing a workshop for advanced translators or team exegetes – those who have at least a university or seminary-level degree in translation studies, Bible translation, biblical studies, and/or biblical Hebrew/Greek. Outside of its use as a designated class text, this coursebook can also serve as a primary or secondary resource in established courses that employ other materials or are designed for different purposes (e.g., for professional translators). Alternatively, the text may be assigned in portions for experienced translators to study through as part of a private “continuing education” programme monitored by their project consultant. The many study questions and exercises that have been included will no doubt suggest many others that teachers and trainers may wish to assign to students,

xviii

Ernst Wendland

either in addition to, or in place of the ones currently given. In closing, let me underscore the crucial observation of my translation colleague, Prof. de Vries (from his Foreword): “The tools offered in this book are not meant to replace that wonderful faculty of the human brain we call intuition…”. Perhaps the most important goal that I can hope to achieve with this text is simply to stimulate within translators and their trainers alike that spontaneous creative faculty that is so essential to their task. The longer I am involved in the work of Bible translation, the more I am convinced of the vital role that intuition, insight, and imagination play in this interlingual, cross-cultural communication process. The author is a seminary classroom instructor as well as a Bible translation field consultant-trainer who has himself been progressively instructed by his students and translation colleagues over the years. Therefore, much of the material presented in this coursebook has already been tested and, in turn, benefited from the revisions that have been proposed by class participants, both directly (their explicit comments and queries) and indirectly (through difficulties encountered at certain junctures). However, I consider this to be very much a work-in-progress that will undoubtedly profit from additional critical feedback and suggested additions or modifications. All such comments, including errors, inaccuracies, and omissions are most welcome; please send these in any form to the author at [email protected] or wendland@ zamnet.zm. All royalties for this text (should perchance any materialize) will be transferred by the publisher directly to the United Bible Societies. Ernst Wendland United Bible Societies (Reading, UK) Centre for Bible Interpretation and Translation in Africa University of Stellenbosch, South Africa April, 2007

1. Contextual frames of reference The mind’s construction of meaning Analogy of an onion

Figure 1: Onion layers

Figure 1: Onion layers

A mature onion bulb is well-known for its distinctive taste, smell, and sharp effect upon the eyes, but also for its intricate, interlocking construction. One fleshy leaf is compressed within another to comprise the compact body as a whole. You cannot simply take an onion apart and put it back together again so that it looks and feels the same; it will have been completely undone. At the heart or core then of the onion’s concentrated concentric formal structure is located its radicle, the source of continued life and growth – if it were to be placed in some sort of nourishing environment such as the soil. With reference to the topic of this coursebook, an onion bulb may be used as a limited concrete analogy to represent the cognitive notion of “context” as applied to any act of human communication. A verbal text, for example, may be likened to the central radicle, or embryo, that lives by virtue of the meaning that has been intentionally encoded within it and which grows when that text is transmitted in a favorable sociocultural environment. The text itself is enclosed within varied layers of supportive conceptual context which sustain and give it shape, allowing consumers to perceive, interpret, and apply its content. But take away all the outer contextual layers, and the text becomes unrecognizable (to the untrained eye), unstable, and ultimately unusable. The following image was purchased on-line from: http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/1842923/ sliced_onion . “The expression ‘Layers of the onion’ is used to describe a situation in which it is possible to go deeper and deeper revealing seemingly similar layers until a central core is arrived at. It has been used as a metaphor in mysticism to describe the supposed layers of reality” (from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onions). By analogy then, in this coursebook we want to practice how to access different conceptual frames of reference in relation to specific verbal texts and sociocultural settings in order to understand, as nearly as possible, that “central core” of meaning that needs to be maintained when communicating these same texts via translation. 



Ernst Wendland

It no longer has a sustainable, transmittable significance or a useful function. All of the layers operate collectively to perform this vital service of contextualization for the text, and if any individual one is examined or evaluated in isolation, it can give only a limited, and often distorted, picture of the text’s true nature and purpose. The intricate layers of an onion are all very similar to each another in substance and shape. That is not the case when one considers the surrounding interpretive environment of a particular verbal text. The constituting conceptual categories and perceptual aspects of discourse are diverse, though they embrace and closely interact during communication. Despite their many complex interrelationships, it may still be helpful, as a heuristic exercise when exploring the idea of context, to distinguish one implicit cognitive layer from another, moving from more to less inclusive as follows: cognitive → sociocultural → organizational → situational → textual (i.e., various interwoven levels of conceptual structure). I will begin by describing and illustrating the salient features of these distinct contextual dimensions, these relevant pragmatic frames of reference (Wilt 2003:ch.2), moving from the generic (“outer” layer) to the more specific and concrete (“inner” layer). The latter, the textual cotext, provides the immediate framework for understanding a biblical text such as that of Revelation 4-5. This composite model will then be applied as a means of facilitating our understanding and communication of St. John’s visionary record of the heavenly throne room scene. The all-encompassing conceptual context is thus employed, first of all, as an essential element of one’s analysis of the original Greek text and its hypothetical extratextual milieu. This perspective is then transferred and extended to an interpretation and translation of the same text from the standpoint of an average Chewa (south-central Bantu) audience, living in their present-day linguistic, literary, and sociocultural setting. Several different paratextual and extratextual means of enhancing the overall dynamic communications process (piecing the onion together again) will be surveyed to highlight their important function in Bible translating. I conclude with a few thoughts concerning the need for a thorough qualitative assessment of the entire translation endeavor and some reflection on the implications as well as limitations of the present study, especially with regard to those aspects that need to be explored further in subsequent research, perhaps also from a more developed theoretical viewpoint. The periodic examples and exercises that I have included are an attempt to encourage readers to critically engage with the material presented (and, ideally, also with each other) in a practical way from their personal perspective so as to identify potential points of current application or places where this text needs to be corrected, modified, and/or supplemented. “Context can be defined as the psychological and social circumstances under which language is used” (Boase-Beier 2006:20, citing P. Stockwell).  “A frame of reference is a particular perspective from which the universe is observed. … A [linguistic] frame of reference is a coordinate system used to identify the location of an object” (from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_frame_of_reference). In this coursebook we will be considering the importance of taking different perspectives, or cognitive “locations,” into consideration when analyzing source texts and also when attempting to communicate them by translation in different cultural, linguistic, and situational settings. 

Contextual frames of reference



EXERCISE-1 The onion example is just one of many analogies available for illustrating the vital nature and operation of “context” during the communication process.  Pick out the strong and weak points of this comparison: What, in your opinion, would be a better, or at least an additional, analogy that could be used for this purpose?  Summarize your application to what you see as the most important aspects of contextual influence as it pertains to the overall activity of communication in general and Bible translation in particular. Alternatively, you may feel that no analogies are appropriate – that they only confuse the relevant issues. If that is the case, explain your position from the perspective of the communication model that you work with.  Evaluate the accuracy or usefulness of the following minimal definition of context. Does it work for now, or would you like to propose a revision: “Context can be thought of as anything outside of an utterance itself that is relevant for its production or interpretation” (Dooley 1995:19).  Do the same for the following, more complex definition: “CONTEXT – The multi-layered extra-textual environment which exerts a determining influence on the language used. The subject matter of a given text, for example, is part of a context of situation. The ideology of the speaker, on the other hand, would form part of the context of culture. Finally, context of utilization caters for such factors as whether the translation is in written form, orally done (INTERPRETING) or as SUBTITLING/ DUBBING, etc.” (Hatim and Munday 2004:336). The preceding needs to be distinguished from the “CO-TEXT – The other lexical items that occur before and after a word” (ibid: loc cit). EXERCISE-2 Consider the relationships involved in Figure 2: We observe that in the case of such a collective nesting, whether combining artifacts or some other type of implement (e.g., chairs, tables, boxes), each item in the set is usually exactly the same as another, except for a possible difference in size.

Here is a wider frame of reference: “A matryoshka doll…or a Russian nested doll (also called stacking dolls or Babushka dolls) is a set of dolls of decreasing sizes placed one inside another. “Matryoshka” is a diminutive from the Russian female first name “Matryona”, which is traditionally associated with a corpulent, robust, rustic Russian woman. A set of matryoshkas consists of a wooden figure which can be pulled apart to reveal another figure of the same sort inside. It has in turn another figure inside, and so on. The number of nested figures is usually six or more. The shape is mostly cylindrical, rounded at the top for the head and tapered towards the bottom, but little else; the dolls have no hands (except those that are painted). The artistry is in the painting of each doll, which can be extremely elaborate” (from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Russian_doll; the illustration is from the same site: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/3/3a/Matriochka.jpg). 



Ernst Wendland

Figure 2: A “nested” Russian doll set

Figure 2: A “nested” Russian doll set

Next consider a verbal sort of nesting, namely, a generic-specific lexical set, in which the more specific term includes all of the generic features of the superordinate term, but then adds a number of specific components of meaning, e.g., living being → animal → canine → dog → Doberman → “Samson.” In this section of the coursebook, I will be discussing a disparate cognitive (not a neatly related concrete) set of included frames in which the enclosed domains manifest some, but not necessarily all, of the generic features of the frame that classifies it. Furthermore, these frames will be seen to complement and interact with each other in many different ways. For this reason, it is important to take note of all the potentially relevant sociological and communication-related characteristics that are evident in the particular setting of usage to which a given frame is applied.  What is the significance of important similarities and/or differences that are manifested during frame-analysis when applied to human communication from more than one perspective? Give an example that comes to mind – or try this if you are in a group or class setting: What are the principal differences that emerge between your participant frame of reference and that of your course instructor or group leader?  Why do we have to pay so much attention to such matters when carrying out a certain task of Bible translation? What makes this verbal activity so complicated – one of the most complex (and potentially controversial!) types of communication? Suggest three issues that give us cause for concern regarding the quality of interlingual communication where “Scripture” is concerned.  What do you think of the notion of frames of reference (cf. Wilt 2003:43-58) when studying different communication events? As in the case of the “onion” metaphor, is there a better analogy that you know of that could model the manifold nature and influence of “context” during the process of communication? Note that the expression frames of reference is variously termed in the literature of cognitive linguistics (semantics), for example: cognitive frames, semantic domains, conceptual fields, mental representations, mental spaces, world-view categories, (mental) schemata – scenarios – scripts, etc.

Contextual frames of reference  A possible advantage of the term frame is that it can be used as a verb to express the dynamic, fluid, progressively developed, etc. aspects of cognitive perception, construction, and evaluation. Thus “to frame” a thought is to indicate, demonstrate, or delineate how one entity, idea, action, or quality relates to another (or others) within a larger mental structure in relation to a particular social setting. Does this help you to better understand the notion of “frames” and “framing”? Tell why or why not. If so, try to give an example of “frame” from an active, verbal perspective with respect to some specific act of communication. If not, suggest what in your opinion is a better alternative.  Dr. Robert Bascom (personal correspondence) offers the following thoughts on the subject of “framing” and how to express this in another language. Comment on these reflections in relation to translation: I think what I am aiming for is not so much frames as flexible as much as frames as rapidly changeable. [W]e select and negotiate the frames we want to use and discard the ones we do not want or need. Or we transform them, or even break them. So frames are indeed rigid (even brittle), but not unchangeable and permanent. That can be seen as a flexibility of sorts, but the idea for me works better with the images of changeability. The two (“static”) elements I like the most about frames/framing are the facts that they set limits and provide structure. FUZZY EDGES AND POROUS BOUNDARIES?? But they are not static concepts in spite of their metaphorical roots, and therein lies the problem. I am still struggling to translate these concepts into Spanish, for example. I can use “encuadrar” (to frame) as a verb, but the noun “cuadro” means a picture only (“marco” is the frame, but does not lend itself to metaphorical extension), and “cuadra” is a city block. Bill Mitchell has suggested possibly using “matriz social” (social matrix), and I like it as the nominal form in Spanish, though it does not correspond formally anymore to “encuadrar”. Others use “parametros,” but that is not very flexible either.

And how does all this concern Bible translation and a “contextual” approach to the task? The implications for translation are huge, as you know. I now start with contexts [i.e. “frames”], rather than end with them. I even tell translators that we should no longer talk so much about translating words, sentences, paragraphs, or discourses, but about translating [cognitive] contexts. All the rest (words, etc.) are simply better or worse clues as to how to discover the contexts we wish to translate.

EXERCISE-3 Study the illustration in Figure 3 – taken from a 2005 (now extinct) website advertising a _____ [guess the denomination!] retirement community.  Which different sociological, including religious, frames of reference are packaged together to constitute this organizational logo? Arrange these in order of hermeneutical priority (note also the familiar Reformation hymn, “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” and Psalms such as 18:2, 31:3, 71:3).





Ernst Wendland  Can you suggest a way for trans-forming this illustration to act as a promotional poster for the Bible translation project that you are working with (or know about)? Perhaps you have a completely different illustration to suggest (but let it be based on some prominent image or concept found in the Bible).

Figure 3: Mighty Fortress Retirement Community

Figure 3: Mighty Fortress Retirement Community

The interaction of frames As noted above, different levels of scope, or generality, may be manifested with respect to the different mental frames of orientation that have been proposed for special consideration in our study. These are set in relation to one another in Figure 4:

Cline of referential generality || most=====================================least || Cognitive > Sociocultural > Organizational > Situational > Textual > Lexical Frames

Figure 4: Cline of referential generality

There is a dynamic interaction between and among these different domains as they apply to a particular cultural setting and ethnic environment (Wendland 1992:4547). They may all exert their influence, either singly or corporately, to a greater or lesser extent in keeping with relevance principles (cf. Gutt 1992:21-34), during the hermeneutical process of perceiving and understanding diverse acts of human communication (my focus will be on verbal messages). Each referentially more general frame of conceptual (and emotive!) influence incorporates the one(s) below it, thereby enriching the process of interpretation, as one moves from the outer, most inclusive

Contextual frames of reference



(cognitive) to the inner, most precise (lexical) environment – the latter being the most specific linguistic frame that is normally investigated. Thus every utterance (indeed, every word) is conceptually “framed” as to its overall meaning by both its verbal cotext and its non-verbal con-text, which includes any additional connotative (emotive, associative) significance that may be connected with the physical setting as well as the interpersonal situation, or occasion of communication. The following real-life example (contributed by R. Bascom, personal correspondence) illustrates how people continually negotiate – select, delete, combine, otherwise modify or adjust – conceptual frames of meaning and significance as they speak, especially after a misunderstanding or “error message” has occurred at some key point in the conversation. This scenario also suggests that the “frame” image may not be as rigid as one might expect when used figuratively to represent the cognitive adjustment process that takes place during communication – that is, while moving the relevant mental images back and forth across the conceptual landscape of our minds in a given social setting. Not long ago my son was trying to tell me about certain older persons who were attending classes with him at the public university where he attends. He complained that the professors had to put up with these persons even though they seemed to have “a cross to bear.” It was clear immediately to both of us that this was not the idiom/image he was looking for, so I tried to help him by offering up some of my own suggestions. We finally got it, and later returned to look at the unconscious process we went through in matching similarities at various levels in order to come up with the right idiom. As we tried to figure out the idiom/image, we unconsciously not only steered toward images which were similar at an underlying semantic level (something hitting/rubbing against something else), but just as importantly, after the first miss, we sought only choices with the sound/word pattern of “an x to y”. We also steered back toward real idioms after at one point almost abandoning them altogether (in “nail to hammer” – from hammering away at a point). And of course we were groping for the underlying idea or focus all along as well. Later, my son gave me a specific example of one of these misfits asking about alien communications coming from comets in an astronomy class, which confirmed the idiom we finally settled on. Table 1 illustrates the movement along various vectors of similarity and difference. When telling this story later, someone suggested “bone to pick” as well, which would have fit nicely between the soapbox and the nail (good idiom, close image, right pattern, right agency, wrong focus). It still reaches back to someone who feels she or he has been wronged, as in the first two cases. But the image and pattern are closer to “axe to grind,” and the idiom is a good one. One can see complex relationships of similarity among various inter-related domains, and how the search for the form (pattern) can override the search for meaning in the process of finding the right metaphorical idiom, and the perfect match of all elements.



Ernst Wendland

Example

Idiom

Image

Pattern ‘x to y’

Agency/focus

Cross to bear

Good/wrong

Burden/resigned

+

Patient/suffering/martyr

Chip on his shoulder

Good/wrong

Burden/resentful

-

Patient/suffering/grudge

Soapbox to stand on

Derivative/ wrong

Message/public/ obsessive

+/-

Nail to hammer

Derivative/ wrong

Friction/repetitive

+

Agent/relentless (?)

Dead horse to beat

Derivative/ wrong

Friction/ repetitive

+

Agent /relentless/futile

Axe to grind

Good/right

Friction/ repetitive

+

Agent /relentless/grudge

Agent/public/ committed

Table 1: Idioms related to “a cross to bear”

Notice in the next example (summarized in Table 2) how each successive cognitive frame serves to more fully contextualize the nature of a certain funerary communicative event. This includes the particular treatment of the biblical text chosen for the occasion (the death and raising of Lazarus – Luke 11) as well as the sermonic discourse as it might be delivered at some stage in each of the two scenarios that are being compared. FRAMES ò

Scenario A

Scenario B

Sociocultural

poverty-stricken, rural southeast African, Nsenga

prosperous, urban African-American

Organizational

a non-traditional Christian sect

a national Pentecostal denomination

Situational

outdoor (graveside) address for a polygamous village headman; delivered by a resident preacher

indoor (a large megachurch) funeral oration for a departed senior pastor; televised; invited, nationally-known guest evangelist

Textual

oral vernacular, popular style of rambling rhetorical oratory

oral English, instance of revivalist rhetoric, but polished and mediasensitive style

Table 2: Framing a funeral oration

EXERCISE-4  Speculate as to how each preacher’s handling of the Lazarus passage chosen as the basis for the funeral sermon might differ (e.g., with regard to the selection, ordering, development of topics).

Contextual frames of reference



 In which significant ways would you expect the respective compositional styles of the sermons to vary?  To what extent can such questions be answered – that is, without more specific information concerning the two culturally-specific cognitive frameworks (or to an analogous, traditional versus modern pair of scenarios in your sociocultural setting)? Where might you go to find some answers?  Of what relevance are such issues and questions/answers to the practice of Bible translation? EXERCISE-5 Consider the following quotation (Aloo Mojola 2003), especially its final statement, and point out its significance in relation to the Bible translation project that you are currently engaged in or know about. How does the matrix of “text, church, and world” relate to the contextual frames discussed above? Bible translation within the Bible Society movement is an activity that is best understood on the basis of the triadic scheme . These three form a matrix and each member of the matrix could be understood in terms of ‘frames’ (Marvin Minsky). It is clear that a diversity of factors and considerations go into the making of Bible translations. The triad of provides the fundamental building frames of this process. In the language of frames, one inevitably encounters subframes and subsubframes and the nesting of frames or subframes within each other. Each has its own background assumptions, expectations, constants, variations, etc. The interactions between them obviously need to be well understood, and as well the ensuing implications and ramifications for the entire process. … Increasingly translators in the Bible Society movement will be required to take seriously into account the interplay of factors within the above triadic matrix.

The interaction of contextual frames includes the expected overlapping along any of their adjacent (fuzzy) boundaries. This frequently occurs at the dynamic interface of the sociocultural and organizational frames since any large, representative organization, such as a national Bible Society, automatically functions as part of the wider community and its constituent culture (or complex of sub-cultures). The active interpersonal relationships and sources of influence may extend even further through various international connections. The Bible Society of Zambia, for example, is part of an African regional fellowship as well as the 200 member world-wide organization known as the United Bible Societies. This feature of inter-dependence as well as mutual influence among the different frames becomes clearer as we consider some of the specific characteristics that are associated with each one.

Prominence, perspective, perceptibility Three additional variables need to be considered when using this “frames” contextual model to plan, describe, analyze, or assess a given event of communication,

10

Ernst Wendland

namely: prominence, perspective, and perceptibility. These three pragmatic factors are discussed below, both individually and then in the light of their inevitable interrelationships. First there is the issue of relative prominence. The applicable cognitive frames are not all equal in importance or influence during specific acts of communication, whether non-verbal or verbal, oral or written. Thus, there is the need for frame prioritizing that presumably occurs intuitively in situations where the manner of message transmission becomes more widespread, inclusive, or complex. In such cases, the particular nature of the communicative event, including its primary purpose or goal, as well as its degree of immediate urgency or importance, will serve to determine which frame is dominant, which secondary, and so forth, to influence both the act of text production and also that of text consumption (understanding, analysis, evaluation, application, response, etc.). Special situational circumstances and/or textual markers may operate to foreground one perspective or frame of reference over another in a mixed setting of interpretation and action. The comparative processing “cost” versus conceptual “gain” principle of relevance (Gutt 1992:24-25) offers a useful way of conceptualizing how this inferential prioritizing process takes place, that is, how and why certain bundles of information get perceived and acted upon sooner than others during communication events. EXERCISE-6 An American adult male is at home on his “day off” from the job. He gets a call on his cell phone, which records the number of the current caller in its LED display. Assuming that he recognizes the present number that is ringing, how might different possible frames of reference influence how he will react – that is, whether to answer or not (switch off the phone)? He might imagine the following scenarios with respect to a particular familiar number: (a) The caller is his son’s home teacher from school, who may be ringing to confirm the boy’s claim of “illness” and hence his need to be excused from classes (so that he can come home and convince his Dad to go fishing). (b) The caller is his boss from work, probably wanting to request that he come in to the office to do some unwanted “overtime” work. (c) The caller is a officer from the local US Army reserve unit of which he is a member (most likely to implement an earlier warning of an imminent call-up to active military duty). “[P]ragmatics focuses on how we interpret utterances in context (cf. Blakemore 1987:30), and thus could be defined as “the study of meaning beyond that which is encoded in the linguistic structures themselves” (Watts 1991:26). … [P]ragmatics is non-truth-conditional aspects of meaning, and covers those aspects which depend on the reader’s inferences (as in relevance theory) as well as those which depend on the relationships between the text and its context, including its sociolinguistic and psychological content” (Boase-Beier 2006:20). “By ‘pragmatic’ is meant that aspect of language which goes beyond sentence grammar, which takes into consideration both the context in which the utterance was spoken and the shared cultural and informational assumptions of the interlocutors” (Lunn 2006:32). 

Contextual frames of reference

11

 Which “frame of reference” would undoubtedly receive top priority in the man’s mind according to relevance principles, thus motivating him to answer the phone immediately: (a) the “situational” – a non-urgent family matter; (b) the “institutional” – an undesirable aspect of his current job; or (c) the “sociocultural” – a matter of national defense when the country is in a state of high alert? What might be some prevailing circumstances that would alter this priority rating?  “The book (The Cell Phone) traces the impact of the cell phone from personal issues

of loneliness and depression to the global concerns of the modern economy and the transnational family. As the technology of social networking, the cell phone has become central to establishing and maintaining relationships in areas from religion to love.”

Evaluate the preceding quotation and its (possible) implication for Bible translation (preparation, production, distribution, promotion) via the use of new, non-print audiovisual and electronic media – a whole different “context of communication”!  These examples illustrate, in a limited way, the implicit prioritizing, or saliencestructured sorting and assessing, of cognitive frames that takes place in different contexts of communication within a given society. Would you perhaps have another (better) example in mind to illustrate this notion?

Second, we note different levels of perceptibility with respect to these four related sub-frames. Certain conceptual frameworks, or individual aspects of them, tend to require more explicit, apparent, diagnostic, or dynamic “marking” than others. In other words, the communicative signs, or “clues,” which represent and conceptually evoke these frames (e.g., words, texts, genres, gestures, body movements, clothing, associated physical symbols, etc.) may be more or less apparent and hence affect one’s perception more or less directly or consciously. The sociocultural frames that are more important to a group tend to be distinguished by more overt and elaborate rituals, symbols, and related customs or accouterments of behavior as these concern the key persons, public discourses, and events that are associated with a particular social institution, whether secular (e.g., the activities and proclamations of royalty) or religious (e.g., high priests and their sacramental or ritualized actions). EXERCISE-7 In the recent past, the manner in which “middle-class” people dressed would usually be a fairly reliable indicator, an overt or covert “badge,” of the level of situational formality of any public event that they happened to be participating in, for example (a middle-aged American married male) – formal: tuxedo for a wedding ceremony; business: suit and tie for work at the office; informal: good shirt and slacks for a class reunion celebration; casual: T-shirt and Bermuda shorts to attend a local baseball Taken from the latest Berg publishing company catalogue, Anthropology & material culture – 2006: New books and key backlist (p. 11; www.bergpublishers.com). 

12

Ernst Wendland

game. Nowadays, however, such external signals of attire no longer apply since the different sociocultural frames have become considerably blurred or collapsed. In the summertime, for example, “casual” clothing works just about everywhere except in the “formal” setting, as Americans have become some of the least distinguished (sloppiest!) and distinguishable dressers on earth (that is to say, among people who can easily afford to do something about their wardrobe). Unfortunately, some American missionaries automatically transport their casual dressing habits to Africa (for example) when coming for religious acts of ministry. On occasion, this can cause some serious misunderstanding or even offense when the missionary’s informality of clothing clashes with the formality and respect that local people give to spiritual places and events (e.g., the missionary comes to a weekday elder’s Bible study in church wearing colorful Bermuda shorts while they are all attired in dark suits).  How does this example apply to your sociocultural setting? What modifications need to be made – or do you need to use a completely different illustration (other than clothing)? If so, suggest what this might be.  Tell of a situation that you witnessed or experienced in which the manner of personal dress caused a misunderstanding due to differences in cultural perception and evaluation.

Third, we must also consider the matter of perspective when investigating any complex situation of communication. There are always at least two viewpoints involved, namely, that of the speaker and that of the hearer (or author and reader, etc.). Accordingly, each person accesses and accommodates her/his own uniquely arranged set of interrelated cognitive frames (sociocultural, organizational, situational, and textual) when exchanging such “text messages.” In most settings it makes a difference then as to which point of view is adopted when analyzing or evaluating the nature and quality of a certain communicative event, whether one is initiating or receiving the oral or written verbal text being conveyed. In “honorific” or class-conscious societies, for example, a conversation must always be oriented towards the status, aims, and outlook (cognitive frames) of the most respected person(s) who is (are) present. In some settings this implicit rule applies whether that preeminent individual (or group) happens to be actually speaking or not. Everything that is said in terms of content, tone, or style has to reflect the fact that these “honorable” folk are listening, if not being directly addressed (e.g., a chief, political leader, or “elders” in general). Thus, the order or arrangement and prioritizing of the various cognitive frames that are currently “active” may well differ between speaker and hearer(s). The result is that the act of communication between the two might be impaired, limited in some way, or even blocked entirely. This may be (roughly) illustrated as in Figure 5 – with the old-fashioned boxes and files of the diagram approximating the electronic programs that operate when a computer is being used, for example, when an exegete’s study of a particular biblical book is being enriched by what is available on SIL’s popular resource, the Translator’s Workplace.

Contextual frames of reference

SPEAKER’S cognitive frame of reference

Situational Sociocultural

Situational (a funeral in the family)

13



HEARER ’S cognitive frame of reference

Organizational Situational

Organizational

Textual

Textual

Sociocultural

Organizational (must maintain productivity)

Differing “boxed sets” of interactive cognitive frames (interlocutors of same language and culture) Figure 5: Prioritizingcontextual contextual frames communication Figure 5: Prioritizing framesduring during communication

To give an example (based on Figure 5): The “speaker,” an elderly African employee at a large urban auto repair business, informs his Western shift boss that his closest sister has suddenly died (situational factor) and that he would like to take two weeks off in order to make the necessary funeral and family arrangements (sociocultural). His boss, the “hearer,” refuses, saying that according to company rules employees are allowed only three days off for funerals (organizational), except in the case of most immediate family members (wife or children). He does not realize that in cultural terms an elder brother is directly responsible as a blood surrogate “father” to his sister(s) and her family – even more so than for his immediate family. Business is heavy and the boss can’t afford to have a senior employee gone for an extended period of time (situational). Besides, due to the speaker’s lack of fluency in English (textual), he could not make his pressing cultural situation and family responsibilities clear to his boss when uttering his request. But the latter probably would not have been able to appreciate the argument in any case (sociocultural). Different cognitive perceptions and priorities in cases like this inevitably lead to breakdowns in communication and seriously injured interpersonal relationships. Most “evangelical” (a crucial contextual qualification!) Christians believe that the entire Bible was written, edited, compiled, and canonized within the divine framework of God’s ultimate purpose, point-of-view, and plan of implementation. But it must be recognized that there were undoubtedly other, “sub-perspectives” which actively, and at times significantly, affected both the compositional and the editorial processes relating to individual books and groups of books within the Hebrew as well as the Greek canons. Occasionally, certain competing frames of reference had to be sorted out and prioritized before the text could be finalized, for example, with regard to the ancient royal historical accounts of Israel: a “northern” [Ephraim] vs. “southern” [Judah] perspective (sociocultural); a “royal” [official establishment] vs. “prophetic” [divine] perspective (organizational); a “pre-exilic” [Kings] vs. “exilic” [Chronicles] perspective (situational); e.g., concerning the declaration of Solomon’s kingship (1 Kgs. 1:28-53 versus 1 Chr. 29:21-25). Some important aspects of several shared contextual frames of communication may be identical within a given socio-ethnic community, including the general priority

14

Ernst Wendland

ranking (in Figure 5, this is depicted as not corresponding between the “speaker” and the “hearer”; in fact, there is quite a mismatch). But other, more specific variables, especially those that pertain to the “situational” frame of interpretive setting, will always be different. This is because one person’s individual conceptual and psychological constitution will never be the same as another person’s, even that of a close friend or relative. It is this feature that frequently causes a so-called “breakdown” (or “crash”) in transmission to occur. More correctly, this may be described as a disparity in the respective cognitive environments of the communicators. Consequently, critical aspects of a certain verbal text, whether produced by one party or the partner, simply don’t “look/sound the same” to the other. Alternatively, they each evaluate and respond to selected features of the text’s form, content, and/or intent quite differently. Such failures may occur even in cases where the parties thus verbally engaged actually recognize the different mental frameworks that they are operating with. EXERCISE-8 Many Middle Eastern cities (e.g., Cairo, Jerusalem, Damascus, Beirut, Amman) illustrate the great complexity that exists in a cosmopolitan setting when many people of diverse religious faiths (especially Muslims, Christians, and Jews) must coexist in close proximity. A great number of major social, political, economic, educational, and artistic decisions have to be made from the perspective of one principal religious frame of reference, but without ignoring, downplaying, or offending any of the other two points of view. For example, there are many “holidays” in the annual year and weekends are characterized by a series of three “holy days” for rest and worship – Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Some serious clashes in viewpoint also occur because there is a majority ruling government that is dominated by a particular religious framework, and thus many official actions may appear to favor its professed adherents.  If you have any knowledge about such a multi-faith context (whether through reading, word of mouth, or personal experience), what methods or strategies can you describe (from experience) or suggest that are helpful in resolving or reducing interpersonal tensions and problems of inter-group communication? On the other hand, what are some of the primary factors (“flash points”) that lead to renewed interpersonal suspicions, tensions, and overt conflicts?  Do any of these situations affect the practice of Bible translation, e.g., in a Muslim- or Hindu-oriented country or region? Give any example that you may know of regarding the need for circumspection, patience, and discretion when working in such a complex and sensitive setting of communication. EXERCISE-9 One of the clearest examples of the effect of differing frames of reference on the nature and quality of communication concerns one’s religious beliefs. People can be very similar in every other respect – culturally, socially, economically, educationally, even politically – and they can be talking in the same communication situation about the same biblical text. But because they belong to different Christian church organizations,

Contextual frames of reference

15

their cognitive (interpretive) frameworks regarding the “rock” metaphor of Matthew 16:18, for example, will vary. Differing theological positions and ecclesiastical perspectives often affect the exegetical interpretations that arise in the case of other controversial issues, such as: the “serpent” of Genesis 3:1ff; the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2; the “great fish” of Jonah 1:17; the term “body” in Mat. 26:26; “tongues” in Acts 10:46; “head” in Eph. 5:23, and the “thousand years” of Revelation 20:2.  How or to what extent do such differences of opinion concern Bible translators (and/or project administrators) in your setting, and what sorts of options are available for arriving at some sort of a “common perspective” when translating these types of contentious terms or texts? Discuss in more detail one of the passages listed above and the strategy that you would adopt to seek a resolution.  Which passage of Scripture have you found to be particularly controversial in your translation setting? Explain the problem and how it was resolved, or how a mutually agreeable compromise was reached.  Sometimes even members of the same Christian church body or confessional tradition will disagree with regard to important issues of Bible translation – for example, which version to use during worship. Socioculturally, even in terms of basic religious beliefs, such people may be very much alike in all other respects – but there is one vital contextual frame of reference on which they cannot seem to agree. And they may become quite dogmatic or adamant about it, as illustrated by the following quote. Say, for example, that you are working as a translation officer or project organizer in this sort of situation, how would you go about dialoguing and getting along with persons who hold such strong opinions? What kind of verbal argument or interpersonal tactic might be most effective in such a situation? Our views about the proper goal of a Bible translation should be determined primarily by the teachings of the Bible about its own character and the nature of its words, not by some secular linguistic theories, and not by our estimates of how much or how little an average non-Christian reader will understand. When dynamic equivalence translations again and again leave out the meaning of words that are there in the original Hebrew and Greek texts, and when they again and again add meanings that have no basis in the words of the original texts, they do not seem to me to be placing adequate emphasis on all the words of Scripture as the very words of God. By contrast, essentially literal translations seek to translate faithfully the contextually understood meanings of every word in the original texts. Therefore it seems to me that belief in the plenary inspiration of Scripture – the idea that all the words of Scripture are the words of God – strongly favors essentially literal translation of the Bible, and seriously calls into question the theory of dynamic equivalence translation. (Grudem 2005:55-56)

A different set of cognitive frames – modified by the variables of relative prominence, perceptibility, and perspective – becomes operative then whenever some new component is added to the “mix” of the prevailing communicative situation (or when an earlier existing factor is no longer relevant). This occurs even when the same basic

16

Ernst Wendland

language and cultural situation is involved, for example, with the introduction of a different geographical or temporal setting, another speaker or audience, a changed physical venue, a new medium of transmission, another type of text to be discussed, analyzed, or translated. These disparate frame constituents will obviously interact with and influence each other in different ways during any act of communication. Certain clashes in viewpoint (contrasts, contradictions, or divergences) may occur along two dimensions – that is, diachronically (between the old and a new set of frames) and/or synchronically (among different variables of the same cognitive set). Such differences first need to be recognized for what they are, before they can then (hopefully) be resolved by some previously agreed-upon organizational decision-making process. This may in turn require the establishment of a fixed priority rating or a recommended set of procedures that is determined specifically for the communication enterprise at hand – for example, when selecting the particular Scripture text and/or translation to be published first in a given community, or featured as part of a public billboard display advertisement, or used in a weekly radio broadcast, video documentary, literacy primer, a CD of popular religious songs, or an audio lay-leadership instructional program. EXERCISE-10 One of the most common and radical shifts in framework that can occur during the course of a given Bible translation project is when a new translator, usually a younger man (much less frequently a woman), replaces an older person on the translation team. In some cases two replacements are needed due to the retirement or ill-health of current staff members; occasionally an entire team must be chosen to take over, for example, once a NT has been completed and work begins on the OT.  What sorts of changes would you expect to see manifested in team working procedures and/or text production when this new member comes with a perspective (cognitive frame) and personal characteristics that involve the following combination of features (based on an actual situation in Zambia)? His two colleagues happen to be experienced, but not very competent Protestant pastors. Consider each quality first in isolation, and then as a total “package” embodied within a single individual (A) who has just joined the translation team in place of an elderly priest (B), who has been on the team since its inception a decade ago but has recently been appointed by the Bishop to teach at a major seminary: “A” is a young male aged 30 Roman Catholic Just recently completed seminary training Also has a university Masters degree in vernacular literature and oral art forms Speaker of a minority dialect of the TL Highly computer literate Revealed in interviews as being dynamic and gifted, but also a rather argumentative and opinionated person

Contextual frames of reference

17

 What measures can be taken to more effectively/smoothly incorporate a qualified person having such a diverse conceptual and psychological background into a team setting with established working procedures and the primary goal of producing a mutually-agreed upon ecumenical translation of the Scriptures?  What potential interpersonal problems will have to be addressed by the translation project coordinator (or administrator) in such a situation – and how might this be done? What might she or he do to adjust the prevailing “contextual frames of reference” in order to promote better understanding and harmony?  Give an example of this nature that you have witnessed, experienced, or had to deal with in your Bible translation experience: What sort of socio-religious disparity caused the problem and what kind of strategy was implemented to resolve it? EXERCISE-11 As the present chapter has suggested, and the rest of this coursebook will further explore, the notion of “context,” or “frames of reference,” is crucial in all types of communicative activity – oral and written, prosaic and poetic, secular and religious, and so forth, including original and translational discourse. The following seminar abstract suggests some of the cutting-edge research that is taking place in this interdisciplinary field of study. What is the importance of these efforts for the work of Bible translation? Do Bible translators need to be concerned about the “triggers” that the author refers to in the final sentence, for example, when preparing a draft of the book of Psalms? Explain your answer. Furthermore, how can readers (hearers) “get lost” as they read (hear) a poetic text? What kinds of “lostness” are there and what can translators do to prevent this from happening – at least partially and part of the time? Translating and the Search for Context It seems reasonable to assume that knowledge of how texts are constructed and interpreted will give us insights into their translation. One crucial element in the understanding of texts is the concept of context. Context can be viewed as something external to the text and the reader – a set of social, historical, political or linguistic circumstances – or as a mental representation of such circumstances. This latter notion – cognitive context – is important in explaining why poetic texts in particular allow multiple interpretations. In this seminar I want to explore what consequences this view of context as a cognitive entity has for the translation of poetry. If interpreting poetry involves the reader in a search for contexts, what are the triggers of this search and how can translation ensure that they do not get lost?

 How do the variables of prominence, perceptibility, and perspective interact in our stylistic evaluation of a choice of translations? Try to verbalize your aesthetic reactions to two different translations of a German poem by Meister (cited in Boase-Beier 2006:144). Compare both versions with the literal English gloss that is provided. This seminar, presented by Dr. Jean Boase-Beier of the University of East Anglia on 12/02/2007, is part of the Translation-Studies CTIS series held at the University of Manchester. The initial abstract was sent to me by Dr. James St André on 06/02/2007 ([email protected]). 

18

Ernst Wendland Der Abend kommt, the evening comes wo ich, where I am Menschen schleppend, on-the human-being pulling hin und up and her geh. down go -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evening comes when, Evening comes lugging a mortal, and I – I walk up weighted with being human – and down. walk up and down. (Dove 1996:112) (Boase-Beier 2003:97)

 How do these two translations differ in terms of the imagery that they evoke in your mind? If you know German, perhaps you can comment on which rendition you feel best captures the sense, significance, and frame of reference that was intended by the original poem. Perhaps you can suggest a point of revision. Even non-speakers might venture a guess – e.g., for the poem’s conclusion: (I)

walk here – and there.

 To what extent does a different sociocultural frame of reference affect the interpretation of a poem like this? Do you note any problematic aspects of meaning from the perspective of your situational setting? For example, in a central African context, anyone moving about at night “lugging a mortal” would be immediately branded as a despicable “witch” on the job!  Suggest how the observations made in the following quote (Boase-Beier 2006:144145) relate to the exercise that you just carried out, with special reference to the task of translation and the matter of how to deal with the crucial stylistic factor in relation to the respective “cognitive states” of author and reader (or hearer) of the text: One could argue that the corollary of accepting that stylistic figures have cognitive correlates is to say that all stylistic figures are inherently iconic: they are not just there, they represent states of mind, and because this is so they give rise to this state of mind in the reader. … But in the end all that any reading of a source text by the translator can do is collect evidence for a particular cognitive state, if it is a literary text, and fashion the target text to contain both implicatures for that cognitive state and enough open-endedness to maximally engage the reader. To explain: “[T]here are aspects of meaning which are weakly implied, usually by the style of the text. …[T]hose aspects of meaning which the linguistics determines. These are explicatures… But meaning in its entirety is by nature underdetermined by semantics, and it is pragmatics, rather than semantics, which helps interpret whatever the explicatures do not say. Such further interpretation is by inference rather than decoding, and depends on implicatures. … Implication is in the text, but an implicatures is attributed to a speaker: it is taken to involve an intention to suggest something” (Boase-Beier 2006:40, added boldface) in view of the prevailing situational setting and her/his “cognitive environment.” 

2. The context of the mind Cognitive frames of reference Dimensions of world-view: Cultural orientations The cognitive context is the most general or inclusive sort of perceptual/conceptual framework; in fact, it may be viewed as incorporating at least four distinct orientations as “sub-frames” (namely, the sociocultural, organizational, situational, and textual perspectives). This cognitive structure is more commonly termed “world/life-view” or “mental model.” It is a pervasive outlook on reality that is normally very broad in its range or scope, embracing the composite cognitive environment (CE) (Gutt 1992:21-23) of an entire society or community. In addition, this “context” may be taken in a more specific sense to refer to the psychological orientation of an individual or a distinct group of members within the society as a whole. The notion of a world-view (WV) thus refers either to an individual or a corporate conception of knowledge, being, and existence – in short, all of “reality.” It is a comprehensive frame of reference that governs a person/people’s perception and interpretation of life (and death), and which accordingly guides their overt verbal and physical behavior. This WV encompasses all their beliefs, presuppositions, attitudes, ideas, norms, traditions, values – even dreams – on the one hand, while on the other, it serves to motivate as well as to validate all of their concrete social and cultural activities, speech acts, customs, social institutions, artifact construction – and most important, their current perception of reality, evaluation of experience, and future planning. WV is the ultimate “context,” for it consists of the sum total of a society’s system of presuppositions about truth, reality, and human experience as lived in a particular cultural setting. Although a particular individual or communal (social, ethnic, national) world-view is implicit by nature, it is normally manifested by a set of characteristic and expected cultural orientations along with their associated overt behavioral preferences (i.e., “customs”). These may be understood as reflecting a person’s assumptions about, attitudes towards, and/or typical reactions to eight general circumstantial features, namely: time, space, the environment, power relations, individualism, competitiveness, structure, and thought processes (cf. Katan 2004:234-243). The importance of such factors lies in the fact that, taken together, they act as a broad contextual framework that greatly influences how people in a given society perceive, evaluate, and communicate with each other. Each of these eight WV orientations operates over a certain range of possibilities, although a specific culture usually adopts a certain preference for one end of the scale over against the other. They are partially defined below by means of a sequence of diagnostic, but only representative questions: • Causality: What accounts for the origin of everything in the universe: is it impersonal energy and random forces, evolutionary biological and social structures, or the sovereign will of “God” (or the gods)? What are the various forces

20

Ernst Wendland at work in the world, including society and culture, and how can these be controlled, manipulated, isolated, or enhanced? What is the relationship between all these causes and effects, and can humans somehow influence outcomes – e.g., through the correct performance of rituals, the practice of divination, prayers to the ancestral spirits or to god(s), the application of magical procedures, the use of sorcery and witchcraft? Does a supreme Deity exist, and if so, how does he (or she) relate to the universe and the world of human experience? How do people in turn relate to, and what do they expect from “God” (or their gods)? • Relationship: Is individualism a widespread social ideal, or is there an orientation rather towards collectivism and group thought or action? Is individualism or collectivism further reflected in a tendency towards universalism (e.g., mass-production, the “common good,” globalization) or particularism (e.g., “selfhood,” ethnic pride, cultural awareness)? How do people distinguish between “self” (we) and “other” (they), or between socially internal as opposed to external realities and phenomena in their environment? Is there an effort to maintain a social hierarchy during communal interaction, one based on birth or achievement, with status levels clearly defined and marked? Or is there a de-emphasis on, or even disregard for such interpersonal distinctions? Are “honorific” terms and other indications of respect (or the lack of it) strictly encoded in public speech? Do personal relationships end at death, or are they believed to continue beyond the grave, e.g., as departed benevolent or malevolent spirits or “ancestors”? • Thought: Are people oriented more towards deductive or inductive thinking – that is, do they prefer one-to-many “rational” theories and “logical” principles, or are many-to-one pragmatic actions and empirical observations more highly regarded and practiced? How do people view and classify the reality around them – in terms of conceptual categories that tend to be more general or more specific in composition and orientation? In other words, are they “lumpers” or “splitters”? Do they further tend to analyze life’s adverse or favorable phenomena as impersonal data and precise cause-and-effect sequences, or do they like to approach problems holistically and systematically, looking for personal relationships and implicit social connections? What do the answers to questions such as these reveal about the cognitive organization and preferences of the culture as a whole? • Environment: Do people generally feel that they are part and parcel of their environment or clearly distinct from it? Do they feel that they can control and manipulate an impersonal “nature,” or do they firmly believe that the natural environment, certain aspects of which may be personalized in the form of hostile forces, has the power to dominate, or at least directly influence them? In the latter case, do appropriate forms of mystical protection, magical countermeasures, or ancestral interventions need to be procured to make life livable and society sustainable? Are certain antagonistic personal or impersonal beings thought to be an integral part of the social “environment,” and if so, how can they be controlled or kept at bay?



I attribute these two colourful terms to Eugene A. Nida (from one of his dynamic lectures).

The context of the mind

21

• Structure: Does society feel uncomfortable or threatened by novelty, change, “progress,” and “development” – or do they welcome and encourage it? Do members of the community prefer a strictly maintained social order or relative flexibility in their interpersonal relationships? Is there a clearly defined (whether explicit or implicit) scale of social and/or economic status? Do people feel tightly or loosely bound to one another within society as a whole or in specific internal groupings? Do events that involve variation, uncertainty, and unpredictability tend to challenge or confuse the group? How do people regard or relate to “outsiders” and their “foreign” ways (cf. relationship)? • Competition: As an aspect of their Structure of Relationships (see above), do people tend to view fellow members of the same community as competitors or as team-mates? In other words, do they emphasize competitiveness in their social activities, manifesting the constant desire to “get ahead” and “succeed” – or is there a preference instead for mutual cooperation and to work as well as play together? Do they “live to work” as individuals, or “work to live” as members of a cohesive communal group (organization, association, fellowship, guild, company, “congregation/parish,” etc.)? • Time: Are people “task/schedule/clock-oriented,” or governed more by personal relationships, human needs, and the “cycle of nature”? Is time more or less “fixed” or “fluid” in character and operation? Is society primarily past, present, or future oriented, i.e., is there an emphasis upon ancestral “tradition,” the immediate “here-and-now,” or some future idealized time of well-being and general prosperity (a “millennium”) or of personal and social “fulfillment”? • Space: Are there limits on private “space” but a great deal of public area in common – or is there a general concern for obtaining and maintaining one’s “personal privacy” (and “property”)? During public conversation, do people allow much or little (if any) physical contact, and how closely do they stand with respect to each other? How do they deal with the determination of location (e.g., “inner” versus “outer”), distance, and direction? What governs their system of personal and social orientation during thought and discourse – SELF, the most “honorable” individual present, or some other point of primary reference? EXERCISE-1  Do have any corrections or modifications to suggest that would augment or improve the preceding classification of general assumptions? Perhaps you would like to combine certain categories or add others. If so, give reasons for your proposed changes. Having completed your revision, how would you prioritize items of the listing that you arrive at?  How would you evaluate and classify your own society and culture in terms of the eight conceptual orientations given above (as you have revised them)? Obviously, all eight orientations are interrelated and a strict priority listing is probably impossible – but can you identify some as being more important as far as your sociocultural frame of reference is concerned?

22

Ernst Wendland

 Consider the following as a specific example of the cultural orientation of reasoned “thought” as it relates to translating Bible texts into your language (adapted from Levinsohn 2006:4): Inductive writing is characterized as having the thesis statement in the final position. Deductive writing has the thesis statement in the initial position (see Connor 1996:42). [For example,] 1 Corinthians 1:4–9 leads up to the exhortation of 10. In other words, these verses could be said to have inductive style, with the hortatory THESIS in the final position. In contrast, the hortatory THESIS of 10 is followed by supportive material (in the first instance, vs. 11–17 (Terry 1995:172). In other words, this part of the text has deductive style. In fact, while examples of inductive reasoning periodically occur in 1 Corinthians 6, much of the book follows deductive reasoning. Terry (1995:91) points out “the presence of an inductive argument style in which the reasons, motivational material, and contrastive elements are presented before the actual point of the paragraph is revealed.”

 Does this summary of the difference between inductive and deductive discourse seem to fit the facts of your language? If not, explain the problems you encounter with reference to translating 1 Cor. 1:4-17. EXERCISE-2  If you belong to a non-Western culture, give your general impression of the Westerners that you happen to know – that is, on a comparative basis in relation to the variables listed above. Do the opposite if you are the member of a Western society. Do you distinguish among “Western” societies (e.g., “American” as distinct from “European”), and if so – why, or on what basis? How are “non-Western” cultures differentiated?  Give an example of where a certain aspect of your general cultural orientation or frame of reference caused a misunderstanding or some other difficulty when communicating with a person of a different group. Try to explain what happened and why – and how the problem might have been avoided, either by you or the other party (-ies) involved.  How would you define “culture” and “world-view”? What do you see as the main implications for Bible translation / translators of a thorough consideration of such abstract issues? Give a practical example.  What do you think of the following definition of culture? “Culture is an effort to provide a coherent set of answers to the existential situations that confront all human beings in the passage of their lives” (Daniel Bell). What are the main “existential situations” would naturally be included here in your particular culture? What happens when the familiar “answers” provided in a given society (ethnic community) are no longer satisfying, relevant, acceptable, or “coherent,” e.g., when a significant number of people adopt a new set of religious principles and precepts? How do people, or different groups within your society, generally deal with “culture change” – in fear, worry, anger, antagonism, acceptance, etc.? How do people (or sub-groups) deal with proposed religious changes and modifications? Give a recent instance of this. This quotation was cited on the CD essay entitled “Secularism and the illusion of neutrality” by Ravi Zecharias (Norcross, GA: RZIM, 2005). 

The context of the mind

23

EXERCISE-3 As noted in an earlier exercise, use of the ubiquitous cell phone is revolutionizing communication all over the world, from the most to the least affluent or politically “open” society. The functions that these cell phones perform are being continually diversified and made more sophisticated, for example, enabling the user to access the internet, send or receive text messages, even record and transmit photos or videos.  How do the cultural orientations listed above serve as a framework to help explain the changes that are taking place with regard to interpersonal communication in your local community? Give several examples.  Are the majority of messages conveyed by cell phones in your society more “informational” or “interactional” in character – that is, is there a greater emphasis on the transmission on content(facts) (informative function of communication) or personal contact (relational function)? Or is the nature of the message much more flexible, depending specifically on who is speaking to whom and in what setting or situation? If the latter applies, list a number of the most important message-determining factors.  As “xth generation” cell phones come to dominate and monopolize more and more of society’s time, energy, interest, attention, and expenditure, do you anticipate ways of capitalizing on this potential communication highway for the sake of accomplishing specific religious goals, e.g., the transmission of Scripture texts? Explain your vision of the future in this regard.

With reference to the specific set of beliefs that characterize and define a particular organization or some other segment of society, their world-view may be said to constitute a distinct ideology, which determines how its adherents interpret and evaluate their world – including all outsiders who interact with them or impinge upon their local environment. An ideology is characteristic of certain social institutions or voluntary associations, whether secular or religious (the “organizational” frame is considered more fully in chapter 4), and it also serves to give the group unity, cohesion, purpose, a set of values, and a sense of direction. Such an ideology governs how members of the particular organization live and interact with each other as a distinct segment within the society and culture as a whole, for example, by motivating or encouraging certain behaviors while prohibiting others and working to modify still others. The association known as “Alcoholics Anonymous,” for example, promotes a rather strict set of rules and rituals that are intended to help its members work together both socially and psychologically to avoid the consumption of intoxicating beverages, e.g., through regular meetings, relational mentors, and the practice of total abstinence.

Cognitive filters How does an ideology, or indeed the larger conceptual structure of a given society that incorporates it, affect human communication – that is, to function as an automatic blocker, enhancer, reinforcer, modifier, etc. of verbal as well as non-verbal messages? A particular world-view appears to do this by means of a culturally-based

24

Ernst Wendland

system of cognitive filters, arranged as it were in a hypothetical hierarchy of levels that are closely related to the eight situational aspects of social orientation outlined above. These considerations represent a more situation-specific way of describing and evaluating actual communication events, such as those that are involved in Bible translation and related activities (e.g., Scripture research, publication, distribution, marketing, engagement). The following then is a summary description of “culture” (in general) as factored into a combination of constituent orientative perspectives as they relate to different types of interpersonal communication in varied cultural settings. We begin with what is perhaps the most important of these facets of “insider” perception, the underlying personal or public belief system, and move down the cline of relative influence – but up the scale of individual or communal consciousness, i.e., a sense of the surrounding natural or social environment thus being most apparent (Katan 2004:52-57). Each of the seven categories again includes sample questions that may be used to investigate the web of cognitive and perceptual relationships that apply with respect to a given person or group (i.e., when functioning as a unit) as they interact during any communicative event: • Belief System – What are the basic truths about knowledge, reality, and the world, including religion and morality, that each communicator accepts as a “given” – i.e., valid, important, reliable, authoritative, etc.? These convictions derive from enculturation, learning, and personal experience, and each may be more or less strongly or permanently held, depending on influence from the levels below. In other words, certain less strongly held beliefs can be modified due to various situational influences, human as well as non-human. What are some factors that might affect the belief system of your society? • Sense of Identity – Who are the respective communicators in terms of their social, cultural, and organizational status or role within the community compared with others present in the particular context of communication? How does each perceive him/herself with regard to personal worth and importance (self-image) in relation to the other parties involved? How does one’s social group evaluate itself in relation to others with which they coexist? • Set of Values – Why is “this,” as distinct from “that,” person (role), characteristic, activity, or belief relatively important or unimportant on any given occasion? The basic core values of a person (or group) are formed in response to the most essential perceived (felt) needs in life, and they serve to shape both what people believe and also how they regard others in society. Such values govern how individuals (groups) live as distinct from less important evaluative considerations termed “attitudes,” which can change or be changed over time and in response to external human and environmental factors, including the persuasive force of words (arguments). What set of values motivates each member of the current pair (or group) of communicators? What are the situationspecific criteria that allow them to determine whether or not they are achieving their respective aims in terms of value-enhancement, goal accomplishment, or shame-avoidance / honor-attainment?

The context of the mind

25

• Range of Capabilities – What key characteristics make it possible for a person to survive and prosper in life as a functioning member of a given social group, organization, or association? What are the essential cognitive, emotive, and physical skills, strategies, and abilities, that enable individuals to behave as publicly expected, perform according to communally-established standards, or carry out some/most of their personally desired goals for “success” in life? On the other hand, what are the crucial social limitations or flaws (e.g., lack of education, an ethnocentric attitude) that might diminish or have a negative effect upon a person’s self image (e.g., shame, suspicion) during communication with the result that she or he will not be able to defend or maintain her/his adopted set of values, or worse, certain core elements of his or her belief system? • Inventory of Resources – Which concrete assets and possessions are already on hand or readily obtainable (whether self-owned or available from others) to enable one to succeed in maximizing personal and/or group “capabilities” (see above) when engaged in the pursuit of a particular communicative objective? What special abilities, aptitudes, or assets are also needed to achieve such goals, or to prevent failure or a sub-standard performance? To what extent is the present communication event and text production dependent upon some technical or externally supplied aids (e.g., human, financial)? How likely is it that all these necessary resources or provisions can be obtained? • Behavioral Options – What immediate choices does a person have in terms of verbal and/or non-verbal behaviors in order to increase the possibility of accomplishing her/his personal goals during any given communication event? To what extent are these local options controlled by his or her “capabilities,” by the “resources” available, or by some other critical restrictive factor (e.g., temporary or chronic illness, local customs, negative in-group attitudes, an unruly or absent audience)? What strategies can be engaged to overcome any deficiencies, limitations, or outright barriers in these different areas? • Environment – Is there anything in the present temporal, spatial, or non-human circumstantial setting that threatens to prevent or restrict overall efficiency or effectiveness with regard to the current act of communication – e.g., thunderstorm, a major conflicting or competing activity (such as the planting or harvest season), a power or equipment failure, the lack of sufficient time? Is any potentially negative feature (e.g., a recent disaster or fatality in the community) likely to affect the attitude, emotions, or strategies of the communicators – and if so, how? Positive, enterprise-enhancing factors can also be considered, but these are generally less important in terms of precise goal setting, although they can certainly affect the psychological atmosphere that underlies the various verbal and non-verbal communicative activities being simultaneously or sequentially carried out. EXERCISE-4  Discuss these seven overlapping factors in relation to Bible communication in your cultural setting. Which are the two most important in determining the prevailing cognitive frame of reference regarding vernacular Scripture production and use? Why

26

Ernst Wendland

are these two factors so important? Do other factors, not mentioned above, need to be considered or researched?  Van Steenbergen draws attention to the importance of carrying out such detailed “worldview analysis” (as illustrated by the two sets of cultural orientations listed above) when producing a Bible translation. He also presents several general guidelines for carrying out such research (2007:39-40): A worldview analysis is distinctly different from a purely exegetical exercise. It looks for possible assumptions underlying actual or desired behavior, while it also looks for certain conceptual structures (which may or may not be consciously present) that explain people’s perception of reality. If the proposed worldview analysis is carried out for both the source and the receptor cultures, it will bring out clearly where the differences are at a conceptual level. The analysis will then show which encyclopedic information is relevant for the reader in order to have access to the full semantic contents of the text. The analysis of the worldview variables should take the text as point of departure and not the model of worldview variables on which the analysis is based. … The contents of the books should therefore not be forced into the framework of the model, but its application should flow naturally from the text. It is impossible to construct an entire worldview system on the basis of a corpus of data that was produced for a specific purpose, such as the corpus that we have available for Bible translation. … Other sources of information could possibly be found in non-canonical texts and archeology.

 Point out the implications of the preceding observations and proposals for the translation project that you are engaged in. For example, how can “relevant encyclopedic information” be best conveyed in your setting – textually as part of the translation itself, paratextually in the form of footnotes, or extratextually by means of supplementary publications? What are the guidelines that have been adopted by your translation program to deal with issues such as this?  Compare the world-view typically manifested by the words, attitudes, and behavior of the “average person” in your culture (or, if the preceding is too difficult to discern, what is reflected in your oral and/or literary tradition) with that expressed by the injunctions given below (Matthew 5:3-10, NIV – added boldface). Where are the main similarities and points of contrast? What implications do you see with regard to developing an effective strategy for communicating a world-view perspective like the following in your society today? “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. 3

The context of the mind

27

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 7

EXERCISE-5  The information given in Table 3 represents an effort to “map the basic differences between the ancient personality and the modern (Western) one”; it is a summary comparison for which we must remember that “in many categories we cannot speak of a dichotomy, but rather a modification of degree.” How helpful to you are such generalizations? Evaluate this attempt to provide a cognitive frame of reference for biblical and modern man – do you have any significant corrections or modifications to suggest? In a group discussion, clarify or redefine any problematic terms that have been given below.  Next, assess these same categories with reference to your own people and their particular ethnic “personality” (i.e., perhaps in place of the “Western”). Finally, suggest what possible implications such studies might have for Bible translation work. ANCIENT PERSONALITY mystical thought patterns mythological thought ritual thought concrete thinking bricolage (an assemblage process) imaginative thinking collectivist high sense of dependency conformation to social groups obligation to follow less bounded and integrated less self-regulating

MODERN WESTERN PERSONALITY mechanical, scientific thinking historical thinking psychological thought abstract thinking engineering rational thinking individualistic sense of independency expression of personal characteristics freedom to choose both bounded and integrated more self-regulating

Table 3: Ancient versus modern Western personalities compared

Cognitive environment The psychological component of the various situational factors mentioned above, when specified with reference to a particular individual, would constitute part of what These quotes are taken from Krijn van der Jagt (2002:109); the chart has been adapted from information provided on p. 110. 

28

Ernst Wendland

Relevance Theory (RT) terms that person’s “cognitive environment” (CE), which in the event of a specific instance of communication is equivalent to her/his prevailing conceptual “context.” In this view, context becomes an all-encompassing rational construct, composed of a vast array of personal beliefs and assumptions about theworld, including specific elements of a person’s knowledge, associations, and inferences (propositional, or logical, as well as empirical) that stem from the following accessible sources: prior learning, both formal and informal, positive or negative past experiences, good as well as bad the immediate physical and social environment the present co-textual setting of any verbal text under consideration current conjectures (including those that pertain to the assumed CEs of other interlocutors on the scene) • all other perceptible communicative stimuli (semiotic verbal or non-verbal signs, including the text which she or he is presently reading, watching, and/or listening to) • non-communicative stimuli, that is, any random noise that happens to be manifested in the current setting, perhaps even hindering the current process of communication • those particular or general, positive or negative, emotions, attitudes, values, etc. that happen to be associated with any of the preceding elements. • • • • •

To what extent is an individual’s CE influenced by that of the group? Most social anthropologists would answer – “to a considerable degree,” all the more so in smaller, tightly-knit, communal face-to-face societies. Yet even in more individualistic cultures, the pressure exerted upon members of a group to conform in terms of thinking and behavior is considerable. Otherwise, society as a whole would not function well, if at all. In summary, the general cognitive frame-work, or world-view of a people, organization, sub-group, or individual serves as an implicit, presupposed monitor, manager, and motivator. It thus functions to assemble, assimilate, arrange, assess, and apply all the diverse kinds of information that are being contributed from the sociocultural, institutional, situational, and textual (sub-) frames. This includes situationally-determined sets of preferred cultural orientations as summarized above (environment, time, space, logic, etc.) as well as the various interpersonal levels that organize all communication events in society (concerning beliefs, identity, values, etc.). Furthermore, we must keep in mind that such “context models are not static mental representations, but dynamic structures. They are ongoingly constructed and reconstructed by each participant in an event” (van Dijk, 2001:18, cited in Baker, 2006:328). The cognitive frame thus acts as a master mental control panel which organizes these different variables into a (seemingly) unified and coherent conceptual structure, one that enables people to perceive and interrelate the different aspects of their world of knowledge, experience, and anticipation (goals, hopes, dreams, etc.). Any internal contradictions, inconsistencies, disparities, or gaps do not surface unless

The context of the mind

29

they occasion a major distortion in their understanding of reality and the environment or, alternatively, cause some serious breakdown in communication or social behavior, either on the personal or corporate level. On the other hand, every society also has certain culturally-derived “blind spots” which prevent them from recognizing that some of their beliefs and practices may be quite foolish, inefficient, incomprehensible, or even offensive to people who belong to a different culture. This is especially true with regard to factors that pertain to their underlying (not often overtly expressed) sense of identity, assumptions about life and death, moral code, and value system. Mismatches in these fundamental areas of the cognitive environment inevitably lead, sooner or later, to intercultural misperception, misinterpretation, and miscommunication. The results of such skewing will be more or less serious and consequential for interpersonal relationships, depending on the magnitude of the apparent violation, who the violator(s) happen(s) to be, and the nature of the immediate social setting – that is, how relatively important the situation happens to be (e.g., a foreign evangelist using humour while preaching a sermon during public worship versus when visiting later with members casually in the church courtyard). EXERCISE-6 Consider the following scenario involving some obvious miscommunication due to culturally-based cognitive mismatches. This concerns certain south-central Bantu funeral customs that occur at the death of a mature man or woman as observed by an American visitor on the scene: Custom --divination to determine who caused this death

African interpretation a witch/sorcerer must be discovered and punished

American interpretation silly superstition; more important to find out the medical cause

--wailing, sleep deprivation, no bathing, wear poor clothes

bereaved must demonstrate overt sorrow for the deceased

such actions are “over the top”; smacks of “play-acting”

--funerary rituals last at least three days, more in the past

shows proper respect for the dead, support for the survivors

a waste of time; the people have have nothing better to do anyway

--elaborate grave-digging and burial practices

departed spirit will punish any violations of ritual procedure

quaint customs, most signs of symbolism are not even perceived

--extensive post-burial eulogy by relatives and dignitaries

given so as not to offend the spirit of the departed

exessive, but seems to provide comfort for the bereaved family

--person buried along with many favorite personal items

so the spirit will not come back to trouble the living for them

more superstition; there is no such thing as a “lingering” spirit

--ritual “cleansing” of the surviving spouse, with much sexual symbolism

prevents a return of the spirit to “take” spouse to oneself; only clan elders are involved

like the divination, this practice probably hidden from aliens; they would not understand it anyway

For cultural insiders, a typical African funeral event incorporates one act of individual and corporate communication within many others, all of which are intricately inter-related

30

Ernst Wendland

and given vital symbolical significance by the cultural-religious framework provided by their traditional world-view. For the Western outsider, on the other hand, there is no coherence and very little that makes sense. Consequently, most of the visible ritual practices are attributed to inert ethnic “custom” or to pagan “superstition” – neither of which has any real “rational” meaning at all, except to show a certain amount of reverence for the deceased for the benefit of the bereaved.  What would the various African funeral customs summarized above communicate to people of your own cultural background? What major similarities and differences do you observe, or what ritual “substitutes” would there be if carried out in a typical local setting of your community?  How does the fact and social consequences of death relate in terms of influence or significance to the different aspects of a culturally-defined perspective listed earlier (sense of identity, beliefs, values, etc.)? Explain the principal relevance that you see in relation to what you consider to be the most important variable – first in an African cultural setting, and then your own. EXERCISE-7 Describe some of the most important similarities and differences that pertain to acts of verbal or non-verbal communication as manifested in the following biblical accounts about funeral customs and burials and compared to what you would find in your own cultural setting. Explain those differences that result from disparities in your respective world-views. Sarah (Gen. 23) Jacob (Gen. 49:29-50:14) Saul (1 Sam. 31:8-13) Abner (2 Sam. 3:31-39) The man of God (1 Kgs. 13:23-32) Lazarus (John 11) Jesus Christ (Lk. 23:50-56)

 Would any of the cultural differences that you noted in these passages affect their translation into your language? Explain. EXERCISE-8 At least three different religious frames of reference motivate the contrastive speech and behavior that is recorded in Acts 14:8-20.  Summarize the major conceptual disparities that apparently caused the communication break-down(s) that you observe in this text.  Have you witnessed a similar event involving the Scriptures and/or Scripture communicators in your cultural setting, especially in the case of some apparently

The context of the mind

31

miraculous occurrence? How can you best explain such reactions and verbal responses in terms of your own language and cultural categories?

A grid-group perspective The varied sets of cultural orientations and related perceptual considerations discussed above may be reduced to a “grid/group” theory of social preference and behavior by using the model of the anthropologist Mary Douglas (1993:42-62; cf. 1970). Grid refers to the relative amount of social structure that is manifested by the people of a given culture, while group refers to their degree of preference for social solidarity. The negative-positive intersection of these values along two parameters creates the possibility of four idealized cultural models. Each of these suggests the manner in which members of the designated community or social segment tend to express their relative preference for solidarity and structure in everyday life – that is, in terms of their economy, religion, politics, educational system, art forms and life-style. The four behavioral models are briefly described after the representative diagram of Figure 6. + GRID

Isolationist (+/-) Alienation is the norm

Cultural Clusters (+/+) Hierarchist Cooperation within structure

Individualist (-/-) Individual competition

(-/+) Enclavist Cooperation in dissent

Increasing limits on personal freedom  Increasing social solidarity  + GROUP Figure 6: Four cultural orientations according to grid/group theory theory Figure 6: Four cultural orientations according to grid/group

• Hierarchists (+ grid, + group): represented by a socialist economy and welfare state as well as by a typical traditional, face-to-face, non-industrialized, ethnically homogenous society; it manifests a social structure in which everyone knows their place, thus giving people a certain sense of security, but with little individual freedom; the manifestation of “personal initiative” is not encouraged – rather, the ideal is to play one’s expected role within the public system throughout one’s life. • Individualists (- grid, - group): represented by a typical capitalistic, goodsdriven, market economy in which there is a “free” exchange (but often for a price!) of merchandise, produce, ideas, values, practices, etc.; “progress” and personal achievement are eagerly sought after and rewarded, so a high level of competition in any public activity is expected; conspicuous consumption is The discussion in the remainder of this section is developed and adapted (by permission) from Bascom (2003). 

32

Ernst Wendland not only a badge of wealth and prestige, it is at the same time a demonstration of the individual’s general lack of concern for the group. • Enclavists (+ group, - grid): represented by sectarian, often utopian groups that maintain their distinct standing and identity within a larger national or ethnic society; members value their personal freedom and therefore a well-defined institutional structure does not develop; instead, they are strongly united around and in devotion to a particular public issue, cause, crisis, or grievance (e.g., the environment, animal rights, nuclear non-proliferation, anti-war, taxes, etc.); consequently, their membership is often temporary, though it is normally very vigorously, even zealously pursued while they are active in their specific struggle. • Isolationists (+ grid, - group): these are the down-and-outs of society – the homeless, welfare-dependent, frequently disenfranchised, exploited, lower-class individuals and others living on the margins of the community at large; they are not organized into any form of socially active or influential organization, but are often “grouped” either by default (e.g., poverty, lack of education) or by force into some disparaged, stereotyped social category; its members are often unwilling to change or cooperate, and as a result they may face various types of physical and social persecution or avoidance; in their amorphous, fragmented “society” there is often an implicit hierarchy based on the principle that “might makes right.”

As suggested by these summaries, the enclavist and isolationist cultures and subgroups tend to be more unstable and hence less long-lived as distinct entities within the wider community. They are also much less influential in or important to the society at large, most isolationist persons in particular. The well organized and strongly led hierarchist and individualist cultural types, on the other hand, are always the most powerful and dominant – unless their representatives happen to be in competition with each other in the same social environment, for then the strife between them will inevitably be fierce and unrelenting, until one cognitive mode and its associated behavioral model wins a clear victory over the other. One feature seems to characterize each of the three functioning cognitive-social models, however (excluding the isolationists), and that is the implicit acceptance of their general cultural character, coupled with a corresponding lack of self-criticism on the part of their respective members. People are naturally prejudiced about, and attached to their own point of view; they also tend to steadfastly maintain the perspectives and uphold the values of the group to which they belong without giving the matter much critical thought, certainly not to the possibility of there being any advantage to another viewpoint or way of doing things. Internal differences of opinion and practice do arise on the organizational level, but in times of crisis or conflict (e.g., a time of war), these will be quickly forgotten in the interest of “our traditional culture and way of life.” This fourfold framework can be applied as a way of broadly identifying the diverse components that comprise any culture (as above). It may also be used to describe the relatively distinct and independent organizations or movements that occur within it – or comparatively, the correspondents found in a different cultural era. Taking the category

The context of the mind

33

of religion, for example, and the sub-type known as “Christianity,” we might diagram a hypothetical set of the chief behavioral possibilities as shown in Figure 7. Christianity Isolationist Some forms of Asceticism

Hierarchist Roman Catholicism

Individualist Evangelical Protestantism

Enclavist New Testament era Christianity

Figure 7: Four general cultural orientations in christianity

Figure 7: Four general cultural orientations in Christianity

EXERCISE-9  Notice the classification of NT Christianity in Figure 7 as “enclavist” in nature: would you agree – and why, or why not? What about the specific designations of Catholicism and (evangelical) Protestantism?  From the perspective of this diagram, the history of modern Europe and North America, for example, may be viewed as involving a general movement from hierarchist to individualist modes. Whether in politics (the French and American Revolutions), the arts (the Renaissance), or science (the Enlightenment), or religion (the Reformation), the trend has generally been from the upper right to the lower left. Would you agree with such a broad assessment? If not, what would you suggest by way of revision or an alternative interpretation? If Western sociocultural history is not familiar to you, make a similar comparative evaluation in terms of the culture that dominates your particular world region (e.g., Asian, African, Oceanic, Islamic).  How then would you describe the major religious domains of your own society in terms of these four major cultural categories? For example, are strong Catholic and Protestant churches represented in your community? If not, what representative replacements can you suggest? If you work in a strong Islamic area, how does this prominent religion-culture fit into the above framework? What about a local ancestral religion?  How does the prevailing religious grid of your life-setting affect the establishment, organization, and management of Bible translation projects in the region? Do you know of any conflicts that have arisen on account of the different group and grid orientations of the denominations participating in any local translation project? If so, try to summarize their respective causes and the solutions or compromises that had to be put into place in order to promote a harmonious, cooperative, and conciliatory movement towards a successful outcome.

34

Ernst Wendland

 Note that even apparent “doctrinal” or “organizational” differences of opinion can often be related to more fundamental divergences with regard to cultural orientation, for example, between the contrasting “hierarchist” and “individualist” positions of missionaries who founded and perhaps continue to fund (hence influence) a local church body. Describe any conflict of interest of this nature that you have experienced / are aware of.

Now consider the concept of “faith” in the light of these same contextual distinctions. Faith (emunah) in the Hebrew Bible (which promotes a theocracy favoring a hierarchist orientation) is almost always presented in terms of the active notion of faithfulness to the group and to the established leadership. Thus, there is normally some evident behavioral component that is present in the context of normal biblical usage. In a society that values class solidarity, it is not surprising that this is so. The New Testament religious situation is quite different, however, as indicated on Figure 7 above. The nascent Christian community was enclavist in nature, and this might suggest a view of faith (pistis) as being more along the lines of a deeply committed “trust” or “reliance” (i.e., upon God/Christ; cf. Paul’s reinterpretation of the Habakkuk citation “the just shall live by [their] faith[fulness]” in Romans 1:17). Nevertheless, the action-based dimension of “faith” would still be operative because of the central “cause” to which all members of the Christian community were totally committed, i.e., to the principles enunciated by “their Lord” (e.g., Rom. 5-6). From a modern perspective within individualist (Western) cultures, on the other hand, rational (cognitively-oriented) “belief,” or strength of personal “conviction” is usually emphasized – almost divorced from any notion of associated “works.” This is especially true of certain Evangelical Protestant churches which seem to have misinterpreted the epistle of James and some basic Reformation principles. Such a position obviously differs considerably from a biblical conception of “faith,” in either the OT or NT, a cognitive mismatch which must have some serious practical implications both for individual “believers” and the church bodies concerned. Finally, for isolationists, it is difficult to predict how they might conceive of “faith” since its biblical dimensions are so foreign to their world of experience. Thus, one can surmise that faith for them would tend to be largely self-referential: “I can believe only in me” (which sounds strangely similar to the common contemporary American secularist slogan “Just believe in yourself!”). These four possibilities may be diagrammed as shown in Figure 8. “Faith” Isolationist “Self” -confidence (?)

Individualist Belief/certainty/conviction

Hierarchist Commitment/loyalty (faithfulness)

Enclavist Personal trust/hope

Figure 8: Four cultural perspectives on “faith” Figure 8: Four cultural perspectives on “faith”

The context of the mind

35

A study of this nature suggests how important it is for Bible translators to first identify their own culture category before proceeding to investigate the biblical type which contextualizes the texts that they happen to be translating. The results of such a comparative exercise must then be practically applied in their overall communicative endeavor. For example, they might need to elucidate (e.g., by means of explanatory notes) the crucial OT covenantal concepts of communal commitment and loyalty within an individualistic society that stresses personal belief and conviction, or alternately, apostolic ideas of personal trust and reliant hope when working in a communally-oriented TL group that values broad social solidarity and hierarchy. Strong individualists often understand loyalty negatively as an externally imposed duty, while hierarchists may view trust or hope as being too weak to sustain the various anthropomorphic relationships between God and humans described in Scripture. Thus translators and their consultants, as cultural and textual mediators, often have to finesse or nuance these divergent notions – and a host of other key biblical concepts – one way or the other, whether textually (e.g., by means of some figurative usage in the vernacular) or extratextually (e.g., by means of a standard glossary entry). They must do this in order to remain true to the presumed goals of original communication event as well as ensure (to the extent possible) that the intended audience derives from the translated text a (more) correct understanding of the source message, one that has not been overly distorted by a local traditional perspective or, indeed, the semantics of the target language itself. Clearly, a considerable amount of comparative research and analysis must be devoted to such an exercise to try and keep the inevitable cognitive and emotive mismatch incurred by a modern translation of an ancient religious text to a minimum. EXERCISE-10  What is the common conception of “faith” in your language-culture, and how does this relate to an OT as well as a NT perspective and text usage? Give some examples to illustrate your answer.  What expressions for “faith” (πίστις) are used in your translation of the Romans 1:17 passage referred to above (the word occurs several times)? Try to describe each selected vernacular word or phrase with respect to its primary diagnostic and associated semantic and connotative components in comparison to related English expressions such as: “faith,” “trust,” or “hope.” Include some consideration of any pertinent cotextual and contextual influences that need to be factored into this comparative lexical analysis and evaluation. Then give three common, but different secular (non-biblical, religious) settings in which your TL term (or terms) for “faith” might be used.  Analyze the different communication barriers and break-downs that are recorded in Acts 8 in terms of differing cognitive frames of reference: What apparently went wrong in each case, and what did different, culturally-specific world-view (including religious) perspectives have to do with it?

3. Why we do things the way we do

Sociocultural frames

The constraint of “custom” Why do “we” (the members of a particular in-group) perform most of the regular activities of life in a predictable, almost automatic way? Of course, there is personal choice involved, but people are often surprised when they are shown how often their decisions regarding how to behave in familiar or standard social situations are culturally defined in accordance with a complex set of implicit traditions, conventions, and norms. And these often differ – to a greater or lesser extent – from the habits and routines of some other ethnic group, even one that lives in close proximity. This is why it is relatively easy to identify a foreigner on the scene; he or she does not speak or act according to “the rules” or local custom (our ways). Consider the following example: EXERCISE-1 When making a purchase at a traditional African curio market, shoppers must understand the practice of local “bargaining”: According to this custom, the original price is deliberately set at least twice as high as the product is worth. The buyer knows this, but cannot immediately propose to pay a price that is half what was asked for (which could imply that the seller is dishonest in asking for so much to begin with, or that his or her artifact is really not worth very much at all). Instead, the buyer must dialogue to work the original price down in stages to what she or he thinks the item is really worth, based on past experience and current market conditions. She or he may even have to “walk away,” having reached that desired price with no agreement – just to see if the seller will follow/call out after him/her, to extend the bargaining process a little longer. Usually, that is the indirect sign that the merchant has finally agreed, more or less willingly. A foreigner (most likely a Westerner), who knows neither the local value of things nor this method of progressive negotiation over a sale, might be tempted either (a) to naively pay the initially stated price, or (b) to walk away without dickering at all, thinking that the price is fixed and too high. Why does a native person or resident know how to bargain in this manner, while an alien does not? Experience has created the relevant cognitive sociocultural frame for locals, together with an assortment of associated expectations, procedures, and even suitable texts to verbalize during the bargaining process. An outsider, on the other hand, who does not know these unwritten rules of speech and conduct, continues to perceive the situation and react as if she or he were “back home.” She or he may even break local norms in giving a hostile or insulting response – obvious verbal or non-verbal signals of extreme frustration or obvious anger (perhaps even accusing the seller of cheating or “inflating” the prices because the speaker happens to be an alien), improper gestures or facial expressions, and the like.

Why we do things the way we do

37

 Have you ever witnessed this sort of behavior? Summarize a situation that you have experienced, which illustrates the importance of speaking and acting properly within implicit sociocultural frames of reference.  Can we extend this lesson to behavior in church-related activities? Have you ever witnessed innocent, but inappropriate words or actions on the part of foreigners who happened to be attending a religious function where you were present? What was the problem and what sociocultural unawareness caused it?

In this section I discuss cognitive frames that are specific to both individual and corporate perspectives within a particular type of sociocultural situation, regardless of the language that is used to describe it. This applies also to a “world language” like English or to any language of wider communication (LWC) that is used differently in diverse cultural regions (e.g., Swahili as spoken along coastal Tanzania, in Nairobi, Kenya, around Lake Victoria, Uganda, or in the eastern hill country of the DR Congo). The language may be the same, but the people who speak it are often culturally quite diverse. This fact inevitably has an effect upon how the language is used both formally and semantically. The customs of certain local speech patterns, vernacular turns of phrase, and socially-appropriate argument strategies may thus be revealed when people speak a “second language,” for example, English in Zambia – “Zamlish,” as it is sometimes called in the daily press. The following excerpt, for example, comments on a published report about flooding in certain parts of the country: Substantively, it is a fact that in the recent weeks rains have been heavy in certain areas than in others. … It is important to explain the floods that have caused these disasters. … These floods are more pronounced in low ground dambos [marshy areas] because of the soil texture. … The second type of flood arises by rivers/streams bursting their banks thereby affecting any crop field or infrastructure, human made or otherwise that the water comes across with. These are flashy floods. The impact of these floods is that they pass and go. … [T]he water quickly swims off in the down stream directions, leaving crops to survive… These undestroyed structures include houses of stronger description. It is the stagnant waters that are most devastating to crop fields and houses. Having explained the flood/rain water scenario above, and having alluded that rain has in recent weeks been heavy in places, it is however, not correct that every house that has fatally collapsed has been due to the rains. … The article appears to heavily draw a lot of data from Zambia Red Cross Society whom the reporter may have mouth by nose interviewed. … The Zambian government is for God and we learn from the story of Noah’s Ark that God promised his people not to use water again to destroy them but eternal fire. … (Zambia Daily Mail of Thursday, February 1, 2007, p. 8).

High-context versus low-context communication One general method of sociocultural classification is based on a people being regarded as more or less text (or context) oriented. The anthropologist Edward Hall has proposed

38

Ernst Wendland

that the members of any culture will tend to have a shared bias towards communicating either explicitly through a verbal text or more implicitly through the social context. Thus people will prefer a situation of either High Context Communication (HCC, i.e., minimal text) or Low Context Communication (LCC, i.e. maximal text), as illustrated in Figure 9.

TEXT Culture A: high Text low Context Culture B: low Text high Context

CONTEXT Figure 9: High versus low context communication Figure 9: High versus low context communication

Generally speaking, a HCC society (Culture B) tends to be more communal, tightly woven, and socially homogenized in nature, while the converse is true of a LCC society (Culture A): more individualistic, loosely knit, and ethnically diverse. There are other characteristics that are commonly associated with these two basic text/context orientations during acts of formal communication (Katan 2004:250): • Culture A emphasizes: written text, knowledge, facts, directness, “objectivity,” consistency, substance, individualism, sticking to the rules, avoidance of personal loss (financial, social status) • Culture B emphasizes: oral text-in-context, interpersonal relationships, feelings, indirectness, flexibility (versus rules), circumstances, avoidance of communal shame (family, clan)

Thus in a HCC community people in general are expected to perceive and access from the immediate sociocultural context all of the relevant information that they need to interpret verbal texts of different kinds, which accordingly tend to be comparably “thin” in referential terms. Their corporate “wisdom” tends to be derived more informally, through the process of enculturation – that is, as an individual grows up to become a mature, functioning, participating member of society, e.g., through customary initiation ceremonies, learning by apprenticeship, observation, and personal experience. Identity and status are based more on social position, which is attained by gaining various sorts of specialized traditional wisdom, which is communally “owned,” operated, and appraised. In a LCC community, on the other hand, ethnically-based enculturation occurs of course, but the specialized “knowledge” that one needs to function, progress, and gain status in society is much more tied to formal educational methods and individual

Why we do things the way we do

39

achievements in different fields of social endeavor. Important, consequential messages are usually firmly tied to a concrete text, that is, to explicit and detailed (“thick”) written communication – not the more personal face-to-face, oral-aural modes of message transmission which HCC societies prefer and value. Not surprisingly, “phatic” and “ritual” types of communication, along with the need to respect socially-established, situationally-defined honorific and politeness strategies during discourse engagements, play a much greater role in a HCC than a LCC setting. Figure 10 is an approximate attempt to schematize sociocultural differences among various peoples along a hypothetical HCC  LCC gradient. See if you agree (from Katan 2004:253). High Context Cultures Japanese-(vip information orally received) Arabs-Spanish (S.American)---Italians --British --French

Low Context Cultures --North Americans (English) (vip information textually --Scandinavians (except Finns) received) --Germans --Swiss

Figure10: 10:Representative Representative high - versus low context cultures Figure highversus low context cultures

EXERCISE-2 Answer these questions based on Figure 10:  What do you think of this method of classification according to general communication preferences? Perhaps you have another system to suggest, based on your study of a culture not represented here.  Do any of the people groups listed need to be re-positioned along the gradient? If so, suggest where.  Where along the gradient would you place the members of your society? Why?  Where do you think European “Spanish” would fit in and why?  Why is “American” English more of a LCC representative than “British” English (cf. Katan 2004:254-257)?  How would you describe your people-group in terms of the various HCC / LCC distinctions mentioned above? Are more refined qualifications or additional characteristics needed? If so, which ones?

40

Ernst Wendland

 In which sort of society would silence often communicate more than words – a HCC or a LCC? Explain your answer.  Which language would be more likely to signal pre-established social relationships: that of a HCC or a LCC society? Can you give an example of such a language?  Would the use of a fax machine and email be more characteristic of a HCC or a LCC? What about the use of a cell phone? Explain any likely differences in the usage of these communication technologies.  Use of the following expressions would be more typical in a HCC or a LCC – and why? I’d like that in writing. Everyone already knows what’s going on. We must have a written agenda. I give you my word. We can work out the details as we go along. I wasn’t given enough facts to be able to make a decision.

 How does the HCC / LCC distinction affect Bible translation work in a tangible way, e.g., the team’s manner of working together to produce a draft translation (individually or as a group); or with regard to the expected “information load” of a segment of text, such as a sentence or paragraph (more, or less redundancy)?  Suggest some important considerations that would need some research in your sociocultural setting. EXERCISE-3 Evaluate the following quotation with regard to its implications for Bible translation, specifically the project that you are engaged in or know about (from Thomas and Thomas 2006:2; see also ch. 7, “phonic enhancement”): It should come as no surprise for us to discover that, in an oral culture, a speaker (or writer) has organized material into a structure that would be easily remembered. Today both hearer and interpreter profit from the clarity such a structure has provided. Patterned repetition of words and ideas has been particularly noted as a feature of biblical literature in modern scholarship. This has provided new clues, particularly since orally-based literature may confuse the modern reader-interpreter by its lack of linear argument.

Mental representations The notion of text and context in relation to communication preferences and strategies brings us to a consideration of cultural differences regarding how people use language to distinguish, order, arrange, and organize the world around them. In any

Why we do things the way we do

41

distinct linguistic region or community, certain key words, idioms, conventional utterances, or even more general interpersonal situations act as triggers to evoke in one’s mind socially expected sequences of verbal and/or non-verbal behavior, along with their anticipated settings of occurrence. Not a great deal is known about how these particular cognitive “frames of reference,” or “mental representations” (also called “prototypes”), are structured and stored in the human brain and later accessed when required. Thus cognitive linguists differ also in their explanations of how such conceptual models operate, but most investigators agree on their importance as an attempt to better understand how communication events either succeed or fail in specific sociocultural situations. The following is a simplified summary of some noteworthy features of these mental representations (MRs), especially from the perspective of translation studies: • MRs may be roughly defined as distinct clusters or organized constellations of interrelated psychological patterns and expectations (including emotions, attitudes, values, etc.) that pertain to socially significant events, states, processes, experiences, or happenings along with the associated entities (persons, objects, substances, etc.) and qualities that are manifested in a given cultural context. At their most fundamental, elemental level of cognitive organization, MRs are composed of referential “concepts,” linked together by appropriate connective “relations,” which have been conventionally linked to fit the conceptual category or thematic network that is currently being accessed or applied. • MRs are developed in a person’s cognition through the multifaceted process of enculturation both actively and passively from information that is derived from a variety of sources in the society concerned: personal observation and life experiences; national or ethnic customs, celebrations, institutions, etc.; formal and informal educational agencies; past and present oral traditions and written discourses. • MRs function as basic tools in human cognitive construction (awareness, perception, reasoning, evaluation, decision-making), thereby playing an important role in both the production and also the processing of verbal texts, for example, in establishing essential coherence relations in the discourse and in the extended development of topical themes and sub-themes in texts according to standard, expected patterns of arrangement. • MRs appear to be hierarchically structured in the brain, forming more-, or less-, inclusive taxonomic sets, scenes, or sequences that are organized according to general-specific, whole-part, cause-effect, temporal, spatial, and other fundamental “logical” relationships, depending on the culture concerned (e.g., GOING SHOPPING: traveling, whether literally or metaphorically My description here is informed by ch. 9 of Dooley and Levinsohn (2001). This is a very complex, hence speculative, and therefore much debated subject, which I cannot explore further here. For more details, see the older, but still helpful treatment in Brown and Yule (1983:233-256); for a recent comprehensive study from a cognitive linguistic perspective, see Coulson (2001:ch. 1); for the viewpoint of “mental space theory,” see Stockwell (2002:96-99). 

42

•

•

•

•

•

Ernst Wendland

(i.e., “on-line”), to a store or shop to buy food, clothes, household furniture, job-related items, office materials, etc.; shopping for CLOTHES: at the local market, in a discount department store, from a mail-order catalogue or a web site, at an exclusive boutique, from hawkers along the road, etc.; buying clothes in the CHAIN STORE [e.g., USA: Pennys, Sears, K-Mart, Target, Wall Mart, etc.]: drive to the store, enter and take a cart, find the right aisle, search for the type of clothing desired, survey what’s available according to style and size, make a tentative selection, compare prices, choose one or more items to try on, final decision whether to buy or not…and [repeat the cycle]). MRs are also manifested in the various genres of literature (or orature) that are present in a given culture – that is, with respect to preferred scenarios (e.g., descriptive themes, motifs, and settings), schemata (e.g., the ordering of major events in narrative, or of key topics in poetry), or scripts (e.g., formulaic expressions and conventionalized discourses that are specific to a particular genre or text type). MRs may also reflect culture-based preferences for certain types of figurative expression or symbolic representation – for example, a textual organization that favors metaphoric (analogical) versus metonymic (associative) relations, which may vary in turn with respect to the type of subject matter being presented or the purpose of the discourse. MRs are selectively accessed and progressively projected during communication events according to the cognitive principle of relevance – that is, maintaining an appropriate balance between processing cost (degree of interpretive difficulty) and conceptual gain (expanding, confirming or revising one’s “cognitive environment”). MRs are not static or stereotyped to the point where they predetermine or limit human thinking. Rather, cognitive frames are actively modified and progressively combined during perception, thought (e.g., through metaphoric “conceptual blending”), and interpersonal interaction in order to adapt to and integrate different contextual circumstances, including apparent contradictions and inconsistencies, as well as novel experiences or situations and the individual impulse towards creativity. “[L]anguage users are continuously and creatively building and blending [cognitive] frames rather than merely retrieving and instantiating them” (Coulson 2001:30). MRs are managed by means of two different conceptual strategies – “bottom-up” and “top-down” processing (information selection, arrangement, and prioritizing), which are ideally carried out more or less together. Bottom-up processing begins with distinct perceptions that are individually and sequentially joined, then gradually generalized in order to make sense of the data which is being perceived (seen, heard, felt, smelled, etc.). Top-down processing, on the other hand, begins with one’s forming a quick conjecture in response to a current scene or existing state of affairs; such hypothesis formation involves the immediate projection of an entire structure of expectations (“slots”) that pertain to a certain event, activity, state, or happening – all “ready-made,” as it were, to apply to the situation at hand, being fleshed-out by specific data (“fillers”) of the current circumstances.

Why we do things the way we do

43

These cognitive “projections” are of particular importance to the practice of Bible translation because familiar types of discourse composition (genres) and/or their associated stylistic characteristics seem to generate or evoke certain crucial facts that pertain to their semantic constitution and structural organization. These in turn create patterns of expectation pertaining to the specific content, purpose, and formal features of a given text which can assist both in the process of interpretation (with regard to the SL document) and also translation. Thus, equivalent forms and similar functions are sought to represent the original text in the TL so that it will trigger corresponding conceptual (and emotive) projections in the minds of members of the intended audience. Mental representations are usually categorized into several basic types, but theorists differ greatly as to their number, definition, and designation. I posit three flexible and normally co-occurring patterns, or models, that involve relatively stereotyped interpersonal settings and their associated conventional action sequences and/or routine discourses – termed scenarios, schemas (or schemata), and scripts respectively. They are illustrated below with reference to the specific topic heading – a “typical Bible translation consultant checking session” (presented by way of a summary example only): •

SCENARIO: Three national translators and a foreign (Western) translation consultant are all sitting around a large table in a rather cramped office; one member of the translation team (the recording secretary/text keyboarder) and the consultant are peering at sections of a vernacular text from laptop computer screens (in the Paratext program), while the other two translators refer to an assortment of computer print-outs, Bibles, and reference books, which are scattered over the table. • SCHEMA: Translator (T-1), the keyboarder, reads a portion of the draft translation in the target language (TL) from the computer screen; next, a second translator, T-2, who is not the text drafter, gives a back-translation into English (or some other LWC); the Translation Consultant (TC) asks questions about the back-translation; T-1, T-2, and T-3 (all three translators should be present) discuss the various questions raised by the TC among themselves in the TL and respond; once they all agree on the difficulties involved and their respective solutions in the TL text, T-1 keys in the appropriate changes on the computer; she or he reads the passage aloud again; the translators may have some additional comments, and the TC may have further queries regarding that particular text; if not, they move on to the next passage, following roughly the same procedure. • SCRIPT: (a typical segment of the running discourse – in media res) TC: Please read the next passage. T1: [Reads the vernacular text] TC: That did not sound very smooth; you’d better read this same portion again. T1: [Reads the vernacular text] TC: Now give me the English – slowly, so I can follow along on my computer screen (a Paratext display of six different versions of the passage being discussed). T2: [Gives a broken back-translation of the TL text] TC: T3, what do you think of that – do we have a problem here? T3: Yes, I think that there’s something wrong with the word order of this sentence.

44

Ernst Wendland

TC: T3: TC: T2: T1: TC: T2: T3: TC:

How would you correct it – please make a suggestion. [Gives a revised version of the TL text] Now how does that sound to you all? This is better, but we need to find the right conjunction to begin with. Yes, to link up better with the preceding verse. What would you propose? Gar would seem to fit here, not so? Right, that will do it. OK, let me hear both verses again now – as if you were reading from the pulpit in church.

There is of course a wide range and diversity of socioculturally significant “information” that characterizes the specific realization of these proposed conventional frames in any given world setting. Such categories may be arranged, if so desired, into various sets that are related by patterns of co-occurrence (syntagmatic contiguous “slots”) and/or inclusion (paradigmatic substitutive “fillers”). Thus our “typical Bible translation checking session” could be preceded and followed by various other possible scenarios, together with their sequentially (sometimes coincidentally) associated schemata and scripts – for example, an initial larger group devotion with national Bible Society staff, a tea/coffee break for relaxation, the midday meal, a “siesta” time (no schemata or scripts then!), a visit from project sponsors and administrators, and so forth. From a paradigmatic perspective, the checking session itself may be classified more generically as an instance of “joint Scripture text study,” which would normally include specific circumstantial variants, e.g., a Sunday morning adult Bible class. These local substitutes might differ, sometimes significantly so, both from the original scenario and also from one another in terms of the prevailing customs and characteristics that pertain to related schemas and scripts for socio-economic, cultural, or purely physical reasons. Such situations may, like the preceding, be typical of certain organizations within the community at large (like a national “Bible society”), thus triggering the appropriate “organizational” cognitive frame (see below). This sort of overlapping in perspectives is to be expected when seeking to describe conventional sociological categories of this nature, whether they happen to be relatively broad or narrow in scope. For example, in some cultural settings it might not be appropriate or even permissible for “honorific” reasons (i.e., to avoid the “shame factor”) for a younger translator (T-2) to directly and overtly criticize the work of an older colleague in any way, say, Stockwell has criticized “schema theory” from the standpoint of cognitive poetics, alleging that “the model is focused very firmly on the perceptions, plans, goals and scripted strategies of the individual. … Other people are regarded as actors simply speaking their lines” (2002:169). To allow for more situational flexibility and social interaction in the approach, Stockwell recommends that “a reconception of schema poetics can be imagined which encompasses the social negotiation of situations through interactive discourse” (ibid:169). Reconsider the preceding example (concerning the translation checking session) in the light of this criticism, and make some suggestions as to how the “unscripted” nature of natural discourse, even in common sociocultural settings, might be taken into more precise consideration during a simultaneous or subsequent analysis. 

Why we do things the way we do

45

if he (T-1) were the one who had prepared the original draft text. Rather, T-2 would have to submit his critique either orally or in writing to a designated colleague (T-3), or to the project consultant, who would then convey these concerns to T-1. Similarly, in certain settings, if a woman happens to be a member of the translation team (a relative rarity in some world regions), she cannot, according to local custom, publicly or directly suggest any major corrections or changes with regard to a draft prepared by a male colleague. Instead, her comments must be delivered in writing – or alternatively, in an indirect, euphemistic manner that simply alludes to a potential problem in the text, which her colleagues will have to first discern and then pursue by directly questioning her for further information. Physical limitations and circumstantial faults may of course affect the schemata and scripts in numerous other negative ways to occasion a delay in progress, e.g., an electrical fault, a malfunctioning computer or program, illness on the part of one of the translators, an interrupting telephone call, and so forth. EXERCISE-4  The following example illustrates the overlapping between scenarios, schemata, and scripts when providing a certain mental representation that one presumably employs in the inferential interpretation of events and related phenomena during everyday life: What comes into your mind when you read (study) the words of Job 13:13 (any Bible version)? As far as the co-text of this passage is concerned, this is part of Job’s bitter complaint with regard to what he perceives as the unsympathetic, untrustworthy advice of his three friends in his time of misery and doubts about God’s dealing with him. In effect, Job is telling them to shut up because they are offering him no support at all – he will simply have to face The Almighty on his own in a judicial confrontation, if he is granted the opportunity (cf.13:15-19). Now imagine this same script – Job 13:13 (the verse reference alone) – printed out in large letters on the back of an old African lorry (heavy truck). What do you think that the writer/driver wanted to evoke by this passage in the minds of drivers who happened to be following behind him – especially if his vehicle were holding them up on the road (which given its condition would have been highly likely)? Here is a true-to-life scenario: I jog past this large lorry, broken down along the side of the road, during my morning exercise. Do the words of Job 13:13 seem to apply in a different light (mental representation) now? Actually, the next verse in Job (13:14) seems more pertinent to the present situation. Look it up and see if you agree. If so, explain how the two frames of reference seem to fit quite well together – Job 13:14 advertised on the back of what is obviously a very un-roadworthy vehicle.

EXERCISE-5 Thomas Dooley (2005:3-4, 5-6) provides some challenging insights concerning how the notion of “mental representations” (scenarios, schemas, and scripts) should affect the process of translation: Comprehending a text involves constructing a resultant mental representation of its meaning. This process is incremental, requiring trial and error, hypothesizing, confirmation and revision, and probabilistic conclusions. There is much that we do not

46

Ernst Wendland know about mental representations, including the specific neurological form that they take and the best way to model them. But psychological experiments, conducted over several decades, clearly indicate the following…: (3) A reader’s resultant mental representation of a text is not a mere copy of the text with its linguistic structures, but converts the text from a linguistic object to a conceptual object. The word resultant in [principle] 3 is important, because it seems clear that the reader initially does use the wording of the text as input to comprehension; but then, as major syntactic and textual boundaries are reached, the specific surface and semantic details are generally integrated into a more abstract form … In this way, the resultant mental representation that the reader takes away from a text is abstracted away from the linguistic form. The notion of a mental representation can be used to state a major translation goal, having to do with faithfulness to the source text: (4) Text-based approaches to translation generally indicate that the most important thing to be transferred is the mental representation that the author intended to convey by means of the text.... Whereas the reader’s “resultant mental representation” is a product of the comprehension process, the author’s “intended mental representation” is what presumably is in the author’s mind as he or she approaches the task of wording. No one can see inside another’s mind, but to the extent that competent exegetes agree, we can often come up with a reasonable idea of the author’s communicative goals. On the other end of text comprehension, we can sometimes do testing to discern the resultant mental representation that target readers come up with. [See chapter 10 below.] In my experience, this isn’t easy; it might mean asking for a retelling of the text some time after the text was read or heard (to reduce the influence of “disposable” features) and then doing a discourse analysis on the result. Even when we can assess mental representations in the source and target situations, there is the question of what parameters should be used in comparing the two and how closely they should correspond along those parameters. For mental representations can be viewed on any level of detail, since they include different kinds and levels of meaning that readers are intended to “get from” the text. The notion of intent in translation is critically important: translations differ according to the kind and level of meaning that their “clients” want transferred, as well as whether the message should be construed in relation to its original context or to the target context. Despite these complexities, to the degree that we can compare the mental representations of author and readers, we can take [principle] 4 as a general standard for faithfulness in translation. Based on this general schema, the strategy for rendering discourse features in the Guarani translation is as follows: …In Guarani, discourse features follow natural target-language patterns rather than source-language patterns, subject to the following constraints: (a) they do not reduce reader confidence in the translation, and (b) they are compatible with the author’s intended mental representation. That is, in addition to the general constraint that all discourse features be compatible with the author’s intended mental representation, a translation may have one or more

Why we do things the way we do

47

special conditions which constrain the use of natural target-language features. The special conditions may be of different types, having to do with such things as reader confidence in the translation, intended liturgical uses, or highly valued academic or literary qualities. For Bible translations, a common special condition has to do with the possibility of comparing the translation with a high-prestige version that exists in the same or a different language. In the general constraint, discourse features are required to be compatible with the the author’s intended mental representation rather than, in stronger terms, “to be an exact expression” of it. This is because…not all discourse features (or functions) are essential ones. All features and functions, however, should be compatible with it; that is, they should never be contrary to it and they should be used to signal it when needed.

 Does the preceding discussion of “mental representations” (Dooley’s entire article should be read) clarify the nature and purpose of translation for you? Explain your answer.  How closely does the Guarani general “strategy for rendering discourse features” compare with the one that your team/project has adopted for your Bible translation?  Apply your discourse translation strategy to the text of James 4:13. What is your initial “mental representation” of the content of this passage – in other words, what do you make of it from your sociocultural perspective? Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and get gain”… (RSV)

 How must you modify or change your MR based on a study of this passage in its ANE setting? Check out a good commentary or two, for example (Loh and Hatton 1997:159): Come now: James shifts to a conversational style by calling for the attention of his readers. This expression is used only here and in 5.1 in the New Testament. It is a form of address, an attention getter, for which a number of equivalent expressions may be used; for example, “Now listen to me” (TEV), “Listen carefully” (JNIT), “But wait” (TNT), “Stop and think a minute!” (BRC), “Just a moment, now” (PHPS), “You should know better than...” (CEV). The people addressed are you who say... , an imaginary group of business people who say what is said in the quotation. Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and get gain: what we have here are the typical plans of ordinary business people. Their business plans include setting the time of departure, selecting a location, determining the length of stay, projecting the profit, and so on. Notice that all four verbs are in the future tense: “will go,” “will spend,” “will trade,” and “will get gain.” This shows that their plans are firm and full of confidence and expectations. … The expression such and such a town is an idiomatic way of referring to a certain location without naming the place specifically. In this way the story can be applied to any city and any situation. Thus the idiom may be rendered as “this and that town” (BRC, NIV). In cultures where large towns do not exist, but only villages of various sizes, we may express town as “a large village,” “a place with many houses”… The verb trade means “do business”

48

Ernst Wendland (TNT) or “go into business” (TEV). The expression get gain may be rendered more naturally as “make money” (TNT, NIV) or “make a profit” (NAB). James is obviously not rebuking his readers for making detailed and wise business decisions in advance. The problem is that they make plans without the Great Planner; they leave God out of their planning.

Note also that there are several critical hermeneutical decisions that have to be made before one can evoke the scenario being depicted by James in one’s mind today, for example: Is James addressing Jewish Christians or non-Christians here? If Christians, then is he referring to all so-called “believers,” or does he have only merchants and traders in mind? To what extent is James employing hyperbole in this passage – would even avaricious businessmen talk that way (how about today)?  How would you translate James 4:13 idiomatically in YL, given its particular discourse function and literary features? Compare your rendition with that of The Message, given below; notice how this modern translation seeks to set a particular attitudinal frame of reference for this section, 4:13-17: And now I have a word for those who brashly announce, “Today – at the latest tomorrow – we’re off to such and such a city for the year. We’re going to start a business and make a lot of money!”

 Finally, which particular aspects of this discourse-based, cognitive-oriented approach to translation do you wish to explore further – and why?

Semantic domains The potential utility of the different socioculturally related distinctions discussed above lies in the fact that a culture’s system of common cognitive frames, the generic as well as more specific ones, provides analysts with a heuristic tool that enables them to more precisely investigate and improve instances of group interactive behavior, both verbal and non-verbal. This is particularly helpful during the process of cross-cultural, inter-linguistic communication, especially when more complicated problems develop. For example, as noted above, the frames involving distinctive scenarios, schemata, and scripts are the principal constituents of language- and literature-specific genres, which do not always conform across cultures (to be explored further in ch. 7). Similarly, the analytical procedure of setting conceptual boundaries within different frames of reference serves to guide and inform dictionaries, in particular, those that are organized according to so-called semantic domains. A dictionary of this nature aims, ideally, to incorporate and categorize the entire referential field of a given society’s world of thought, behavior, and experience, but in practice, due to the inevitable limits of information access, only part of the entire realm is actually considered. The relevant domains of another language group, however, will inevitably be different – in ways that need to be identified in detail where any sort of communication by translation is concerned.

Why we do things the way we do

49

EXERCISE-6 Whose “semantic domains” (should) control the process of biblical interpretation and subsequent translation? The Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament based on semantic domains (Louw and Nida 1988) purports to segment the conceptual world denoted by NT vocabulary into 93 such “domains,” ranging from the more concrete and general (e.g., 1. Geographical objects and features, 2. Natural substances, 3. Plants, 4. Animals, 5. Food and condiments) to the most abstract and specific (e.g., 89. Relations, 90. Case, 91. Discourse markers, 92. Discourse referentials, 93. Names of persons and places) (ibid:531). The classification and definition of concepts becomes more and more socioculturally specific (or semantically “framed”) as each domain is sub-divided into ever smaller categories. For example, domain #53 – “Religious activities” – is broken down into 12 subtypes, again moving from the general to the specific: A. religious practice (essentially defining the domain as a whole), B. offering/ sacrifice, C. purify/cleanse, D. defiled/unclean/common, E. baptize, F. dedicate/consecrate, G. worship/ reverence, H. fasting, I. roles/functions, J. magic, K. exorcism, L. sacrilege. The sub domain of “magic” encompasses six terms, the definition of which becomes rather indistinct and hence rather confusing in English, e.g.,  “one who practices magic and witchcraft – ‘magician’” and  “one who uses magic and sorcery – ‘sorcerer’” (ibid:45). Presumably, the cognitive-semantic frame of “magic” would have clarified the relevant sociocultural distinctions for the original readers of the Greek New Testament, for example, in Acts 13:8, where a man called “Elymas” is characterized as being a  who opposed the Apostle Paul, or in Revelation 22:15, where people who lived as a  on earth are among those excluded from eternal life in heaven. In English the same term is generally used to translate both Greek works, e.g., “sorcerer” (NIV), but one wonders what the average Westerner, in particular, actually conceives of by that term. There would undoubtedly be a very great divergence among respondents asked to define “sorcerer” since the practice is not a common one in their world of reference or experience. In south-central Africa, on the other hand, things are very different and the machinations of “sorcerers” (who may be classified into different categories) are an everyday occurrence in the lives of most people. In other words, the sociocultural frame of reference that contextualizes the corresponding vernacular term is very wide, diverse, vivid, and precise. In a Bantu language like Chichewa, for example, the available concepts involving “sorcery” are usually very complex, depending on the interpersonal situation. Where the biblical text itself is not very specific, translators should try to mentally situate themselves in the sociocultural or religious setting that is described, as closely as they can on the basis of the information given – both there and in any parallel or related passages. They must then determined from that perspective whether the “sorcerer” being referred to, Elymas for example, was carrying out his activities in a socially acceptable or a forbidden manner and the relative degree to which mystical, occult behavior and taboo practices are involved. There are several options – as shown in the rough continuum of possibilities below (with only approximate English equivalents):

50

Ernst Wendland

socially acceptable/overt behavior ================ socially taboo/covert connotation: + +/- - - sing’anga wamatsenga wanyanga mfiti ‘medicine-man’ ‘magician’ ‘sorcerer’ ‘witch’

The sing’anga “medicine-man” does make use of “sorcery” in his (her) practice, depending on the need or predicament of his client (e.g., for enrichment, enablement, healing, protection), and therefore is generally regarded as performing a necessary social function. Activities of the mfiti “night witch,” on the other hand (e.g., exhuming new graves to ingest the corpse), are totally reprehensible and universally condemned. Translators must thus imagine themselves, as it were, into the sociocultural setting of the biblical text – but from their own viewpoint – in order to select the vernacular terms that will most accurately and acceptably re-present the perspective of the original author. The popular language Chewa translation employs wamatsenga “magician” (a traditional practitioner with a disagreeable public reputation) with reference to Elymas, but reserves the most despicable term, mfiti “witch[es]” for the damned of Revelation (e.g., 22:15).  Analyze the notions of “magic” and “sorcery” from the viewpoint of your cultural setting. Then make a similar summary study of some other consequential lexicalsemantic category where there is a major incongruity or clash between perspective of the biblical text and that of your language-culture.  With reference to the preceding exercise, how would you explain the respective differences between the biblical concepts of  and and the closest equivalents in YL? Formulate a sample explanatory note in each case. EXERCISE-7 A new and revised “semantic domain” dictionary project for Hebrew is now underway under the leadership of Dr. Renier de Blois. It is called the Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (SDBH, 2000-2006). If internet access is available, look up the homepage (http://www.sdbh.org/home-en.html) and also the theoretical framework for this project (http://www.sdbh.org/framework/index.html). Prepare a brief summary report based on the information that you find, including your personal assessment of how helpful you anticipate this dictionary (i.e., lexical-conceptual “frames”) will be to you (even now in its preliminary stages) as you carry out your everyday Bible translation work.  Figure 11 reproduces a sample of the SDBH entry for ’ab ‘father’ (prepared by R. de Blois; the current listing of dictionary entries may be found at http://www.sdbh. org/vocabula/index.html – latest update on 16/11/2006). Evaluate the usefulness of the information that is given, not only in terms of the various semantic distinctions, but also with regard to the sociocultural frame of reference that is also provided. Is the information supplied in a user-friendly manner? What improvements can you suggest? (You may also contact the editor at: [email protected] .) Have a class

Why we do things the way we do

51

round-table discussion after completing your evaluation. Mention 3 things about the use of ‘father’ that you did not know before reading this entry (including at least some of the Scripture references given).

Discerning the fitting frame Knowing the indigenous sociocultural frames and how they relate to specific vernacular lexical items is a vital aspect of accurate dictionary making. On a more informal, everyday level, we learn how to use words properly and behave appropriately according to our ever-developing inventory of implicit mental templates. These tradition-based customary guidelines are especially important when we confront occasions of social perplexity or interpersonal problems of some sort. Such times of uncertainty or points of tension must first be recognized for what they are (often the hardest part), then discussed and resolved according to the local rules of verbal “engagement” in order for the present or proposed communication event to continue or resume – perhaps even prevent its total collapse. Many additional overt and less-obvious difficulties naturally arise, however, when linguistic and cultural boundaries are crossed. Those who enter such unfamiliar situations must learn to develop adequate coping mechanisms and strategies for dealing with the stresses and challenges of operating in a foreign environment. However, various human and technical resources are usually available to help out. For example, comparative cultural information is used to prepare international “travel guides” of varying detail that are designed to help foreign tourists and business-persons communicate satisfactorily, albeit in a very limited capacity, and hopefully without giving (too much) offense within the alien milieu. This usually concerns such essential everyday activities as asking for directions, making a food order in a café, purchasing the correct ticket at the train station, cashing a travelers’ check, or locating the nearest restroom (toilet)! But the best, most reliable guides are often culturally-aware members of the local community who volunteer to help outsiders accommodate to their new and strange surroundings. EXERCISE-8 A very important item of contextual information that every tourist guide must include concerns those unfortunate situations when one must communicate with the law enforcement agencies in a foreign country. In this case, if one does not observe socially acceptable “rules of behavior,” the person (say, a businessman) seeking help can quickly get into trouble with society’s protectors before he even has a chance to deal with the problem that he has come to them to complain about. For example, when reporting a theft at the local police station, one must press one’s case not in the manner of the typical, ethnocentric, culturally naive “ugly American,” belligerently demanding one’s “personal rights” and disparaging the intelligence and perhaps also the morals of the national populace. Rather, one must adopt a culturally appropriate schema and script, appealing to the expected roles that need to be played in such a situation.

52

Ernst Wendland

’ab (1) “[…]” (For the purpose of this exercise, the specific Hebrew lexical items related to ’ab have been deleted.) (a) Kinship = direct male progenitor; ► who normally provides protection, care, instruction, and discipline; ≈ is usually regarded with respect and associated with wisdom, security, and comfort  - father   (GEN.2:24; 9:22,23,23; 11:28,29,29; 19:31,32,33,35; 20:12; 22:7,7; 26:3,15 ...)      Kinship (b) Kinship extension of meaning of [a]‫‏‬: = indirect male progenitor  - grandfather, ancestor  (GEN.9:18,22; 10:21; 17:4,5; 19:37,38; 22:21; 28:13; 31:3; 32:10; 36:9,43; 46:34; 47:3,9 ...)      Kinship [show/hide contextual meanings] (c) Kinship = person; ► the founder of a village, town, or region, and usually the ancestor of most of its inhabitants  - father > founder  (GEN.33:19; JOS.24:32; JDG.9:28; 1CH.2:21,23,24,42,42,45,49,49,49,5 0,51,51,52; 4:3b ...)      Kinship ; Town (d) Kinship > Deities as [a]‫ ‏‬but extended to deities: = deity; ◄ compared to a father; ► giver of life, protection, wisdom, etc.  - father  (DEU.32:6; 2SA.7:14; 1CH.17:13; 22:10; 28:6; PSA.89:27; ISA.9:5; 63:16,16; 64:7; JER.2:27; 3:4,19; 31:9; MAL.1:6; 2:10 ...)      Kinship > Care [show/hide contextual meanings] (e) Kinship > Happen (Causative) = person; ► the first to be engaged in a certain activity or pattern of behavior  - the first person to ...  (GEN.4:20,21) (f)     

Kinship > Exist (Causative) = person; ◄ compared to a father; ► originator of a certain process; ● used for God only  - father > (God as) creator (of the rain)  (JOB.38:28) Kinship > Creation ; Individual > God ; Weather

(g) Kinship > Officials = person; ◄ compared to a father; ► provides advice to someone in authority  - adviser  (GEN.45:8; JDG.17:10; 18:19)      Kinship [show/hide contextual meanings] (h) Kinship > Safe (Causative) = person; ◄ compared to a father; ► provides care for the people under his authority  -  father > someone who takes care of someone else  (JOB.29:16; PSA.68:6; ISA.22:21)      Kinship > Care (i)     

Kinship > Tombs = location; ◄ compared to a father; ≈ regarded as a source of security and comfort  - (grave, regarded as one’s) father > place of security, comfort  (JOB.17:14) Kinship > Security ; Life

(j)

Communities “[…]” = group of people to which one traces one’s ancestry; ◄ smallest unit within family group  - father’s house > family  (GEN.12:1; 20:13; 24:7,23,38,40; 28:21; 31:14,30; 34:19; 38:11,11; 41:51; 46:31,31; 47:12 ...)

    

Kinship

(k) Communities “[…]” = group of people to which one traces one’s ancestry; ◄ largest unit within family group  - ancestral tribe  (NUM.1:16,47; 13:2; 26:55; 33:54; 36:4,6,7,8)      Kinship (l)     

Communities “[…]” = group of people to which one traces one’s ancestry; possibly identical to [j]‫ ‏‬ - ancestry  (EXO.6:25; NUM.31:26; 32:28; 36:1,1; DEU.18:8; JOS.14:1; 21:1,1; 1KI.8:1; 1CH.6:4; 7:11; 8:6,10,13,28 ...) Kinship [show/hide contextual meanings]

(m) Titles = way of addressing a male person that one regards as one’s superior because of his age, status, authority, etc.  - father  (1SA.24:12; 2KI.2:12,12; 5:13; 6:21; 13:14,14)

Figure 11: SDBH entry for Hebrew ’ab ‘father’

Why we do things the way we do

53

One possible strategy would be to politely state one’s petition with all due respect as a “guest” who is under the generous protection of a “host” who will surely act expeditiously to deliver the suppliant from the bad situation that she or he is now in now due to the loss of money or property. Thus, instead of focusing upon the importance of self, the person humbly and without a hint of anger requests the beneficent good will, respect, and honor of the local leadership to set the matter right in the way that they know best – that is, to avoid any “mistaken/misleading impression” about the country that might otherwise result from this incident. The petitioner would also conclude by assuring the authorities that she or he would be most grateful for any little thing that could be done on his or her behalf in the present circumstances. Of course, it would be very difficult for an aggrieved American to adopt this sort of role and communicate in such a seemingly subservient manner to foreigners. Is not the USA generally recognized as the “mightiest nation on earth” – “the world’s only superpower”? On the other hand, the very shock of witnessing such atypical, contracultural speech and behavior might well be enough to motivate the police to do their best to pursue the thieves and restore what had been stolen.  Report on a similar problematic situation involving good/bad “manners” on the part of foreigners that you have either witnessed or personally experienced in your cultural setting – or in a different country that you have visited. What went wrong and how was the problem resolved – or was the misunderstanding and/or offense that was given simply allowed to stand? EXERCISE-9 Two different perspectives on “uncovered feet” (Ruth 3:4) The process of achieving translational equivalence certainly involves making important decisions concerning which local terms to use for biblical concepts that are either over- or under-differentiated in the target language. However, the problems for translators may actually begin at the source – that is, with the text and context of a certain Scripture passage as it has been represented by the authorities, namely, the commentators. Here one must always allow for a possibly limited, or even biased, sociocultural cognitive perspective on the part of recognized experts in the field. This is especially true in the case of questions that arise due to certain customs and practices that are very non-Western in nature. The following is a summary of a case study that was written with regard to the difficulties presented by the narrative of Ruth 3 (Keita and Dyk 2006, used by permission). I have reproduced below only the salient conclusions of this insightful article (certain statements have been highlighted in italics for emphasis): The interpreters and commentators discussed exhibit a wide range of explanation as to what occurred in Ruth 3, varying their understanding of the passage according to their conceptu­alization of the context and culture in which it took place. Striking differences appear in particular in the role ascribed to sexuality in the scene at the threshing floor. … Similar linguistic data in regard to the use of the…verbs in this passage could be evoked. A word does not mean all things at all times, but functions within a syntactic

54

Ernst Wendland pattern to have a particular meaning in a specific instance. Counter to the extremely suggestive reading of these verses, we would propose that the language itself does not support such a reading. Rather, because in this passage all verbs lack the specific valency patterns which would allow for a sexually loaded rendering, we maintain that a neutral reading is required by the linguistic data. Why this consensus among the Western authors? Is it not that within Western culture it is inconceivable for a woman to lie next to a man at night without intending to offer herself sexually, especially when the context involves speaking of a future marriage? Feminist writers laud Ruth’s action thus interpreted as a woman’s desperate strife against all odds, leaving no holes barred. Other authors would find this ‘unseemly’, not keeping in character, and lacking integrity, but it remains a tricky situation from a Western cultural point of view. We draw attention to how determinative a hermeneutic key is for understanding the text. Where a suggestive framework is chosen, the interpretation of elements is shifted in that direction: washing and dressing becomes enticement and seduction, uncovering the foot end becomes uncovering the genitals or even stripping oneself naked, lying down becomes making sexual advances, ‘spread your wings’ in no longer a request for protection but becomes an invitation to sexual consummation, and in Ruth 4:11 where Boaz is praised and encouraged by the people to be a ‘mighty man’, a ‘man of power’, this powerfulness is not understood as his potential to care for the widows but as his sexual potency. Read from a typical Western perspective, it appears that the scene at the threshing floor can not be understood otherwise than sexually loaded. Whether interpreters condemn or condone the possibility of actual sexual involvement, the scene seems to make no sense to Western readers without the sexual or erotic aspect playing an important role in the passage. Is there another possible reading for this strange nocturnal encounter? There was talk of a future commitment. Does this scene make sense if not sexually loaded? In an attempt to offer an alternative understanding of the scene, we now present it through the eyes of a West African culture. The Bowa people are an agricultural society living in the central eastern part of the Republic of Mali in West Africa. … Traditional values are still valid, though they are progressively being encroached upon by the influences from the cultures imported by colonization. Because Christianity came with colonization, many pagans equate the two. As is so often the case, the Christian missionaries came with the New Testament, while the Old Testament whose culture, customs, and values are so much closer to those of traditional Bowa society, only later began to receive attention. A number of customs exhibit remarkable similarity to those described within the Book of Ruth. ‘Uncover the place of his feet’ When a woman seeks a man’s resting place and waits for him to notice her, it is logical that she should lie down at his feet and wait. In the Bowa context the woman could lie next to him, though not with sexual intent. Uncovering the feet presents no dubious connotations, she could even have taken off his cover completely, but it would be totally unimaginable to bare his private parts. It is, furthermore, inconceivable that she should uncover herself: why undress yourself and lay down naked? Ruth’s lying down and waiting for Boaz to awaken was a natural course of action. Naomi, too, had indicated as much: ‘he will tell you what you should do’.

Why we do things the way we do

55

‘Spread your wing’ Within the Bowa culture, it is considered a shame if someone who has the right to marry a widow does not want to do so. No family accepts that a woman who has a right to marry remains unmarried: ‘A family which is not able to provide partners for the widows from among the men inside the family is not a family,’ as a Bowa adage goes. It would be under­stood as a great shame to Ruth herself, but more so to Boaz and to the family of Elimelech if Ruth were to remain unmarried. Boaz knew who in the family had the most right to marry Ruth. Ruth’s request would be understood to mean: ‘cover me’ with your blanket, with a metaphorical significance parallel to a Bowa expression sutara ni, ‘hide me’, i.e., preserve my honor, prevent me from shame by marrying me. Such a request is entirely fitting within the context of Ruth being a widow, Boaz being an eligible marriage partner within Ruth’s generation within the patriclan, and Naomi’s knowledge and approval of the meeting. Ruth’s clear referral to marriage does not entail that she provoked him sexually; in fact, that would not be fitting within this context. Carmichael’s assumption that the treading of grain in most cultures has a transferred sexual significance of ‘treading a woman’ does not apply to the Bowa culture. There is no connection between the treading or beating of grain to obtain seed and sexual involvement. Comparison and Comments Stepping back to consider what has been brought together thus far, one is struck by the vast differences within the various approaches between the values ascribed to the role of sexuality. All agree that marriage is the issue, but in a number of Western approaches, the possibility of marriage is inconceivable without a major role given to sexual and erotic aspects. Once the sexual or erotic aspect has become the hermeneutic key to reading Ruth, there is a danger that this will affect the choices made in translation. Under the influence of such a hermeneutic key, ‘anoint yourself’ could becomes ‘perfume yourself’, and ‘put one your mantle’ be rendered as ‘dress in your nicest clothes’. The translation could go even fur­ther in making the sexual or erotic aspect explicit: ‘uncover’ could become ‘bare the private parts’ or ‘strip yourself’; ‘foot end’ could be rendered ‘genitals’; a request for protection could become ‘impregnate me’; and a ‘man of potential’ could be made to refer to ‘male sexual prowess’. In contrast, the remarkable similarity between many details in Ruth and Bowa customs makes it tempting to interpret the scene at the threshing floor as a Bowa would understand it. It provides a context in which the text can be read in a straightforward manner without the twists both to grammar and to interpretive context manifest in some of the Western explanations whose efforts, however creative, betray the strain of the distance between the culture of the text and that of the interpreter. Nonetheless, it is only fair to concede that the reading based on the Bowa culture, though exhibiting a striking affinity to many details in the book of Ruth, is still a reading colored by a cultural context. Yet we would offer this reading as a viable alternative and perhaps a healthy antidote to some of the interpretations of the scene at the threshing floor current in Western-based exegetical literature.

 How has the translation in your language rendered these two expressions from Ruth 3: “uncover [the place of] his feet” and “spread your wing”? What would ordinary

56

Ernst Wendland

people in your cultural setting understand by each of these translations, or indeed the entire scenario sketched out above? Point out any potential – or actual – problems in the current renderings.  Have any footnotes been supplied at these crucial points in the text? If so, what do they say? Do they reflect a Western (or some other alien) bias that pushes the interpretation of these passages in a certain direction – to the exclusion of other possibilities, perhaps even one that is closer to the Hebrew viewpoint? What sort of a footnote would you suggest in order to create a more open-minded sociocultural cognitive framework when approaching these two texts, or any other problematic expressions or concepts in Ruth 3?

Illustrations are another important device for creating a cognitive frame of reference to aid the interpretation of a given passage of Scripture. However, in this respect too it is crucial to select a fitting, or suitable, frame – one that will actually serve as an aid in the interpretation process and not hinder it. The latter often happens when illustrations from an alien culture or point of view are employed without adequate prior testing for comprehension and acceptability among the target constituency. Furthermore, in many cases an illustration of an ancient text like the Scriptures requires more knowledge about the cultural setting than we currently have access to. And once a concrete picture of a certain scene is provided, it more or less “locks” readers in to that particular visualization of the events or objects being depicted. For example, while it would obviously help to illustrate what transpired in the case of the “uncovered feet” involving Ruth and Boaz discussed above, how would one know exactly what to portray? This is a special problem in cases such as this where several quite different or mutually incompatible hermeneutical choices are concerned. EXERCISE-10 Illustrations are created from a particular perspective, and the viewpoint of the illustrator may be rather different from that of those who are looking a given portrayal, especially in cases where cultures are crossed. For example, the following illustration which reflects the artist’s impression of the biblical text at Ruth 2:23 presents a great deal of detail, which serves to highlight a subtle, but significant implication of the entire second chapter. But in order to discover this implication, viewers must first discern where Ruth and Boaz are in the picture. The problem here is that many may miss the forest for the trees; in other words, they will get lost in the details and thus fail to find the pair of central personages.  Try to identify the characters Ruth and Boaz in Figure 12 and discuss your choices in class. After the group comes to an agreement on this issue, evaluate this illustration for its suitability in your sociocultural setting: How appropriate is the picture? What is its chief point? What are the main problem areas (if any)? What needs to be done (if necessary) to adapt, or “re-frame,” this illustration to fit your context in order to bring out the desired implication? 

Courtesy of www.creationism.org.

Why we do things the way we do

57

Figure 12: 12: Where Where are are Ruth Ruth and Figure and Boaz? Boaz?

Gender bias One important sociocultural issue that is becoming highly contentious among translators and theologians alike in some settings is that of gender-reference in relation to the expressed text of Scripture. In certain cases the matter concerns the gender of God him/herself – that is, whether she or he is regarded as being, or should be referred to as, male or female with respect to nature and attributes (what is your opinion and why?). However, for the most part the controversy affects languages like English that have a distinct masculine and feminine pronoun and also a generic term for “human being” (male or female) which has been traditionally marked for reference in Scripture as a male. Thus recent moves towards gender equality in societies all over the world have made changes such as those listed below necessary:

58

Ernst Wendland

RSV  NRSV when men revile you (Mt. 5:11) when people revile you let your light so shine before men (Mt. 5:16) let your light shine before others what man of you, if his son (Mt. 7:9) is there anyone among you who, if your son if a man will come…let him (Mt. 16:24) if any want to become…let them not all men can receive this (Mt. 19:11) not everyone can accept this teaching care for no man (Mt. 22:16) show deference to no one all who are led…are sons of God (Rm. 8:14) all who are led are children of God the unspiritual man does not (1 Cor.2:14) those who are unspiritual do not receive what is man that you thou art mindful.. what are human beings that you are mindful… or the son of man, that thou… (Hb. 2:6) or mortals that you… he had to be made like his brethren (Hb. 2:17) he had to become like his brothers and sisters he who loves his brother abides (1 Jn. 2:10) whoever loves a brother or sister lives if any one hears…I will come in to him if you hear…I will come in to you and eat with him, and he with me (Rv. 3:20) and eat with you, and you with me

In these cases, the issue is not only referential, that is, in cases where the use of “man,” “men,” or a generic “he” results in an ambiguous or misleading text for the average person, but serious connotative clashes are also involved. The latter, emotive or attitudinal difficulties arise in settings where continued use of male references upsets, and often offends female readers and speakers of the biblical text. However, attempts to find a solution to one problem frequently incur others – for example, language that is even more ambiguous, or more commonly, a very awkward, unnatural collocational style in the TL. EXERCISE-11  Try to find three different examples (in any gender-marked language) like the ones given above which manifest a change that involves a male reference in an older translation as distinct from a more generic (gender-neutral) rendering in a modern version.  Is the matter of gender a debatable issue in your mother tongue or in a foreign language that you have researched? If not, explain why. If so, give several biblical examples that illustrate the problems as well as some possible solutions within the text of a particular translation.  Does this controversy over “genre-correctness” also have an influence on how pastors must preach and teach in your sociocultural setting–that is, must they be careful not to offend adult women by their manner of speaking? If so, give an example.  Darrell Bock defines what he terms as “two basic approaches to gender-sensitive translations” as follows (2005:170): Ideological gender sensitivity: This type of translation seeks to “degenderize” the Bible (that is, removes all language that is male specific and excludes women as a result). The argument is that the Bible arose in an era of patriarchalism (where men ruled the culture and women were seen as less than equal). In this approach even male

Why we do things the way we do

59

metaphors for God and/or Jesus are changed to more neutral language (so Jesus is not called “Son of Man” but “son of a human being”). Translational gender sensitivity: This approach renders terms to make clear the gender scope of passages, especially when they use an all-encompassing reference to man or mankind to address both men and women. So, e.g., the rendering of a term that is translatable as “men” is made into “men and women” when the meaning intention or application of a passage is broad and not gender specific.

Which of these two translation approaches is more correct, in your opinion? Tell why you think so.  How would you handle the following case in point (Bock 2005:174)? Discuss it with reference to English and then suggest the relevance of such gender issues, if any, in your language and culture: Gen 1.26-27: Is the context clear that the reference to âdâm includes both male and female (see Gen 1.27 and the reference to male and female)? What should be the translation at the start of the verse? Should it be God created man/mankind/humankind/ humanity in his own image? Is either generic “man” or “humanity” or “humankind” acceptable for “God created man”? Are any of these translations really wrong? Which is clearer? One might argue that for clarity the rendering of “humankind” is a better rendering in the target language to show the scope of who is created in the image of God [i.e., both male and female], since humankind is awkward and “man” might imply only males are meant. “Mankind” is also a solid rendering.

 Does “humankind”, “mankind”, or “humanity” still emphasize the male component too much? If you think so, what alternative rendering do you suggest? Does the fact that Gen. 1:27 is a poetic passage in Hebrew make any difference to your translation technique? Give reasons for your response on this literary point.

Signs make meaning in context We see then that the conceptual activity which develops during productive thought and purposeful communication, verbal as well as non-verbal, is the collective outcome not only of the occurrence of significant signs, whether individual or in combination, but also of the enveloping social context that surrounds all human thinkers and wordproducers (and processors). These semiotic signs may be represented and transmitted in the material form of any sensory medium, including their diverse combinations, e.g., musical accompaniment to a song. Context, in turn, as relevance theorists have correctly pointed out, is not a concrete physical reality, not even the surrounding verbal discourse. Rather, it is a psychological notion – consisting of a person’s memory, the present discernible setting, the current discourse (or ostensible signs), the quality of her or his mental state, plus any other stimuli that happen to impinge upon his or her perception at the moment. To simplify reference to all these possible influences, I have employed the notion of cognitive “frames” according to which different kinds of experiences and fields of knowledge are collected, categorized, and organized for use. The theory of conceptual network formation further specifies the process of mental representation in terms of the specific domains of information that appear to be

60

Ernst Wendland

activated during the processing of a discourse. As suggested in the preceding discussion, the relevant source and target conceptual spheres, textual and/or extratextual, are not simply merged together as individual units of information. Rather, they are selectively mixed in a particular setting of communication to create a blended cognitive construct that is greater than the sum of the individual realms of knowledge and experience of which it is composed. The more distinct semantic domains involved, of course, the more complex the overall mental representation that results, and the more novel the cognitive elements that are potentially generated, including those evoked by various images, figures of speech, and rhetorical tropes. One must keep in mind, as Dooley points out, that “the most important thing to be transferred is the mental representation that the author intended to convey by means of the text” (2006:4). The preceding examples have suggested the urgent need for communicators to provide the sociocultural frames necessary to offer their target audience the possibility, at least, of arriving at an acceptable interpretation of a given Scripture text. Every passage, whether orally or visually presented, requires the appropriately contextualized cognitive background for its proper understanding and application. Otherwise, the text’s desired effect in terms of communicative quantity and quality (including affective impact and aesthetic appeal) cannot occur. In the absence of an adequate mental grasp of the original biblical setting, today’s readers readily appropriate the situational context most immediate in their current thinking, often one that is overly domesticated in terms of their own world-view, value system, social circumstances, and the local physical environment. Consequently, some type of communication failure or malfunction is bound to occur – to a greater or lesser extent, and with more or less adverse consequences in terms of information loss, distortion, or unwanted semantic addition. We will see this problem illustrated again when John’s prophetic vision of Revelation is considered in chapter 8. EXERCISE-12  Give an example of a Bible passage that is nearly always misunderstood unless people are given a proper frame of reference to understand the original text in relation to their own cultural and religious setting. Suggest a brief explanatory note that would clarify the problem that you have pointed out here.  Whose job is it to bridge this communication gap – that of the preacher, teacher, translator, or that of the people to whom he is/they are communicating? Explain your position on this matter, with reasons. EXERCISE-13 Roman Jakobson observed that whereas interlingual translation involves the transfer of signs from one language to another, an intersemiotic translation involves the complete replacement of the verbal signs of a given message by non-verbal signs (Hatim and Munday 2004:5). Nowhere is this more apparent, or challenging, than in the translation of a written text into “sign language.” This is evident from the following “case study,” an excerpt from a report on translating the Bible into LESCO (Costa Rican

Why we do things the way we do

61

Sign Language) (Tamez 2006). First, we learn about a few aspects of the difficulty of the sign-replacement process and then about the importance of the “signers” functioning as “signs” themselves during the communication process: The LESCO translation and all other sign language translations require a decoding of the discourse before translating the text into sign language. … [W]e first have to clearly understand the main ideas from the morpho-syntactic level. After this we must visualize the content including places and orientations in a step by step order. This is the cognitive level. At this level it is important to sketch the scenes in order to visualize them. As we all know, [in Bible translation] we have to add inferred information. This step is very important for understanding the meaning. From this third [cognitive] level the second level emerges: this is the sign language translation. For instance: to translate this phrase into LESCO: “All went to their own towns to be registered” (Lk. 2.3), the signer has to visualize different contexts and different families registering in these contexts... In addition, it is important to include an opposition for better understanding; i.e., it is important to say that a person who belongs to a certain place (context) cannot be registered in another place (context) but only in the birth place of his descendents. For this reason, in Lk. 2.5 it was necessary to add that Joseph couldn’t be registered in Nazareth... This resulted in the LESCO translation being longer than the audio Spanish translation. This created some difficulties in matching the audio and the subtitles with the signing… (p.4) In LESCO, facial gesture and body communication are used together with hand signs. Many manual signs are ultimately defined by facial and body gestures since a sign can represent different meanings. Therefore, rhetorical questions were easy to translate because both facial and manual gestures were part of the translation. See, for example, in Lk 18:8 “When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth? The rhetorical aspect of the question is easily understood because of the gestures. … It seems that people who communicate in LESCO [also] need to see the signs repeated to confirm their comprehension. This occurs in our video. In the commentaries of the biblical stories, translators felt it necessary to review details of the story before they related its meaning with the deaf community. This fact was confirmed when a draft of the video was presented to deaf representatives from different churches. They reaffirmed the importance of the repetition when it was questioned by a hearing person. I am unsure if repetition is this important in other sign languages. (p.5) The selection of signers is a very important task. In addition to the characteristics of all projects of translation in a written tongue (translators whose ‘mother tongue’ is sign language and church, gender and generation representation), other aspects should be taken into account. For example, appearance: since Bible translation in sign language goes together with the person who signs the text, his or her look and personality should be pleasing to the deaf community, so that the translation may be well received. A related aspect is that signers and translators might be different persons. We would like translators to be able to sign as well. However, this is not always possible: translators can only translate and the signers can only sign. … Before each recording the whole team was very attentive to the appearance of the model signers: signer translators well combed, faces made up, t-shirts well ironed, no shining studs, and so on. (p.8)

62

Ernst Wendland

 List what you feel are the two most significant differences between a Bible translation in sign language and the type of translation that you are presently doing.  Did you note any principle or procedure from the preceding report that has relevance to your current translation project? If so, mention what this was.  Point out some of the ways in which the situational context, or setting of use, influences the production of a signed translation, just as in the case of written/printed Bible version.  Do you have a large deaf community in your country? If you do not know the answer, try to find out. Does this community have a signed Scriptures (or portion) available in their language? If so, give the details. If not, how is the Bible being communicated to this group? Is there a special need here that needs to be followed up on? Explain.  Carry out similar research as above for the visually impaired community in your country. Are their Bible needs being met? Summarize the current situation and what may be done to create an appropriate frame of reference for them to receive and better understand the Scriptures. EXERCISE-14 In Exercise 3 of the preceding chapter we considered different generalized aspects of the “ancient personality” of Bible times. A more precise way to investigate the diverse culturally-based value system and associated behavior of the Ancient Near Eastern world is to adopt some of the key concepts and tools of so-called social-scientific criticism. The aim of these researchers is to “present models and scenarios of Mediterranean norms and values over against which the texts might be appropriately read” (these and subsequent quotes come from the insightful studies to be found in Malina and Rohrbaugh [M&R] 1992, used by permission). This socio-anthropological approach is “an attempt to provide the reader with fresh insight into the social system shared by the authors” of the Scriptures and their original ANE audiences – that is, “the range of meanings that would have been plausible” to listeners (or the rare readers) of Bible times and whose significance is usually left implicit in the biblical text (ibid:14).  The following is a selection of some of the main values and social determiners of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) life – that is, their default cognitive frames of reference which normally governed their words and actions in different public situations. The brief summary definitions come from M&R (with my inter-polations in brackets). First, determine whether or not you agree with the analysis or description that has been given by M&R (1992, page number references in parentheses). Then discuss the biblical passage that is given as an example of each principle and determine the degree of conceptual correspondence with the perspective of most people in your current cultural setting. Is some explanation necessary to clarify any major differences in thinking or behavior? If so, suggest a brief note to this effect. Then find another example of this same value or principle in a different passage of Scripture, one from the Old Testament if possible.

Why we do things the way we do a) Honor – Shame: “Unlike our Western guilt-oriented society, the pivotal value of the Mediterranean society of the first century was honor-shame. … ‘[H]onor’ and ‘glory’ refer to the same reality, that is, the public acknowledgment of one’s worth or social value. … Since honor [whether ascribed or acquired] is a limited good, if one person wins honor, someone else loses. Envy is thus institutionalized and subjects anyone seeking to outdo his neighbors to hostile gossip and the pressure to share. Challenges to one’s honor could be positive or negative. Giving a gift is a positive challenge and requires reciprocation in kind. An insult is a negative challenge that likewise cannot be ignored. … One can ‘be shamed,’ and this refers to the state of publicly known loss of honor. This is negative shame. But to ‘have shame’ means to have concern about one’s honor. This is positive shame. It can be understood as sensitivity for one’s own reputation (honor) or the reputation of one’s family” (76-77). Mt. 20:9-16 b) Challenge – Riposte: In the shame-honor world of the Gospels, “the game of challenge-riposte is a central phenomenon, and one that must be played out in public. It consists of a challenge (almost any word, gesture, or action) that seeks to undermine the honor of another person and a response that answers in equal measure or ups the ante (and thereby challenges in return). Both positive (gifts, compliments) and negative (insults, dares) challenges must be answered to avoid a serious loss of face. In the Synoptic Gospels Jesus evidences considerable skill at riposte and thereby reveals himself to be an honorable and authoritative prophet” (42). Mt. 4:1-11 c) Love – Hate: “First-century Mediterranean persons were extremely group oriented. They learned that a meaningful human existence required total reliance on the group in which one found oneself embedded. [This reflects the so-called “dyadic,” or socially interactive and embedded, “other-oriented” personality.] This primarily meant the kin group, the village group, the neighborhood, and/or the factions one might join. …The result of such group orientation was an anti-introspective way of being. Persons had little concern for things psychological. … The term ‘love’…is best translated ‘group attachment, attachment to some person.’ … There may or may not be affection, but it is the inward feeling of attachment along with the outward behavior bound up with attachment that love entails. … Correspondingly, ‘hate’ would mean ‘disattachment, nonattachment, indifference.’ Again, there may or may not be feelings of repulsion” (57). Mt. 5:43-44 d) Patron – Client: “Patron-client systems are socially fixed relations of generalized reciprocity between social unequals in which a lower-status person in need (called a client) has his needs met by having recourse for favors to a higher-status, well-situated person (called a patron). … Patrons were powerful individuals who controlled resources and were expected to use their positions to hand out favors to inferiors based on ‘friendship,’ personal knowledge and favoritism. … Brokers mediate between patrons above and clients below. … Clients were those dependent on the largesse of patrons or brokers to survive well in their society. They owed loyalty and public acknowledgment of honor in return. Patronage was voluntary but ideally

63

64

Ernst Wendland lifelong. … In the New Testament the language of grace is the language or patronage” (74-75). Lk. 7:1-10 e) Purity – Pollution: “One traditional way of talking about such an overall system of meaning is called the purity system, the system of pure (in place) and impure (out of place) or the system of clean (in place) and unclean (out of place). … Such purity distinctions embody the core values of a society and thereby provide clarity of meaning, direction of activity, and consistency for social behavior. … Purity systems thus provide ‘maps’ designating social definitions or bounded categories in which everything and everybody fits and is considered clean or does not and is regarded as defiled. These socially contrived maps provide boundaries that fit over individuals, over groups, over the environment, over time, and over space. These boundaries are known to everyone enculturated in the society, so that one knows when one’s behavior is ‘out of bounds.’ Cleaning, purification, refers to the process of returning matter (or persons) to its proper place” in the social order (318-319). Mt. 12:1-14 f) Ingroup – Outgroup: “One of the basic and abiding social distinctions made among first-century Mediterraneans was that between ingroup and outgroup persons. A person’s ingroup generally consisted of one’s household, extended family, and friends. The boundaries of an ingroup were fluid; ingroups could and did change… Ingroup members are expected to be loyal to each other and to go to great lengths to help each other (Luke 11:5-9). They are shown the greatest consideration and courtesy; such behavior is rarely, if ever, extended to members of outgroups. … [T]he house of Israel could look at the rest of the world as one large outgroup, ‘the (other) nations,’… The factional boundaries of ingroups and outgroups are well-marked in the Gospels…[the outermost groups from the Pharisees’ perspective being ethnic Samaritans and ritually-impure “sinners.”]. By asking a person for a favor, one in effect extended to the person an implicit invitation for membership in one’s ingroup” (88-89). Jn. 4:1-42 g) Rich – Poor: “In ancient Palestine, the common perception was that all goods existed in finite, limited supply and were already distributed. … This included not only material goods, but honor, friendship, love, power, security, and status as well – literally everything in life. The pie could never grow larger; hence a larger piece for anyone automatically meant a smaller piece for someone else. … The word ‘rich’ describes a social condition relative to one’s neighbors: the rich are shamelessly strong. To be labeled ‘rich’ was therefore a social and moral statement as much as an economic one. It meant having the power or capacity to take from someone weaker what was rightfully his. Being rich was synonymous with being greedy. Similarly, the term ‘poor’ should be understood in concrete terms, though not exclusively in economic terms. The ‘poor’ are persons unable to maintain their inherited honor standing in society because of misfortune or the injustice of others. Being poor meant being defenseless, without recourse. … The focal source of power (hence wealth) in Israel was the Temple” (251-252). Lk. 16:19-31

Why we do things the way we do

65

 Can you think of some other prominent social polarity or crucial value that is featured in the biblical literature? If so, describe it along with an example or two.  Does this sociocultural frame pose any problems in understanding for your primary target audience? Prepare a short cross-cultural comparative analysis, including a summary of the communicative relevance of this particular feature in relation to your present-day life situational setting. EXERCISE-15 The new opportunities made possible by electronic sign delivery systems and the internet are becoming increasingly important to communicators of the Scriptures worldwide. They are rapidly creating a dynamic and flexible new “frame of reference” that needs to be given much more attention in terms of research, trial application, and testing. But is there more involved than simply novel methods of communication? The following excerpt suggests that, indeed, different mental processing faculties are engaged in situations of “secondary orality,” which may render electronic texts (or “hypertexts”) much more amenable and accessible to certain societies and sub-groups that have not responded well to the printed word. Study the following selections (from Spielmann and Wiens 2003:4-7) and use these ideas as the basis for a group discussion concerning issues such as the following:  How important is “secondary orality” in your culture, and what sort of research supports your conclusion?  Evaluate the characterization of electronic “hypertext” communication given below – do you have anything to add, correct, or query?  How effective would a hypertext presentation of the Bible (or portions of it) be in your social setting?  Would a certain group be likely to respond as reported in Hawaii or as projected in indigenous American communities? Explain your answer. If you do not know, how might you find the information needed to draw a reliable conclusion?  If you have been involved in the production of a hypertext version of the Scriptures of any kind, describe the essential procedures, including the main problems encountered and solutions discovered.  How do you test the effectiveness and/or appropriateness of such electronic media products? (You may have to wait to answer this question until you have worked through chapter 10.) [N]ow electronic media has ushered in a new shift that is restructuring the way we think. Secondary orality (also called at times oral literacy or electronic orality) is orality mainly in the ways in which it manifests communication styles and thought processes similar to primary orality. …

66

Ernst Wendland Hypertext is a key element in the technology surrounding secondary orality. Hypertext has been defined as “nonsequential writing - text that branches and allows choices to the reader, best read at an interactive screen. As popularly conceived, this is a series of text chunks connected by links which offer the reader different pathways” (Nelson, 0/2). It is not limited to text, but can include graphics, sound, video - any information that can be digitized. … Within hypertext format, a text is no longer a unit unto itself. It always occurs within a field of other texts. It may be linked to other text that supports or contradicts, that clarifies or questions. The text becomes part of a complex dialogue: “Hypertext fosters integration rather than self-containment, always situating texts in a field of other texts” (Landow and Delany, 13). Unlike a printed book, it does not exist in isolation. Bolter (1991, 58-59) points out several ways in which texts in hypertext format more closely resemble oral discourse than they do conventional printing. First, just as oral poetry was composed of formulaic blocks within which the audience interpreted the story, so electronic writing is also highly associative, with the pattern of associations among verbal elements being as much a part of the text as the elements themselves. Second, electronic text and oral text are both dynamic and flexible, i.e., the audience or reader has a role to play in both. … In oral text, the audience would have “the opportunity to affect the telling of the tale by their applause or disapproval.” … In Lanham’s words, “the electronic audience is radically interactive” (76). Fowler adds: “It is impossible to be a passive reader of hypertext. ...the reader must pick and choose her way from node to node, thus determining the ‘text’ to be read.” Third, secondary orality generates a strong group sense. The new media appeal to the group rather than to the individual. “They offer a shared, not a private, experience” (Silverstone, 148). Marshall McLuhan’s “global village” is characterized by our culture of secondary orality. As well, it is close to life, based on hands-on apprenticeship learning rather than distancing and objectification (Warschauer, 173). Secondary orality is not a return to illiterate orality. It has “continuing dependence on the analytical and technical and narrative skills that in turn depend on print” (Silverstone, 148). The formula is replaced “by the slogan and by the planned spontaneity of group experiences. The new orality is action-oriented and thus is oriented to the future, not to the past” (Silverstone, 148). In many ways secondary orality is multisensory. Perceptual presentation (e.g. video or animation) often displaces or replaces verbal text (Bolter 1996). In traditional print, text contained the important thoughts, pictures were subordinate, “they are texts of a certain kind; they suggest a writing space that is stable and monumental” (Bolter 1996). Warschauer quotes a Hawaiian student he interviewed who was involved in a study of students being introduced to electronic literacy: “You know, Hawaiians they weren’t a written culture, and I think there’s a reason for that, you know they were very alive with everything, so if they’re gonna be writing I think this is a great medium because they can be alive here. They can kind of be artistic and do something creative, so, I think it’s very good, and ... a lot of pride can come through there” (107). Warschauer’s research findings in Hawaii support our own observations in North America that electronic literacy (i.e. the culture of secondary orality), is far more appealing to indigenous peoples than the traditional culture of literacy. It is apparent to those of us who have worked with Inuit and First Nations peoples in Canada that the culture of literacy which missionaries and the dominant Canadian society attempted to instill in these communities has not been widely adopted by them. Warschauer says

Why we do things the way we do

67

that, “My observations and interviews yielded evidence that students were keenly aware of the new medium they were writing in and that they felt that the media was very appropriate to their Hawaiian cultural traditions. Almost all students showed keen interest in learning the design features of the Web medium” (Warschauer, 106). … Warschauer’s research and our own observations lead us to postulate the “aboriginal leap” in indigenous communities. We are suggesting that while indigenous communities in North America, by and large, did not embrace the culture of literacy brought to them by European immigrants and missionaries, they are jumping into the age of electronic literacy (i.e. secondary orality) as enthusiastically as the dominant society around them. The most evident limitation to greater participation in electronic communication by people living in First Nations and Inuit communities in Canada is access to electronic media. There is a need for further research to test this hypothesis, but our initial observations would support the conclusion that given equal access, participation in the culture of “secondary orality” would be at least as great in these communities as in North American society generally.

References (for this exercise): Bolter, Jay David. 1996. “Degrees of freedom.” http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~bolter/degrees.html. Bolter, Jay David. 1991. Writing space: The computer, hypertext, and the history of writing. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum. Gronbeck, B.E., T.J. Farrell, and P.A. Soukup (eds). 1991. Media, consciousness, and culture: Explorations of Walter Ong’s thought. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Fowler, Robert M. 1994. “How the secondary orality of the electronic age can awaken us to the primary orality of antiquity or What hypertext can teach us about the Bible with reflections on the ethical and political issues of the electronic frontier.” Paper presented at SBL, Semiotics and Exegesis Section. http://homepages.bw.edu/~rfowler/ pubs/secondoral/. Landow, George P. and Paul Delany. 1991. “Hypertext, hypermedia and literary studies: The state of the art.” In P. Delany and G.P. Landow (eds.), Hypermedia and literarysStudies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 3-50. Lanham, Richard A. 1993. The electronic word: Democracy, technology, and the arts. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Nelson, Theodor Holm. 1990. Literary machines: the report on, and of, Project Xanadu concerning word processing, electronic publishing, hypertext, thinkertoys, tomorrow’s intellectual revolution, and certain other topics including knowledge, education and freedom (Ed. 90.1). Sausalito, CA: Mindful Press. Silverstone, Roger. 1991. “Television, rhetoric, and the return of the unconscious in secondary oral culture.” In Media, Consciousness, and Culture, 147-159. Warschauer, Mark. 1999. Electronic Literacies: Language, Culture, and Power in Online Education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

4. The rights and responsibilities of allegiance Organizational frames What is an organization? As a separate sub-group within any current sociocultural setting, an “organization” may be defined in a general sort of way from four different perspectives, each of which may be characterized by a distinct frame of reference. Thus, based on the information derived from several dictionaries, we may take the term organization to refer to: 1. A group of persons who voluntarily come together to work as an “organized” (categorized, arranged, interrelated, coordinated, etc.) body in order to manifest a particular intellectual position or cause and perform a related purpose in society. 2. The management personnel whose job it is to see to it that all the persons who belong to an organization carry out their respective functions for the good of the entire group. 3. The formal administrative structure, which is normally arranged, stratified, or codified in some official way, through which a group of individuals cooperate in an efficient manner to perform a particular goal, task, or business. 4. The entire abstract establishment consisting of the three previously mentioned aspects of an organized group that functions as an ordered, purposeful whole (1 + 2 + 3 = 4).

Ideally, the first three aspects – consisting of personal as well as several institutional dimensions, along with their associated perspectives and/or aims – overlap and operate together to a sufficient degree to promote the smooth functioning of the corporate body as a whole (#4). But this does not always happen, especially in times of uncertainty, dispute, or crisis for the organization (perhaps even the society at large), and as a result its desired goals are not fully or satisfactorily accomplished. A Christian “church” denomination [4], for example, consists of a diverse association of people who to a greater or lesser extent affirm and adhere to a common set of religious beliefs and practices [1]. “Ordinary” members of the group are usually “managed” (“shepherded” – or “herded”?) by trained or specially recognized personnel (“clergy”), who may constitute a formal or informal hierarchy (e.g., priest – bishop – archbishop – cardinal – pope versus a single higher level of “elder”) [2]. The entire group normally operates according to an explicit set of doctrinal principles (e.g., a “confession of faith”) within some kind of ecclesiastical administrative structure that may be more or less formal and ritualized in worship practice [3]. In the course of history, certain significant alterations or even a complete transformation may occur in the respective perspectives of [1], [2], and/or [3], resulting in a serious predicament or dilemma that affects the unity and harmony of the entire institution [4] – as represented by a “synodical” polity for example.

The rights and responsibilities of allegiance

69

In a typical church body, the primary motivation and initiation for change usually comes from the clergy [2], such as the recent drive to promote the ordination of women and homosexuals as priests in the Episcopal Church of America. Such a move is currently prohibited by traditional church teaching and practice [3], the official statement of which would have to be formally modified for any change to take place. This is widely opposed by the laity [1], who tend to be more conservative in their outlook than clerics. The result is a serious controversy that threatens to split the worldwide Anglican fellowship [4], both within individual member churches and also the denomination as a whole, for example, in many national synods of Africa. Attempts to resolve this controversy are not meeting with much success because the antithetical cognitive frames are based upon and influenced by major hermeneutical differences with regard to the interpretation of certain key passages of the Bible (e.g., Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 14:34-35; 2 Timothy 2:11-12). EXERCISE-1  What is the official position [3] of your church denomination [4] concerning the controversies that involve the ordination of clergy mentioned above? Is there a significant difference between the clergy [2] and the laity [1] with regard to such sociological as well as religious issues? If so, explain what the respective differences are – and how the church is trying to resolve them. If ordination is not a “theological” issue in your denomination, do you perhaps have some other critical source of controversy? If so, how do the various aspects of “organization” relate to the main differences of opinion?  How do prevailing sociocultural frames of reference, as discussed in the preceding chapter, influence or affect such group organizational matters – with respect to both the disputed passages of Scripture and also the widespread secular (social, governmental, business-related) calls for “human rights” or “equal opinions” for all? What do you think is the best way to modify or transform a firmly established cognitive perception or deep-seated attitude either one way or the other? Does this depend on the issues involved – or who is attempting to change whom and why? Explain your own position on these crucial but highly sensitive matters.  How does this situation change if, instead of a church denomination, we consider the national Bible Society (or another translation agency) as general factor [4] with respect to these issues?  In view of the current state of affairs in your community and culture with respect to the organizational issues affecting pastoral or priestly ordination, is there any move in the Christian community at large to modify or completely change the current translations of the four Scripture passages mentioned above? What about their “accepted” or “official” interpretations? If so, explain what the main differences or opposing positions are regarding this ecclesiastical as well as translational matter.  Is the case being argued principally on exegetical grounds (i.e., with reference to the original biblical sociocultural setting) or in terms of widespread public opinion – that is, not only within the church, but with respect to society in general?

70

Ernst Wendland

 Point out and explain any problems that you happen to note in your vernacular translation of these four passages (with regard to any controversy noted above). If you detect any difficulties, suggest how they might be resolved through inter-group negotiation and compromise.

The matter of interacting, mutually influential organizational frames of reference is of central consideration in Bible translation work. Any national Bible Society is part of a large network of religious as well as secular organizations, associations, and agencies that sponsor and support the mission of Scripture production and distribution throughout the world. As was noted earlier, the mother body, the United Bible Societies (UBS), is a worldwide fellowship composed of some 200 independent national groups that share a common ethos, purpose, and motivation – all of which center upon communicating the Word of God in an accurate, appropriate (i.e., for a particular use or setting), acceptable (i.e., to the majority), and affordable manner on behalf of a designated audience group. Every national society, however, does have its own localized perspective and rationale – one that is shaped and influenced by its unique history, location, cultural setting, religious environment, and resources, including the various churches and para-church groups that support it financially and otherwise. Each society also has an internal organization that may differ in certain respects from that of others in the UBS, although there are usually several general areas of operation that are common to all, for example: administration, translation, publication, distribution, and Scripture product promotion. If a UBS translation consultant happens to be resident in the country, a major agency of the national society will often be a translation center, at which all local and sometimes regional work is coordinated and managed. In Zambia, for example, the Lusaka Bible Translation Centre (LBTC) has the following specified goals (as published on the national Bible Society website: www.biblesociety-zambia.org): •

• •

•

To help local churches to organize and manage an efficient, well-administered programme for the purposes of translating the Scriptures accurately and acceptably in their language for an explicitly defined target audience and according to clearly-stated principles and procedures. To arrange for the selection and training of competent and committed translators, a computer keyboarder, and draft reviewers for the project. To carefully monitor Bible translation work in each project from start to finish, including periodic quality assessment by means of various text-checking exercises and audience testing procedures. To advise each project administration on all aspects of the translation work, including final certification that a given Scripture text and product is approved for publication

According to the latest UBS World Report (No. 409, March 2007), “(t)he number of languages into which at least one complete book of the Bible has been translated reached 2,426 at the end of 2006” meaning that “95 percent of the world’s population theoretically had access to Scripture in a language they could understand. … Along with three new Bibles, the [report] lists 31 New Testaments [including Mambwe-Lungu of north-eastern Zambia], of which five are the first reported Scripture publications in those languages” (p. 3). For the UBS, “[t]ranslation remains at the heart of our task. … It is currently involved in more than 500 translation projects worldwide…” (p. 5). 

The rights and responsibilities of allegiance

•

•

•

71

via the appropriate medium. To conduct relevant, translation-related research in the field of Zambian languages and literature (orature), also with regard to Scripture needs as well as post-publication usage (text-context consumer engagement). To assist translation projects in carrying out basic literacy work as well as new-reader, special-audience, and non-print Scripture media productions (audio, video, musical, radio, electronic). To promote the wider understanding and use of the Scriptures as well as greater support for Bible translation in Zambia through various publications, educational seminars, and public talks about the many different aspects of this foundational Christian ministry, including the composition and nature of the Bible itself.

The important thing to note with regard to this listing is not so much the specific objectives themselves, for these might well vary, or be interpreted and implemented somewhat differently, from one regional translation center to the next. Rather, it is the existence of the entire package of aims and responsibilities that creates a mental framework and corporate ethos which guides staff members when carrying out their individual and communal work assignments. This organizational philosophy also establishes an essential set of task-related expectations with respect to the national Bible Society, on the one hand, and the individual translation projects on the other. Every National Bible Society (NBS) has its own charter or constitution that establishes its legal existence as an official “non-profit” (or “charitable”) association within the country as well as its various principles and procedures of operation as these relate to the composite work of Scripture translation, publication, distribution, and promotion within the geographical area concerned. Within this highest level of organization then, the local Bible Translation Center (BTC) functions as the technical-support agency that is specifically charged with the responsibility of producing Scripture texts that are suitable for publication for specified target audiences or church bodies. The BTC must be independent enough to carry out its work efficiently – that is, without interruption or interference on the part of NBS personnel. On the other hand, the BTC must also recognize its vital role within the overall operations of the NBS as well as a constituency of local churches and strive to keep their various interrelationships harmonious and cooperative through joint consultations, workshops, problem-solving sessions, and mutual support activities (e.g., in the areas of Scripture distribution, fund-raising, and product testing). In recent years, every UBS-sponsored translation project – namely, the local Administrative Committee (AC) – is encouraged at the outset to draw up its own contextualized, setting-sensitive, statement of general policies, principles, and operating procedures. This job commission constitutes the project’s official position statement and production guide (sometimes technically termed a translation Brief). It thus acts as a mental as well as a material framework within which and according to the project is ideally supposed to be administered, managed, and evaluated for quality control. This document also explicitly sets forth information concerning the primary communicative goal of the translation (or Skopos), the principal target audience and setting of use, the medium of transmission, proposed schedule of completion, staff job descriptions, conditions of service, measures for evaluating the effectiveness of

72

Ernst Wendland

various draft versions and preliminary publications – in short, anything that pertains to the overall production process from beginning to ending (and sometimes thereafter, e.g., in the case of post-production testing and periodic revision). The formulation of such a job commission means that any Bible translation nowadays, no matter what the type, is never the project or product of a small group of translators – let alone a single “one-man” version. Rather, a large network of professional staff as well as non-specialist supporters is, ideally, welded into a coordinated human “production line” that requires many different tasks to be performed. In addition to the small team of translators (usually three members having different functions), there must be capable administrators, technical exegetical, linguistic, and stylistic advisers, reviewers, testers and researchers, fund-raisers and project promoters. In particular, a competent and well-trained corps of gate-keepers is needed to continually monitor and oversee both the semantic content and the literary (or other media-related) quality of the final Scripture product with regard to its textual as well as extra-textual features (e.g., typographical format and printed presentation, illustrations and maps, introductions, notes, cross references, and so forth). In addition, a corps of capable “public relations” (PR) spokespersons must be educated and commissioned to explain the rationale, purpose, and current progress of the translation to a diverse assortment of sponsors and other interested or concerned parties: different church denominations, government agencies (e.g., a national orthographic governing body), ethnic associations and culture-support groups (especially in the case of neglected or marginalized languages), perhaps even a “non-government organization” (NGO) or two (e.g., World Vision). The preceding summary of the several distinct organizational levels that may be simultaneously engaged in a specific Bible translation project indicates that this is a rather complicated enterprise. Since Scripture production is a joint, highly interactive, long-term operation, it clearly requires the fullest cooperation from all supporting partners. Their mutual efforts are also vulnerable to failures or limitations in any area of the work, which can hinder a translation’s progress or even prevent its completion. Obviously, things do not always go according to plan or in keeping with the originally proposed schedule. Over and above the expected problems relating to the basic competence or commitment of key project personnel, financial shortfalls, and equipment failures, there may also be ideological clashes and procedural inconsistencies that can get in the way of progress. It is clear, therefore, that effective intra- and inter-group communication and coordination is essential to keep such barriers to a minimum and to promote a common vision and set of goals that all participants can readily adopt as their own with a minimum of debate and disagreement. In addition to dealing with matters that pertain to the translation text itself, an active production committee may have to educate its target constituency with regard to issues about the type of version being prepared – namely, for whom it is primarily intended and for which particular settings of use. EXERCISE-2 Consider the preceding discussion and the corresponding outline of the function of “gatekeepers” given in Bible Translation: Frames of Reference (Wilt 2003:51) in the

The rights and responsibilities of allegiance

73

light of a translation program that you know about or have participated in. If you have no experience of this kind, then you might do some research concerning a specific project at the local Bible Society (or some other Bible translation agency – WBT, IBT, LBT, Pioneer, etc.).  What are the major structural differences that you can detect in comparison with those outlined above – and are (were) these beneficial or detrimental to the project that you are investigating? Briefly describe your findings along with any suggestions regarding organizational issues that you feel might increase the efficiency of operation of any translation program, whether in general or in relation to a specific project. The “efficiency” of any goal-oriented, production-focused organization’s operation in terms of “quality control” depends on a number of critical factors, for example: The aptitude and ability of the immediate production staff The simplicity of operational and administrative procedures The clarity of personal roles and responsibilities in relation to each other The availability of resources and control mechanisms The willingness to use all available resources and/or controls in the pursuit of excellence The motivation and capabilities of those entrusted in a gatekeeping role of some kind The skill of management and support staff (including advisory “experts” and consultants)

 Can you add any other factors to this list? How do they, taken together and managed effectively, contribute to the perceptible improvement of the corporate “cognitive environment” of any organization, a Bible translation program in particular?  Do you have any positive or negative experiences in this respect – that is, a case where you witnessed quality control being either adversely compromised or helpfully enhanced due to the (non-) implementation of some vital gatekeeping mechanism?  Most organizations have logos which identify them to the public. The various Bible Societies of the world are no different. What conceptual frames of reference do you access to understand the following logo? What is the primary message that this logo seeks to communicate about the organization in terms of purpose and motivation? Summarize the different aspects of interpreting this logo that you are aware of. How “culture specific” is the logo – would it cause any difficulties for people in your world region? If so, explain what the problems are:

This is the logo of the Bible Society of South Africa, accessed at their website: http://www. biblesociety.co.za/. 

74

Ernst Wendland

The quality of organizational relationships in any management structure depends inevitably on the relative balance of variables that involve power and solidarity within the group as a whole. One of the most important factors pertaining to both vertical and horizontal interpersonal relations is the degree of dependency of one member (group) upon another. For example, the more dependent that A is on B in terms of essential resources (financial, technical, intellectual, or otherwise), the more power that B has to influence and direct the thinking and behavior of A. On the other hand, the more mutual dependence there is, that is, A on B, and B on A, to carry out some joint objective, or to support a common cause (moral, social, political, etc.), the more solidarity that normally exists between them, all other things being equal. Such issues too can be usefully explored in terms of different frames of reference and the personal perspectives that govern how the current administrative and operational systems are both analyzed and assessed. These matters concern all of the factors listed above (and many more) – for example, with regard to the relative “simplicity of… procedures” or “the clarity of personal roles and responsibilities.” What the management regards as being a simple, straightforward operation may be viewed as unduly complex or even unworkable by an uninformed or untrained work force whose job it is to implement the desired procedures. On the other hand, a well-informed and highly experienced corps of workers might come to a similar conclusion about some hastily proposed management-initiated course of action. This is why institution or organization-wide assessments need to be carried out at all levels and catering for both directions of any hierarchy – that is, moving from top to bottom and vice-versa. Similarly, it is helpful from time to time to give opportunity for one colleague to evaluate the competency and compatibility of another on the same team. A system in which only the supervisors rate those under their authority is not going to be very helpful to the organization as a whole. Furthermore, performance reviews of personnel are clearly dependent upon the degree of honesty and openness with which they are made. When positive, eulogistic (but unrealistic) appraisals of others are made in the hope of receiving a corresponding rating in return, the exercise will not be very informative at all; the same goes for negative critical evaluations which are acrimoniously traded back and forth. Such management and other organizational issues are further explored in relation to the operation of your own Bible translation program through the following exercises: EXERCISE-3 A critical concern in many less affluent Bible Societies involves the relative amount of local as opposed to national and – in turn – also international (e.g., UBS) resource support for a given project. Consider (or do some research regarding) an active translation program that falls under the auspices of your local Bible society (or another Bible translation agency):  Who are the real “owners” (power brokers) of the project or program, and how is such a judgment made and then perceived by the majority (the principal target audience)? Who owns the copyright and who sets the translators’ conditions of service? Are there

The rights and responsibilities of allegiance

75

ways in which the issue of support is transformed into different manifestations of external control, whether overt or covert?  How do the various participant groups view the current arrangement in your organization: Do they feel that inequities exist in the exercise of power, say, in terms of the decision-making process anywhere along the line, for example, with regard to the selection and supervision of translators, setting their conditions of service, determining the translational type of the version being produced, the manner or means of assessing stylistic and compositional quality, choosing which biblical books to translate first, and so on?  What affect does the situation considered above have on the intended user constituency? How much solidarity do they demonstrate and in which ways with respect to the different phases of the production process: preparation – translation – improvement (revision) – production – promotion – utilization – assessment of the Scripture product?  The notion of “gate keepers” brings up the issue of so-called “power relations” in the socially constituted practice of Bible translating. Who is it that determines what “context” will be used to define and monitor a given translation “event”? Who sets the “rules of the game” in terms of authority or the “chain of command”? Who is responsible to whom – why and on what basis? What are the key “ethical” issues involved, and whose job is it to set the required parameters, controls, and monitors? The participants in a Bible translation project may assume that these crucial variables are well understood by all parties concerned. But nowadays this cannot be taken for granted (if it ever could) – for example, in setting up the translators’ conditions of service, or when attempting to ascertain the “quality” of an ongoing translation effort, or when considering such seemingly straightforward matters as who owns the copyright to a published Bible translation? Pick out three relevant issues of this nature in the light of your translation project and discuss them with reference to the following excerpts from Baker (2006:327, 328, 329): Translation studies scholars would therefore do well to adapt their methods of analysis to allow for the fact that participants in a translation event can themselves define rather than simply respond to the context that is sometimes assumed to surround them ‘statically’. And of course they can use language itself to do so. [W]hile Basco et al. (2004) focus on elaborating categories of context and in that sense may be seen to approach the issue from a static, taxonomic perspective, they nevertheless embed their description within the dynamic notion of a ‘behavior game’. Moreover, they clearly inject their description with a dynamic view of context that acknowledges the agency of participants when they argue that “the recognition of the behavior game bid by the speaker does not bind the hearer to play a particular role in the game. On the contrary, the hearer can decide to accept or reject the proposed game, or to propose a different one, or to negotiate a specific one” (Basco et al. 2004:471). [I]t is of course not up to an individual participant alone to decide what is to count as context at any moment. Hence, Duranti and Goodwin (1992:6), among others, stress

76

Ernst Wendland that ‘‘in so far as the processes to which context is relevant are social and interactive, one party’s proposals as to what should constitute operative context might fail to achieve ratification by others’’ since ‘‘context is a socially constituted, interactively sustained, time-bound phenomenon’’. A related, and more important point, is that most treatments of context in the literature, … imply that context is a neutral field or framework in which we play out our social roles, and that in order to take control of it and shape it to our advantage all we need to do is learn how to employ the appropriate contextualization cues. Lindstrom (1992:103) explains that ‘‘however plotted, these models of context often grant context an inert neutrality: context is a neutral field for the play of speech events, or is the accumulation of cognitive schemata that are cued to foreground past understanding’’. These models clearly fail to explain much of what goes on in interaction.

EXERCISE-4  Read Paul’s discussion of the human body as a metaphor for the operation of a Christian organization (1 Corinthians 12). How does this chapter furnish a textual frame of reference that can help resolve problems that arise in the smooth running of a certain joint enterprise like the Bible Society, or a local translation project? Mention three particular applications that you can think of with reference to a translation organization fellowship that you belong to or participate in (local, national, or international).  Obviously, many organizational questions (and perhaps also controversies) need to be answered before a particular translation project gets underway, or as soon thereafter as possible. One way of accomplishing this is by incorporating such issues within a project job commission, or Brief, which is designed to clearly state all the terms of reference for the translation program, including its primary purpose (Skopos), principles and procedures. Say that you are on the planning committee of a new translation: what are some of the main features that you feel ought to be included in its organizational charter (Brief)? Try to be a specific as you can in relation to a particular local project that you have in mind. Also consider such issues as project management, training, and support: How are these vital aspects of the work to be monitored and evaluated in a manner that gives (sufficient) power to the people for whom the version is ultimately intended?  But where there is power – to use and manage resources – there must also be responsibility and accountability: how will you build these necessary ethics-related components into your program in a demonstrable way? EXERCISE-5 Try to do some research (if you do not know the answers to the following questions) concerning the different churches that have official representatives who sit on the local Bible Society Board of Directors (or the equivalent within some other translation agency):  How does the prevailing denominational constitution of this governing body create a certain organizational “frame of reference” with respect to doctrine or practice (e.g., “Episcopal” [Catholic-Anglican] – “Main-Line Protestant” – “Evangelical”

The rights and responsibilities of allegiance

77

– “Pentecostal” – “Independent” ) that may be difficult for other churches to fit within or cooperate with?  It is especially important to note how many Catholic (or “Orthodox”) representatives are present – also how many members of “non-traditional” Christian denominations (e.g., “African Independent Churches”). What about Jehovah’s Witnesses who want to buy your Bible translation(s): if they happen to be a large group in your country (as in Zambia), should they be invited to become members of the national Bible Society? Why or why not?  If the board that you are investigating has no problems with regard to such issues, how has this unanimity been accomplished? If certain problems exist, what do you suggest may be done to resolve them? EXERCISE-6  Organizational control may also be exercised externally with respect to translation policy. In other words, is the version under production intended to be relatively literal in nature (i.e., “foreignized”) or correspondingly idiomatic (i.e., “domesticated”) – or has the translational style been determined to fall somewhere in-between? What is the situation in your setting – whether past, present, or future (planning)?  How was this decision as to translation type (language level, register, or “style”) made and by whom (who were the major “players” involved)? Were the different viable options in the current situational setting clearly explained and fully discussed in advance of the decision-making process? Who presented the relevant issues: was there any possible skewing in the perspectives or opinions manifested?  For many years, “common language” or “popular language” translations were strongly promoted in both SIL and UBS circles. Nowadays the situation has changed, and much more flexibility is allowed for adjustments to local conditions and circumstances, including diverse audience groups and different Scripture products (not only for printed texts, but also audio and video productions, comics, musical versions, electronic hypertexts, and so forth). However, in some areas there may yet be a strong tradition of translation policy and procedure that needs to be respected and taken into consideration during the planning of any new project. The following, for example, is a brief extract that outlines a typical Orthodox perspective on and approach to Bible translation. Clearly, this particular composition – and theological – “frame of reference” is very influential in a large region of Euro-Asia. Are you working in circumstances that are similar to those outlined below? If so, summarize your Bible translation policy. This is very different from the translation tradition of the Orthodox Churches in the East where the Sacred Inspiration is also present but not balanced by the Reformation idea of perspicuitas (see Crisp 2000). There the Septuagintanisms and Hellenisms of the Slavonic translations and the resulting strangeness and otherness of the text are This case study is excerpted from a forthcoming article by Lourens de Vries in the Bible Translator entitled, “Theology, spirituality and the skopos of Bible translations: the case of the Dutch Statenvertaling”. It is used by permission of the Editor. 

78

Ernst Wendland positively welcomed because the ‘Orthodox tradition views language as an intrinsically inadequate tool for comprehending the holy, and therefore as performing verbally a symbolic role analogous to that enacted visually by icons. Just as the icon makes no claim to be a photographic – or even essentially pictorial – depiction of the scene or event it represents, but rather a window onto the timeless reality to which it testifies and a mysterious means of mediating that reality to the worshipper, so the language of Scripture cannot be a series of logical propositions with a single intended meaning…The implications of this understanding of language for Bible translation are quite considerable. Since the way in which language relates to the realities described in the Bible is seen as a complex and mysterious process, an Orthodox approach would tend to maintain in some way the status of the text as a window onto another world by preserving a sense of the distance between the (modern) reader and the (ancient) text, and by marking in some way the inherent strangeness or otherness of that text’ (Crisp 2000:6-7). For the Orthodox the Bible functions primarily in the liturgy and as an icon in the sense indicated by Crisp. It is the Fathers, the patristic tradition, that forms the exegetical and hermeneutical key to the Bible but these understandings of the Holy Writ are not mediated in the translation but in the teaching of the Church.

EXERCISE-7 Table 4 displays some of the common organizational frames involved in Scripture translation with some hypothetical target texts. It illustrates a number of the major factors that influence a translation committee’s decision about what sort of a translation to aim for (as stated in their project agreement form, or job commission – the Brief). The “product” side is merely one possible outcome, but this is not to say that the “frame” specified will always give the same translational result. Translation frames can also be combined to produce a “mixed” text output. Framing feature Strong church tradition No biblical background Educated TL constituency Limited funds available Long history of writing First Bible translation Long history of translation Very few literates

Desired Scripture product Formal equivalence translation1 Functional equivalence translation Full Study Bible in several editions Standard two-column text; few paratextual helps High-level written style, “literary” type of version Oral-oriented text, popular-language version Wording of new text is restricted by common usage in already published versions Common-language audio Scripture production

Table 4: Aspects of organizational frames in Bible translation

 Answer the following questions with reference to the examples of Table 4 (or the closest TL equivalent in your setting): a) Which “framing feature” or combination of them best characterizes the Bible translation project that you are most familiar with? b) What is the particular translation “Scripture product” which that project aims to produce? For a discussion of the crucial – albeit controversial – notion of “equivalence” in translation, see Wendland 2004:84-94, 297-298; 2006:61-65; see also Evans and Krajewska 2006. 1

The rights and responsibilities of allegiance

79

c) Which other combinations of “framing features” and “Scripture products” can you think of? d) Discuss this assertion: “The combination of a ‘strong church tradition’ and ‘no biblical background’ involves a contradiction in terms” (i.e., a clash in the expected organizational frames). Can you think of any exception to this? Consider the reverse situation – a weak church tradition but a strong biblical background, is that possible? How does “biblical background” relate to local efforts on behalf of Bible translation, in your area of experience? EXERCISE-8  The anthropologist Mary Douglas concludes that a culture’s beliefs, values, and even personal taste are to a large extent passed along to individual members by the societies in which they live. “For better or for worse, individuals really do share their thoughts and they do to some extent harmonize their preferences, and they have no other way to make the big decisions except within the scope of the institutions they build.”

(1986:128, cited in Bascom 2003). To what extent do you agree with this opinion? Can you think of some salient exceptions from your social setting? If the assertion is true, to what extent do you think that such beliefs (or institutional “filters”) can be changed or modified – and how can this best be done?  Some translation theorists are of the opinion that because the biblical text was concerned with geography, culture, history, etc. far removed from their own, this same distance, or “foreignness filter” ought to be represented also in any translation. From this point of view, a translation’s function is not to reflect “What Jesus would have said to us if he was here today” (i.e., a “domesticated filter”) but, rather, “What Jesus said in Galilee to Peter” (i.e., a “foreignized filter”). What do you think about this difference of opinion – which perspective do you support, that of the “foreignizer” or that of the “domesticator,” and why? In any case, what is a more important determining factor in the debate: Who is to decide what sort of translation should be made – and on what basis? What ethical issues are involved here in terms of both policy and implementation, that is, to ensure that translators actually do the job that is expected of and stipulated for them? EXERCISE-9  Consider the following quotation (Mojola 2003) with reference to the possibility that certain organizational (ecclesiastical or denominational) “frames of reference” can act as blinders to openness in interpretation, thus promoting “bibliolatry” while at the same time hindering the process of Bible translation in a given setting: The Bible is the Church’s book. No church can exist and carry out her historic mission and ministry without appeal to the Scriptures. …. The old traditional and liturgical churches of the northern continents need it. No less the new indigenous or the so-called independent churches of the southern continents, or the charismatic and Pentecostal

80

Ernst Wendland churches now mushrooming everywhere. A possible problem in this love affair between church and Bible is the danger of bibliolatry – a legalistic and slavish appeal to the letter rather than the spirit of the Scriptures, poorly lacking in sound exegesis or interpretation. Undoubtedly this problem exists in some pockets where proper Biblical education is lacking. It could and does lead to a certain fanaticism and intolerance, especially of those whose positions may differ. Another danger relates to churches and individuals in established and traditional Christian communities who have lost touch with the Bible and prefer rather to refer to theological tomes and seminary textbooks, or the word of their professors and former seminary teachers to validate or give authority to their message. Both dangers exist and ought to be guarded against. The middle ground that respects the Biblical text and also gives ear to theological and biblical scholarship is to be commended.

 What can be done in your socio-religious setting to promote the so-called “middle ground” (spoken of above) with respect to communicating the original Hebrew and Greek texts of Scripture, that is, with reference to specific practical applications such as interpretation, translation, church indoctrination, Bible education, multi-media transmission, and so forth?

Empowering the organization It has been customary in recent years for all large business and professional organizations to have some sort of department that is concerned with human resource development (HRD). Its primary aim is to foster or facilitate a better cognitive, emotional, and attitudinal framework for improved interaction on all organizational levels. This is done by seeking to provide members with the communication skills necessary to relate to each other more effectively and to be able to negotiate more positively when interpersonal problems and clashes arise. Another important aim is to train members in the capacity to evaluate in order to enhance past performance with respect to the organization’s stated goals. From a UBS perspective, the HRD department has the task of trying to clarify, harmonize, and interrelate the different frames of reference that various employee or member groups operate under within the organization as a whole. This is accomplished by various training courses and associated pedagogical techniques that are intended to increase the communicative proficiency of the people involved in any aspect of their joint corporate endeavor – whether commercial, humanitarian, scholarly, religious, or any other. For example, the following specific objectives were identified for an “essential (communication) skills” course that was presented by an HRD coordinator to a group of UBS translation consultants in 1995. This UBS Human Resources Development Program workshop was held in Nairobi, Kenya in November 20-24, 1995 and was facilitated by Dr. Jane Trent Surles and Ms. Glenda McQueen. These goals are outlined on page one of the prepared training course notes which were distributed to participants. The diagram here comes from the same source (p. 24), as does the subsequent, considerably modified chart delineating the roles of “coach” and “consultant,” which originally came as a separate handout. 

The rights and responsibilities of allegiance

81

At the end of training, participants will be able to: • Function effectively as a caring and learning community which can freely examine ideas and practice new skills. • Understand the origin of individual differences and preferences. • Describe clearly and affirm UBS values and operational priorities. • Use essential skills to facilitate work. • Describe and use the Performance Management Cycle. • Adapt and apply the course learning in their work situations.

The crucial Performance Management Cycle (PMC) consists of a repeating sequence of five basic steps, each of which builds upon the preceding one(s) to further develop the cycle, as shown on the diagram of Figure 13. Setting Goals and

/

/

Creating an Agenda for Work

Providing Performance Feedback

\

\

\ \

Planning Performance

Monitoring Work --------- Assigning Work

/

/

Figure performance management Figure 13:13: TheThe performance management cyclecycle

This sort of PMC is clearly very task-oriented, but it should be remembered that “work” (job performance) is only one facet treated the total training process. Other essential aspects include vital “human-relation” skills, like learning to appreciate individual differences and functioning as a “caring community” in which each member strives to facilitate and complement the abilities, roles, and assignments of others within the group. For the translation officer responsible, there is an obvious need to encourage a positive and productive psychological environment that will support his (her) work as a coach and/or a consultant. Each of these two roles and their associated responsibilities may be activated when working with a particular translation team, depending on its current situation and the specific organizational framework in which they are currently operating. For example, a consultant’s role may be more appropriate for a new, inexperienced, not-completely competent team, whereas a coach-like procedure usually works better with an experienced, highly qualified, more independent translation team. But how do these clearly related and overlapping roles differ? The data given in Table 5 offers one comparative perspective on some of the primary “roles, function, and skills for coaching and consulting”. The roles of a coach and consultant, when competently carried out, are essential to the operation of any organization, large or small. The goal is to encourage and

82

Ernst Wendland COACH







CONSULTANT

Role: operates directly to support and assist the members of a group to become more cohesive, competent, and committed to superior performance; has the power or authority of command in this effort to unlock the unique potential of every participant to maximize his or her skills for the benefit of the entire team and its particular joint enterprise.

Role: exerts influence more indirectly by virtue of his or her position, rank, assignment, etc. in order to stimulate, correct, and/or enhance the performance of a certain group; plays an advisory role to assist team members in recognizing problems, finding possible solutions, and facing new challenges.

Main Functions: • Counseling • Mentoring • Training • Challenging

Main Functions: • Observing • Questioning • Resource identifying • Problem solving

Special Skills: is able to do the activity being undertaken – can train by illustration with regard to all aspects of the enterprise; promotes unity and harmony in a joint activity; generates respect (and obedience) due to all-around performance abilities; good strategist.

Special Skills: is recognized and respected for specialized knowledge in key areas related to project performance; able to diagnose, stimulate, and facilitate dialogue, planning for achievement-based goals, and making decisions; trained monitor and evaluator.

Application: > Consider this overview of a coach and revise the description as necessary. > Describe any personal experience that you may have had as a coach. > Identify the principal function of a coach and the skill most needed to achieve this.

Application: > Consider this overview of a consultant and revise the description as necessary. > Describe any personal experience that you may have had as a consultant. > Identify the principal function of a consultant and the skill most needed to achieve this.

Table 5: Comparison of roles – “coach” and “consultant”

eventually establish a more efficient and effective working environment, or “corporatecontext,” to facilitate production. As suggested above, often the same person must fulfill both areas of responsibility, alternating according to the circumstances between coaching and consulting, while assisting a particular team and project. In particular, coach-consultants carry out an important function in creating and controlling the different frames of reference – whether individual or corporate, general or specific – that enable the group to accomplish its objectives in a more context-sensitive and people-oriented manner. Not everybody can serve in this crucial integrative capacity, however; an unqualified, inexperienced, inept, or biased coach-consultant can easily retard, undo, or even completely prevent progress from being made. It is important, therefore, that such personnel be carefully selected, tried or tested, and trained for their central communication-building role within any organization that is serious about achieving interpersonal harmony and cooperation while on the road to success in its primary endeavor(s).

The rights and responsibilities of allegiance

83

EXERCISE-10  What do you think of the Performance Management Cycle described above: Has any important procedure been omitted? If so, suggest what activity needs to be added and where in the sequence.  Does the organization that you work for have an HRD department? If so, describe its program and evaluate its effectiveness. If not, would it help your organization to have such a component? Explain.  In the UBS–HRD “Essential Skills Course” (also referred to above) six steps are recommended “for conducting a work plan conversation” involving a job supervisor or works manager and a person (X) who is being given an assignment; they are as follows: a) Set the psychological climate and present the focal assignment or task. b) Give any needed background information, reasons for the task, and its priority. c) Describe the benefits of having X chosen to perform the assignment in question. d) Get input and answer questions from X concerning the assignment. e) Reach agreement on job quality, level of effort required, areas of support, and a time line. f) Summarize the conclusions or agreements reached, the next stage, and the approach to monitoring for quality control and/or performance enhancement.  Evaluate these six steps and add to or revise them as you see fit in keeping with the translation organization that you are advising or working with. How effective do you think these will be in helping to create a harmonious working context, or “atmosphere” (psychological frame of reference)? Note that it is the responsibility of the person who assigns the work to be done (the supervisor/manager) to provide the agreed-upon support and to monitor performance and progress. Do you think that you could carry out such a supervisory role or function? Give reasons why – or why not.  Can you suggest any improvements or modifications that would be needed in these proposals if they are to be implemented within a different sociocultural setting? How do the recommendations relate specifically to the role of a “coach” or “consultant” as they may apply in your specific work situation?  Which is more important to the operation of a successful Bible translation program – that of the coach or a consultant? Explain your answer. EXERCISE-11 Role Playing (for two class members):

Dr. X is an experienced Bible translation consultant who has been working with a new team for about a year. X has been frustrated in past efforts to get the three team members to get better organized so as

84

Ernst Wendland

to make acceptable progress in their work. The individual members seem to be competent, committed, and mutually compatible – but still major project deadlines are missed and the quality of their work varies drastically, from being excellent to completely unacceptable. The young, energetic, and well-educated team leader, Rev. Y, is always very apologetic when meeting with Dr. X, but is never able to offer a satisfactory explanation for what is going wrong. X arranges to meet Y again to discuss the situation, aiming to accomplish two major objectives: (a) identify the key problems hindering the project and their causes; (b) develop and agree upon a strategy for dealing with these and resolving the situation. Focus on dramatizing in dialogue how X needs to play his or her role sensitively and strategically as a seasoned, context-building coach/consultant for this team. Y will have to imagine her-/himself working in a translation situation that would be possible, even likely, in her/his actual life-setting.

In the “post 9/11” era many church bodies and charitable organizations have experienced a noticeable drop in funding. The reasons for this are many and varied and cannot be considered here. What does need to be briefly discussed is the accompanying necessity for many organizations, religious and secular alike (the latter to achieve greater profitability), to “downsize” their staff through various measures such as job cutting, “early retirement” agreements, and other retrenchment procedures. The question is: What role does “human resource development” departments have to play during such exercises to help employees who happen to lose their jobs cope with such traumatic experiences – or better, to assist them to find some new employment elsewhere? One does not hear a great deal these days about such an essential organizational service being carried out by the “H&R” people, and this naturally leaves the newly unemployed feeling bitter and often betrayed by those who were perceived as having the obligation to “look out for” their welfare within the organization that has just “let them go.” Perhaps the management feels that its retrenchment or retirement programs are generous enough to soften the blow sufficiently (often a matter for debate), but in many cases this still provision does not deal adequately with the psychological shock to the system that is felt by professional, highly skilled persons who have all of a sudden lost their jobs (while other former colleagues have not). In short then, “empowering the organization” is a vital function that must be performed not only to prepare an individual to serve the corporate body more effectively, but also to leave the group more gracefully in the end, especially if the termination of one’s services should for one reason or another come prematurely and unexpectedly. EXERCISE-12  Retrenchment letters and company communiqués on the subject are often quite blunt, at times insensitively so, even within Christian organizations (who, one would think, ought to know better – a better way to soften the blow). These are cases where sensitive communication skills are needed but the actual results often leave much to be desired. Here is a case in point, from an official organizational “letter to the fellowship” in 2007, which begins: “I am writing with the sad and unwelcome news that a number of posts in the Service Organisation have been made redundant.”

The rights and responsibilities of allegiance

85

Let us focus on the commonly-used term “redundant” – what does it really mean in terms of both denotation and connotation? Webster’s Dictionary defines several of the senses of this word as follows: “more than enough; overabundant; excess; superfluous – unnecessary – (Brit.) laid off from work as no longer needed; discharged; dismissed”

So which of the possible senses of “redundant” is going to make the employees thus affected feel any better when they reads this notice of termination? Certainly, a connotatively less grating term could be found – perhaps also used in a less outspoken statement of fact. How about this (with reference to the quote above): “…a number of important posts in the Service Organisation can no longer be supported” (reasons following).

Perhaps you can make a better suggestion in this particular case:  Have you, or a colleague/friend, that you know ever received such a termination of employment letter? If you have an example, how was the critical news conveyed? Cite the actual sentence or paragraph used. If you feel that the message could have been communicated in a more sensitive and sympathetic manner, make your suggestions – with reasons (if you are quoting from a language other than English, give a back-translation).

Competing organizations The following case studies illustrate the competion that results when organizations having different frames of reference in terms of guiding principles and procedures aim to achieve the same general objective, namely, an acceptble translation of the Scriptures. It is not a matter of one organization being right and the other wrong. Rather, success and satisfaction can be measured only on the basis of the specific goal(s) that a project has in relation to a clearly defined target audience, whose needs and desires have been carefully ascertained in advance. EXERCISE-13 Consider the following summary of a comparative case study involving two very differing Bible translation projects (from L. de Vries 2003). Point out several key examples of “organizational influence” coming to the fore to influence the purpose (skopos), motivation, method, and outcome of the work in each case. Note any similarities in these two cases to Bible translation programs that you have either participated in or which you know about. What was the eventual outcome of this tension among competing organizational factors? I examined the relationship between skopos and paratext of Bible translations, using the Dutch Statenvertaling of 1637 and the modern Indonesian common language version (BIS) as examples: The skopos of the Statenvertaling comprised theology and spirituality related elements such as the inspiration doctrine, the perspicuitas doctrine including the emphasis on

86

Ernst Wendland lay theology and the Reformed hermeneutics of comparing Scripture with Scripture. But the skopos of the SV also contained other elements such as national and political elements, and the relationship with previous translations that had won authority, especially the Deux-Aes Bible. This skopos of the Statenvertaling is reflected by its paratext. The need to balance perspicuity and inspiration motives is reflected in the marginal notes and in the way text and marginal notes interact. Inspiration motives also led to a special paratextual treatment of the deuterocanonicals in the SV, a separate place after the New Testament, at the end of the canonical Bible, a separate introduction and separate pagination. The decision of the Synod that deuterocanonicals should also get a smaller type apparently was not honored by the printers. Within the text of the canonicals, brackets and small type were used for Dutch words added to conform to the grammar of Dutch but seen as additions to the inspired Word of God. The national and political elements in the skopos were reflected in the title page text and the Dutch Lion on the title page. The skopos of the BIS is to make the message of the Bible as perceived by the commissioners of the translation as clear as possible for people outside the church or for those inside the church that find the Terjemahan Baru too hard to understand. It is a typical example of a common language version in the tradition of the Today’s English Version and the Good News Bible. Theological neutrality is an important element in the skopos. These translation goals are reflected in the explanatory text of the translation, in the factual explanatory paratextual elements like the glossary and the notes and in the pericopes that reflect the desire to make the structure of the text as clear as possible to the reader rather than reflecting the use of the Bible in church traditions. Since the theological elements of a skopos tend to manifest themselves strongly in paratextual elements (introductions, marginal notes) it is especially the paratextual elements that have triggered theological, social and political difficulties. The fact that paratextual elements directly reflect the skopos of the translation, showing how the translators and commissioners intend the Bible to function in communities, helps to explain prohibition practices of censors in the first half of the sixteenth century in the Netherlands as described by den Hollander (1997:25). There were ‘heretic’ Dutch Bible translations offering the text of the forbidden Luther Bible but without ‘suspicious’ paratextual elements like prefaces, introductions, marginal notes and so on, that were not placed on the Index. On the other hand there were Bibles with a ‘good’ text (more or less) reflecting the Vulgate but with ‘suspicious’ paratextual features that were placed on the Index. These paratextual elements made the Bible suitable for communities and individuals that did ‘dangerous’ things with the Bible, like lay people discussing and explaining the Bible relatively independent from the traditions of the Church. Abbreviations: BIS Alkitab dalam Bahasa Indonesia Sehari-hari (Indonesian Common Language Version) SV Statenvertaling (Dutch translation of 1637) TB Terjemahan Baru (New Indonesian Translation)

EXERCISE-14 Organizational “pressure” to produce one specific type of Bible translation as opposed to another has, since the turn of the century, usually come from “evangelical” groups that strongly prefer and hence promote a more literal type of rendering. As one prominent spokesman writes, “I endorse linguistic conservatism, by which I

The rights and responsibilities of allegiance

87

mean a translation that seeks to convey the words of the original text as much as the translation process allows. The other translation theory [i.e., dynamic equivalence] strikes me as linguistic license” (Ryken 2005:13). For this reason, Ryken proposes “ten reasons we can trust essentially literal Bible translations” (ibid:23-30). Carefully evaluate these reasons, which have been reproduced below: 1. Except where a completely literal translation would have been unintelligible to an English reader, an essentially literal translation is transparent to the original text. 2. You can trust an essentially literal translation to keep to the essential task of translation – namely, translation. 3. You can trust an essentially literal translation to preserve the full interpretive potential of the original text. 4. You can trust an essentially literal translation not to mislead you by mixing commentary and translation. 5. You can trust an essentially literal translation to preserve theological precision. 6. You can trust an essentially literal translation to preserve an expository preacher from needing to correct the translation from which he is preaching. 7. You can trust an essentially literal translation not to resolve all interpretive difficulties in the direction of what a given translation committee decides to parcel out to its readers [NB – this would be a major organizational decision having great implications for the nature of the translation produced]. 8. If your essentially literal translation is the RSV, the ESV, or the NKJV – in other words, if your essentially literal translation rides the coattails of the matchless KJV – you can trust it to preserve the literary qualities of the Bible that the KJV gave to the English-speaking world for nearly four centuries. 9. You can trust some essentially literal translations to preserve the exaltation, dignity, and beauty of the Bible. 10. You can trust an essentially literal translation to be most consistent with the doctrine of plenary or verbal inspiration.

 Now discuss these ten assertions as a group, first in relation to the English versions that you are familiar with and then in relation to your language and the translation that you are preparing (or regularly make use of). Which assertions are correct, in your opinion – which partially correct – and which ones are wrong? Give reasons in each case.  Is there a fundamental problem or principle concerning language and/or crosscultural communication that the author seems to be missing or misunderstanding here? If so, explain what this is and why it is so important for Bible translators to grasp, no matter what type of translation they are preparing, whether relatively literal or more idiomatic.  Consider a simple example that highlights some of the problems that are posed by an “essentially literal” approach to the challenge of Bible translation, especially in non-Indo-European languages (from Strauss 2005:162-163). Try to fill in the righthand column below in the context of the passages listed:

88

Ernst Wendland

Verse

“Literal” rendering of poieô

NASB translation

Matt 3.8 Matt 6.1 Matt 6.2 Matt 7.22 Matt 7.24 Matt 22.2 Matt 26.18 Mark 3.14 Mark 15.1 Mark 4.32 Mark 15.7 Mark 15.15 Luke 1.68 Luke 1.72 Luke 2.48 John 3.21 Acts 7.24 Rom 9.28 2 Cor 11:25 Gal 5.3 Eph 2.3

Make fruit Make righteousness Make alms Make miracles Make lawlessness Make a feast Make Passover Make Twelve Make a council Make branches [a tree] Make murder Make sufficient the crowd Make redemption Make mercy Make us thusly Make truth Make vengeance Make a word Make sin Make the law Make the desires of the flesh

Bring forth fruit Practice righteousness Give alms Perform miracles Commit lawlessness Give a feast Keep Passover Appoint Twelve Hold a discussion Form branches Commit murder Satisfy the crowd Accomplish redemption Show mercy Treat us this way Practice the truth Take vengeance Execute his word Commit sin Keep the law Indulge…desires of theflesh

Idiomatic in your language

 Do you have any instances where you could make a literal translation of the Greek in your language where this communicates the same meaning as the original? In which cases would a straight literal rendering in your language produce the wrong meaning – or no meaning at all (nonsense). Cite several examples of where the idiomatic form of the expression turns out to be quite different from that of the Greek text.  Strauss comments on this example as follows (ibid:163-164; boldface added): So what does poieô mean “literally”? Make? Do? Bring forth? Practice? Give? Perform? Commit? Keep? Appoint? Hold? Form? Satisfy? Accomplish? Show? Treat? Take? Execute? Indulge? Even the NASB – one of the most literal English translations – recognizes that it can mean any of these things (and many more), depending on its context and collocations. But the real problem is not that poieô has so many different senses (though that is true); it is that English and Greek say the same thing in very different ways. … Meaning must always take precedence over form [original emphasis]. … Form-equivalent versions tend to seek one-to-one correspondence, and if the translation works, even awkwardly, then that translation is retained. There are two problems with this approach. First, since Greek words have a semantic range rather than a “literal” meaning, how do you decide which English to use for its one-to-one correspondent? To say that poieô literally means “make” is simply wrong – a lexical fallacy. Second, the attempt for one-to-one correspondence often blinds the translator to better ways of expressing the meaning of the original.

The rights and responsibilities of allegiance

89

Take e.g. Mark 1.17: NASB/ESV [English Standard Version]: “Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men.” … While the NASB and ESV are adequate (= comprehensible) translations, they ignore the idiomatic nature of the Greek and so produce awkward English. Since the original Greek sounded natural to the original hearers, the NASB and ESV have introduced a foreign semantic element into the text.

Evaluate the preceding argument: Do you agree with it or not? Give reasons for your opinion. Can a Bible translation that is “comprehensible” but stylistically “awkward” really be considered “adequate”? Explain your answer. How do you render Mark 1:17 naturally – meaningfully – in your language? (Give a literal back-translation into English.) What would an “essentially literal translation” of this passage in your language mean – if anything? What do you think about the final sentence above – in italics: do you agree? If not, tell why. If so, to what extent does this principle of “naturalness” (let alone “literariness”!) influence your translation work in terms of actual practice and procedures? EXERCISE-15  Now evaluate the advice given below by a more or less “independent observer,” namely, the professional secular translator Hillaire Belloc (1931, as adapted by Bassnett 2002:116-117). In what major respects do these general suggestions differ from those of Ryken? To what extent would they apply to your translation setting, if at all? Explain. The translator should not ‘plod on’, word by word or sentence by sentence, but should ‘always “block out” his work’. By ‘block out’, Belloc means that the translator should consider the work as an integral unit and translate in sections, asking himself (sic) ‘before each what is the whole sense is he has to render’. … The translator should render idiom by idiom ‘and idioms of their nature demand translation into another from that of the original’. … The translator must render ‘intention by intention’, bearing in mind that ‘the intention of a phrase in one language may be less emphatic than the form of the phrase, or it may be more emphatic’. By ‘intention’, Belloc seems to be talking about the weight a given expression may have in a particular context in the SL that would be disproportionate if translated literally in the TL. … [I]n the translation of ‘intention’, it is often necessary to add words not in the original ‘to conform to the idiom of one’s mother tongue’. … [T]he essence of translating is ‘the resurrection of an alien thing in a native body’. … [T]he translator has the right to significantly alter the text in the translation process in order to provide the TL reader with a text that conforms the TL stylistic and idiomatic norms.

90

Ernst Wendland

 What are the organizational implications of the final sentence of the preceding quote – with special reference to the practice of Bible translation? What personal “rights” and ethical responsibilities does the translator have in such a joint, (normally) communal endeavor? Be prepared to bring up for group discussion any conflict-producing experiences that you may have had in this area (if non-confidential) – or, which you may have observed in some Bible translation program. EXERCISE-16 One of the previous sub-headings was “Empowering the organization.” A complement to this might be termed “Policing the organization” – that is, in terms of its ethical values, responsibilities, and operations. The “ethics of translation” has become a topic of considerable interest and importance in secular and more recently also religious circles (e.g., Pym 1992, Porter 1999, Chesterman 2001). The following are excerpts from a cogent presentation of some of the key issues involved as they concern Bible translation (Voth 2006:28-32). Study this selection (and Voth’s entire paper, if possible) individually and then organize a group discussion with reference to some of the important issues being raised – now as they concern your specific translation setting and project commission. A few questions appear at the end of this quotation to help get your discussion going (if need be). We stated at the outset that our intention was not to develop a rigid ethic that would provide closure to the discussion. … Closure and comprehensiveness may be an impossibility and to a certain degree undesirable. … The problem in our estimation is the very chaos that translation itself represents. Translation is never neutral and therefore by extension a translation ethic is never neutral. Our proposal for a Bible translation ethic begins by stating that due to the nature of the translation process itself, it will inevitably be subjective, partial, and flexible and will not pretend to bring closure to the discussion. … Contexts, language, cultures, ideas, change constantly and this is what needs to be in the background of any theoretical articulation. This picture, as was stated above will always be subjective and cannot claim to be absolute in any sense of the word. This is partly due to the fact that Bible translation is always done in a socio-cultural context. These realities in our opinion do not take away from the possibility of suggesting a course of action that can be considered viable and legitimate. We will begin by building on Chesterman’s suggestion [2001] that virtues such as trustworthiness, truthfulness, fairness, and the courage to take risks in caring for others are valid, human qualities to be pursued in developing a Bible translation ethic. … [A]n “ethical” translation is one that “composes” and therefore empowers. Stated in opposite terms, any translation that diminishes, or “disempowers,” is not an ethical translation, subjective as it may sound. We are suggesting that this framework ought to prevail over matters of ideology, religious confession, marketing, and other related issues. The goal of the translator and subsequently of the translation should be to “compose” in the sense of placing in proper form, of settling, of making right. This in turn, empowers an individual, a community or a situation. A translator should attempt to provide dignity, worth, and value through the translation produced. … A necessary component of this ethic is “service.” This is quite different from the ethics of service as explained by Chesterman. Since we are suggesting an ethic for Bible

The rights and responsibilities of allegiance

91

translation, we feel it is legitimate to suggest a more theological nuance for the concept of service. By this we mean that translators and translations ought to be infused with a spirit of service on behalf of the fellow-human being. The translation should not be an end in and of itself. The translator should continually ask: how can this translation best serve the so-called “client.” … Finally, as part of this Bible translation ethic we propose that “liberation” has to go along side the intent to compose, to empower and to serve. Bible translation should be a process whereby liberation in its broadest sense is achieved. This will certainly be contextually and culturally determined. And yet, the intent to liberate needs to be present throughout the entire process of Bible translation. … An ethic of liberation is an ethic of responsibility for the “other.” It could be called an ethic of radical responsibility, because it will not pass by on the other side when confronted with a victim. The responsibility for the other who is vulnerable, who is suffering becomes the litmus test of an ethic of Bible translation. It is our contention that if liberation is absent, from any ethical construct, then we would call that construct something else. Given the devastating realities that most people experience on planet earth, a Bible translation ethic needs to demand that liberation become an integral component of its framework. … In conclusion, we consider that these elements, though not absolute or comprehensive, are necessary for a Bible translation ethic, so that matters of ideology, marketing, interest groups, and personal agendas, can be addressed in such a way that no single one of them dominates the translation process. What is clear to us is that this discussion, much like Bible translation, is and should be a never ending process. …

 Have you ever seriously considered the “ethics of Bible translation” before? If so, in what context, and what were your conclusions? If not, will this become a topic of discussion within your program in future? Tell why or why not.  Do you feel that any of the issues presented in the excerpts cited above needs further discussion with reference to your own translation setting and project? Can you think of any other factors that contribute to or influence the ethics of Bible translation, that is, in addition to those mentioned above?  What about the “components” of an ethical approach to the translation of Scripture – has something been omitted that needs mentioning? (Perhaps you could find these in the full version of the paper.) In your opinion, what is the most important attitudinal or behavioral characteristic, at least as it concerns your particular translation setting?  What do you do then in the case of conflict – when certain ethical concerns appear to clash or contradict one another in a given situation: How should such differences of opinion be resolved in a way that maintains the project’s unity of purpose and level of mutual cooperation?

5. Situational frames Communicating in different circumstances A sociolinguistic model: S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G Due to its specific nature, this frame of reference has been anticipated and already partly considered during the discussion of sociocultural and organizational frames. So here I will simply fine-tune the perspective somewhat in order to focus on several additional topics of significance for some important modern developments in Bible translation. I have adopted a sociolinguistic approach – that is, a point of view that stresses the study of human speech as a dynamic instance of communicative action in particular social situations (Wendland 2006b:4-5). Of course, written discourse is also included, as are the varied representations of Scripture via other media, such as video, radio, movies, music and song, comic books, computer programs, traditional drama productions, and even public oration (an ancient rhetorical art-form that is being revived in some contemporary circles). In fact, one of the main features of the overall communication setting that characterizes Bible translation and production nowadays is the diversity of modes of transmission that are being accessed. The various sociolinguistic elements that are involved in a personal conversation, which I assume to be the primary, prototypical mode of human communication, may be represented by the acronym [ S P E A K I N G ] (see Wilt 2002:55-56; cf. Hymes, 1964; Wendland 1985:18-31). Together these eight factors create an integrated, tightly-knit cognitive structure that constitutes the “situational” frame of reference for any discourse – oral or written (with certain adjustments in specification being needed for the latter). The individual situational components may be briefly described as follows: Setting: the physical scene (time, place, environment, weather, and other circumstances), including the acoustic properties of the setting as well as any features that might create a disturbance during the process of message transmission or a distortion in the sensory quality of the message. Participants: speaker and hearer(s) (termed addressee/audience, producer/processors, etc.) and their respective cognitive environments, especially any contrastive or antithetical features in their world-view, outlook on life, or value system, including their social status and psychological background in relation to each other (e.g., attitudes, feelings, opinions, and current level of interpersonal rapport). Ends: the primary communication goals and expected or hoped-for outcomes of the participants, whether explicitly stated or only implied, including those of more passive participants (e.g., a listening audience). Activity: the selection, arrangement, and prioritizing of the sequence of “speech acts” that comprise the speech event (or “text-act”), along with any accompanying non-verbal types of communicative action, both paralinguistic (e.g., volume, tempo) and extra-linguistic (e.g., gestures, facial expressions). Key: the overall psychological tone, manner, attitude, or emotive “spirit” of the

Situational frames: Communicating in different circumstances

93

participants that characterizes the prevailing social “atmosphere” during which the present act of communication takes place. Instrumentality: the sensory channel (medium) of message transmission that is activated during the speech event, along with any accompanying supportive media (e.g., musical background, print formatting devices, visual aids, etc.). Norms: customs of interpersonal interaction and interpretation, as determined by the preceding factors; the interrelated levels of social formality, situational register, conventional speech styles, special communicative codes, or linguistic sub-types (i.e., dialect or sociolect). Genre: recognized patterns of informal (conversational) or formal spoken and written discourse, including oratorical and rhetorical categories, along with their associated stylistic qualities (e.g., the distinctive compositional features of a poem, folktale, ballad, proverb, riddle, sermon, political speech, etc.).

The eight different aspects of “S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G” must all be carefully studied in relation to one another when one attempts to delineate and describe the total cognitive framework that surrounds a particular act of communication. This includes any written conversation or speech event recorded in the Bible that one wishes to study exegetically. Such incorporated discourse must first be examined from the sociocultural perspective that presumably governed its original conception, intention, representation, and transmission – that is, by its stated or inferred biblical “author.” Only after fully analyzing this hypothetical “initial setting” then can one adopt a transferred viewpoint when seeking, for example, to represent the same text and its communicative function in a changed situational environment and perhaps also for a somewhat different contemporary purpose. EXERCISE-1 Answer the following questions concerning the situational framework proposed above:  List the three most important features to consider when analyzing the record of a speech event, and give reasons for your choice. Have any situational factors been omitted from the preceding listing? Could the ones given above be more accurately defined? If so, suggest how this may be done.  Which two sociolinguistic factors are the most difficult to investigate among the eight specified above and indicate why this is the case, based on your experience of communicating life-changing messages.  Consider the overall communicative situation of a recent conference or seminar that you participated in (or perhaps your present setting of teaching-learning): Evaluate the quality of the communicative event as a whole: how well did it work out as far as you are concerned? How could it have been improved with regard to any of the eight contextual factors of S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G?  Next, describe the complete communicative context that applies to the Bible translation project which you are currently engaged in (or which you have participated in).

94

Ernst Wendland

 There are several noteworthy criticisms of the preceding “social-interactive model” of characterizing the notion of “context”, as summarized by Baker below (2006:325-326; note: the entire issue No. 38 of the Journal of Pragmatics is devoted to a study of context and contextualization in translation studies). Evaluate the validity of these potentially serious limitations – to what degree are they on target? Then suggest ways of correcting the problem areas by means of a more dynamic, participant-oriented approach to the description or interpretation of a particular “context” for communicating a biblical text in translation. Perhaps you have a completely different model to suggest: •

•

•

The most serious weakness is that the components and entities are often treated as static phenomena that exist in a fairly stable environment which the analyst can simply document and use to generate an analysis of events and behavior. For example, a participant is traditionally assumed to have a stable identity throughout the interaction, whereas more recent approaches in socio-pragmatics and linguistic anthropology would prefer to treat all elements of context as at least having the potential to shift and develop during the course of an event, to both shape and be shaped by the ongoing interaction. Another obvious problem with this approach is that ‘‘such open-ended lists suggest that the components are coordinate and independent, and they leave us with the nagging uncertainty of never knowing whether the list is complete or whether yet more components are needed’’ (Hanks, 1992:47). A third problem concerns the difficulty of deciding which of the components on the list are relevant for the interpretation of a particular speech event. This is partly a question of whether we treat the components as static, taking the analyst’s classification of the event as a given, or follow the perspective of the participants and find ways of establishing what they see as relevant by paying attention to those features that they themselves seem to attend to.

 How would you apply Mona Baker’s suggestion below (2006:328), now with reference to making a constructive, but more nuanced use of the S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G model in Bible translation studies? •

I would therefore argue that adopting a dynamic approach to context in the study of translation and interpreting does not mean that we do not need access to the type of ethnographic/extra-linguistic information documented [by this model]… because in order for the researcher to appreciate whether someone is ‘doing’ or ‘performing’ the role of interpreter or friend or caring adult at any point, he or she first needs to know who the speaker is, in what capacity they are engaged in the interaction, and so on. The idea, then, is not to throw lists of apparently static situational components out altogether but to use them merely as a starting point for analysis, to acknowledge that they are not all necessarily relevant in every context and, more importantly, that every element is open to negotiation in the course of a given interaction.

EXERCISE-2 Analyze the following passage, a familiar dialogue portion from Acts 8:26-39 (RSV) according to the eight factors discussed above. Give several examples of how such a sociolinguistic perspective helps you to better understand the wider communication dynamics of the biblical text – and its presumed situational context – and then to translate it with greater cultural awareness. Feel free to use a different situationsensitive, context-oriented model to accomplish the same objectives.

Situational frames: Communicating in different circumstances

95

 But an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert road. 27 And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” 30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32  Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this: 26

“As a sheep led to the slaughter or a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth. 33  In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken up from the earth.”  And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about himself or about some one else?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus. 36 And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?” 37 l 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. 34

 What situational factors at the time of writing might have led to an assumed interpolation within this passage (at least in the opinion of most NT Greek scholars and text critics)? The addition is as follows: 8.37 Other ancient authorities add all or most of verse 37, And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

 Study Figure 14 below and comment on the degree to which you think it creates an adequate “frame of reference” for helping readers to understand the preceding Scripture pericope from Acts 8. Is there anything misleading or problematic from the perspective of your sociocultural setting? Do you have any suggestions for possible modifications or other improvements?

Speech-act analysis The Key, Ends, and Activity (KEA) aspects of any discourse event can be further investigated through the method of speech act analysis. This approach is based on the observation that people not only say things, but more important, they do things with words. That is, they perform specific communicative actions in and through their diverse utterances, such as, making (giving) an announcement, assertion, promise, oath, curse, greeting, warning, and so forth. Thus, by means of her/his words, the

96

Ernst Wendland

 Figure 14: Philip andFigure the Ethiopian 14: Philip and the Ethiopian

speaker carries out particular intentions, hoping to reinforce, change, or modify a certain belief, feeling, attitude, value, or behavior of the person(s) she or he is communicating with. For example, when I say to a seminary student who is sleeping in the back row of my English class, “Mr. Banda, are you ready to comment on the next paragraph of the essay before us?” I do not really intend for the named person to answer “yes” or “no” at all. Rather, I am doing one of several possible things: (a) attempting to rouse this student from slumber; (b) requesting an adjacent student to wake Banda; (c) warning Banda’s fellow students not to follow his poor example; and/or (d) seeking to inject some humor (at Banda’s expense) into what may be a rather dull classroom session. Such goals are all possible intentions (or illocutions) of my utterance (locution), though usually only one is primary (particularly “relevant”) in a given sociocultural setting. My indirect command to Banda (a) would be more apparent – more like an overt imperative rather than a mitigated interrogative – and hence more insistent if I should repeat the “question” in a much louder tone of voice. But it all depends on who is speaking to whom in what setting: If we were discussing the same essay at a theological conference and I happened to be talking to fellow pastors, then I would probably not ask the question at all. In this situation I would rather skip Rev. Banda and move on to someone else so as to avoid shaming him in public. And if I had not noticed that Rev. Banda were asleep and made the same request, it would be likely that an adjacent pastor would assume that I meant (b), but again, in order to avoid any embarrassment for his esteemed colleague, he would contribute the asked for comment himself. Thus, the force of my words would not be the same Used by permission: Illustration by Horace Knowles © The British & Foreign Bible Society 1954, 1967, 1972; Additions & Amendments by Louise Bass © The British & Foreign Bible Society 1994. 

1

Used by permission: Illustration by Horace Knowles © The British & Foreign Bible Society 1954, 1967, 1972; Additions & Amendments by Louise Bass © The British & Foreign Bible Society 1994.

Situational frames: Communicating in different circumstances

97

nor would they carry the same weight, either for me or for the rest of those listening on the scene. Whether or not the humorous element (d) is perceived to apply would depend on the solemnity of the occasion, the theological subject being discussed, and perhaps also the church denomination involved. Different categories of speech act have been proposed as a way of organizing the inventory that happen to be represented in a given language for the purposes of more precise textual and contextual (interpersonal) analysis. The following, for example, is a system of speech acts suggested for English (Ross 2003:140; cf. Wendland 1985:96103, 2004:214-218): A. Acts of asserting (accuse, advocate, affirm, claim, comment, concede, conclude, etc.) B. Acts of evaluating (analyze, appraise, certify, characterize, estimate, figure, judge, etc.) C. Acts of opining (accept, acclaim, affirm, agree, acquiesce, apologize, blame, reprimand, etc.) D. Acts of stipulating (abbreviate, characterize, choose, classify, describe, define, designate) E. Acts of requesting (appeal, ask, beg, bid, enjoin, implore, order, request, solicit, etc.) F. Acts of suggesting (admonish, advise, advocate, caution, counsel, exhort, propose, etc.) G. Acts of authorizing (abolish, abrogate, accept, adopt, approve, bless, condemn, etc.) H. Acts of committing (accept, assure, commit, dedicate, promise, undertake, swear, etc.)

EXERCISE-3  Evaluate the preceding set of categories – do you have any revisions to suggest, or perhaps another category or three to add to this listing?  How would this classification of “speech acts” work out in your language (YL, or some non-European language that you know)? Would you have the same major categories listed or a different set, perhaps a simplification or even an extension of the proposed system? Propose any modifications as you see fit.  How many of the specific English verbs (in parentheses) do you have single word equivalents in YL? What verbs require a phrasal representation in YL or some type of verbal idiom (e.g., “pick up” = encourage)?  What speech acts are performed by the two short utterances of Acts 8:36 (see the text above)?  How would you analyze the preceding passage (Acts 8:26-39) from the viewpoint of Relevance Theory? For example, what are the primary “contextual implications” that are present (cf. Gutt 1992:22-23) – and which also need to be represented in a translation? How can you best do this in your language (excluding English)?

98

Ernst Wendland

 Which speech acts are performed in Acts 8:37, the passage found in the footnote? What textual and contextual evidence argues for or against the inclusion of this verse in the original text?  Evaluate the validity and utility of a speech-act method for analyzing the discourses of the Bible (including prophetic and epistolary “speech”). Feel free to propose a more effective (more precise, explicit, accurate, etc.) method of analysis from your perspective – either to use along with an SA approach or in place of it.

There is a continuum of diversity with regard to the number and kinds of speech acts that occur between two different languages. If the languages are closely related, there may be a large measure of correspondence in terms of lexical form and pragmatic function. If the languages belong to very divergent linguistic families, however, one can expect a great deal of difference and thus quite a bit of verbal adjustment when a certain speech act, or a related set of them, is translated from one to the other. Often such variations reflect deeper cultural differences: The Chewa and other east-central Bantu languages, for example, are spoken by peoples that are typically synthetic in their world-view and corporate, or communal, in their life-style. Thus their typical vocabulary does not contain many words that come from the speech act category of “evaluating,” e.g., English: analyze, investigate, scrutinize, appraise, assess, characterize, describe, estimate, approximate, figure, reckon, and so forth. This does not mean of course that such concepts cannot be expressed in the language if need be – once the notion has been understood and a suitable context of use supplied (e.g., in Chewa various lexical variants based on the central verbs “see” and “think” are available). However, an appropriate amount of time for carrying out the latter exercise (research and testing) needs to be set aside and the necessary creativity stimulated, especially when attempting to translate speech acts that are not common in the culture – for instance, the logical-legal language of Paul’s epistle to the Romans (e.g., chs. 2-4). Another example comes from biblical Hebrew, where we find many different terms to express the notion of “praying.” These apparently vary according to the contextual circumstances – namely, the nature or purpose of the prayer (e.g., whether to request or to thank) and how the prayer is offered in terms of manner, or physical stance. This diversity is also manifested in the related nouns that reflect verbal concepts, e.g., the various Hebrew words for “prayer.” EXERCISE-4 Look up the following Bible passages and try to determine whether there is any distinction in the type of prayer or mode of praying that is present in the textual context or in the expressed or implied situational setting. A different Hebrew term (not always a verb) is used in each case; therefore, it would be helpful, if possible, to refer to the original text (or an interlinear version) and a dictionary when doing this exercise. Then decide which word or expression best conveys the specific notion of “praying” in YL. Make a note of any problems of incongruence or ambiguity that you encounter when doing this exercise.

Situational frames: Communicating in different circumstances • • • • • • • • • • • •

2 Chr. 6:37 Job 33:26 Job 21:15 Gen. 20:7 Ezra 6:10 Psa. 55:17 Psa. 122:6 Zech. 8:22 Gen. 50:17 Isa. 26:16 2 Sm. 7:27 Gen. 23:13

99

_____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________

EXERCISE-5 (after Ross 2003:142) The speech act conveyed by the Greek verb  is usually translated correspondently by the English term “boast.” However, this rendering does not always suit the biblical context in which it is used due to the negative, self-focused connotations of the English verb “boast.” Check out the following references (NRSV) more closely in their textual and situational setting of use. Then pick a more appropriate verb to use in English, if this seems necessary, and also determine which verb or verbal expression to use in YL: • • • • • • • • • •

You that boast in the law (Rom. 2:23) …and we boast in our hope (Rom. 5:2) …we also boast in our sufferings (Rom. 5:3) Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord (1 Cor. 1:31) …we are your boast even as you are our boast (2 Cor. 1:14) …since many boast according to human standards (2 Cor. 11:18) If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness (2 Cor. 11:30) May I never boast of anything except the cross (Gal. 6:14) …not of works, so that no one may boast (Eph. 2:9) Let the believer who is lowly boast in being raised up (Jas. 1:9)

EXERCISE-6 (after Ross 2003:141) A number of Greek speech-act verbs appear to have a complex meaning with no single equivalents in English. The ones listed below are all glossed as some form of “teach” in Louw and Nida’s (L&N, 1989) dictionary under the general semantic domain of “Communication” (section 33). Look up the reference that is given for each verb and propose what you feel would be a good contextual rendering in English as well as in YL – the L&N reference number is also given in parentheses:  (2 Pet. 2:21; 33.237) ______________________________________  (Tit. 2:4; 33.229) ______________________________________  (1 Tim. 4:6; 33.242) ______________________________________ (Acts 18:25; 33.225) ______________________________________  (1 Th. 5:12; 33.231) ______________________________________

100

Ernst Wendland  (Acts 7:22; 33.226)  (Acts 22:3; 33.232)

______________________________________ ______________________________________

 What is wrong with simply translating all these verbs as some form of “teach” wherever they occur?  How does the immediate textual “frame of reference,” or co-text (cf. ch. 6), provide a situational context that would lead us away from such a simple (and misleading) translational solution? EXERCISE-7 Pick out the major speech acts found in Louw & Nida’s listing of “subdomains” (under “Communication”) on pp. 388-389 and then compare these with the set of eight categories listed earlier. Where would L&N’s items fit in – or are some new general categories needed to accommodate them? If the latter, which ones? How do these categories work when transferred to your language and cognitive environment? Do you note any (potential) problems or incongruities? If so, specify what these are. EXERCISE-8 The “illocutionary force” of a given speech act is often accompanied by the communication of a particular implication by the speaker along with the expression of a certain emotion and/or attitude. For example, in John 18:30, the Jewish religious leaders tell the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate: “If this man [Jesus] were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you” (New English Translation, NET). In this case, the implication is: [Jesus] is a dangerous criminal and needs to be judged and punished accordingly; the speakers are probably also expressing their hatred of this “criminal” as well as a certain degree of anger at Pilate for daring to question their motives (Jn. 18:29).  Will a literal rendering of this passage in YL convey the same implication, emotion, and attitude? If not, how must the form of the text be modified in order to re-present the full force and intent of the original (the Greek should of course be consulted if possible)?  Carry out the same sort of analysis and evaluation of the following quotations of Pilate, taken from John’s account of the trial of Jesus the Christ (all citations are from the NET): • • • • • • • •

“Are you the King of the Jews?” (18:33) “I am not a Jew, am I?” (18:35a) “What have you done?” (18:35b) “So you are a king.” (18:37) “What is truth?” (18:38) “Look, here is the man.” (19:5) “You take him and crucify him.” (19:6) “Where do you come from?” (19:9)

Situational frames: Communicating in different circumstances • • •

101

“Look, here is your king.” (19:14) “Shall I crucify your king?” (19:15) “What I have written, I have written.” (19:22)

Assessing the audience The relationship among the various contemporary Participants and their current Setting is an important situational factor to consider during any communication event, oral or written. This is true also in the overall process of Bible translation, both before and after a given project is undertaken and completed. No adequate translation agreement (Brief) can be drawn up without having sufficient and accurate prior information about the intended target constituency for the version under consideration, as well as the primary environment in which it is expected to be used. In this respect the crucial setting-sensitive question remains: “Whom are you translating for?” There are many different variables and combinations possible of course, and all of the options need to be fully investigated before translation work actually begins. This is to give the team a fairly precise picture of their primary communication goal(s) (Ends) along with the target-group that they must keep firmly in their minds as they are translating. For example: How/in what way would Ms./Mr. So-and-so (Chewa: Che-uje), selected as a specific representative of the envisioned audience (whether older / younger, male / female, Christian / non-Christian, educated / uneducated, upper / lower class, dominant / depressed cultural community, etc.), interpret the text that I / we have rendered in this way? Is there any possibility that she or he might mis-understand the passage? If so, at which point(s) and why? How will she or he react emotively to the translation – and aesthetically as well (i.e., with regard to the connotation and/or beauty of the text as it sounds in the vernacular)? Will she or he regard the vernacular style as being too colloquial, formal, liturgical, dynamic, connotatively off-color, or foreign-sounding for use in the Scriptures? Where then will the majority of consumers encounter or employ this version – is it intended to function mainly in church during public worship, in a group Bible-study session, when doing personal or family devotions at home, as an oral text in a largely non-literate society? All these questions must be thoroughly investigated and answered (see also ch. 10), especially in the case of a translation that is being prepared for a so-called special audience. This is because such a group will most likely require a text that has been significantly modified in specific respects, e.g., a simplified lexicon and grammar (for a “new reader” group), larger print and a modified format (for the visually impaired), small print and a condensed format (for an “economy” or “pocket” version), more contemporary illustrations and life-application comments (for a youthful readership), expository notes and cross references (for a mature Bible study group), and so forth. Careful research is also necessary at the other end of the translation process – that is, in its post-publication situational setting – in order to assess the nature and level of Scripture “use,” or as it is sometimes expressed nowadays: audience engagement (cf. ch. 10). For example, is there evidence that the intended target audience actually reads the translation that has been specifically designed for them, and what is their reaction:

102

Ernst Wendland

positive, negative, or in-between – and why? Is its primary function being achieved; if not, what is the apparent reason for this lack of success or failure to meet expectations? What crucial modifications or improvements do the consumers themselves suggest for a future revision? Is a different set of readers/hearers somehow benefiting from the translation produced, either in addition to or instead of the original target audience? Or is the text perhaps being used in a different socio-religious setting? If so, what are the reasons for this? The task of revising a translation, whether only a selection or a complete Bible, must begin on the day that it is first distributed – and thereafter in a systematic, well-recorded manner so that all relevant responses can be catalogued and reserved for future refrence. This can also be a valuable learning experience, one that can help to avoid similar problems in a future project, whether a revision or a completely new translation. EXERCISE-9 Answer the following questions with respect to a Bible translation that you know about or are presently working on:  Was any serious research embarked upon with respect to the envisaged sociolinguistic and religious setting of translation either before or after the publication of at least one trial selection? If so, what was the nature of this investigation, how was it carried out, who conducted it, and what were the results? If not, why was this vital initial step in the production process ignored?  Who was the primary target audience and what was the principal setting of use intended for this translation? Give a summary of the proposed situational frame of reference.  Was the principal communication goal attained? If not, have the problems which prevented this from happening been identified? If so, what were these problems or limiting factors?  Has any other type of research been carried out during the translation process: if so, what was this for, what method was used, and what were the results?  Do any other important factors pertaining to the overall situational frame of reference need to be investigated? If so, what are these matters? The following examples briefly note several diverse issues that had to be carefully researched in order to get additional target audience opinion during the course of Bible translating in Zambia so that important decisions concerning the nature and purpose of a current TL version could be made (all the languages referred to in boldface belong to the SE Bantu group): The Lenje Protestant community was accustomed to address “God” with the honorific plural form, baLesa, while the Catholic Church much preferred the familiar singular, Lesa, as was common in all ancient traditional prayers to the deity. So which form should be used in the interconfessional Bible translation?

Situational frames: Communicating in different circumstances

103

The missionary-composed Chewa Protestant Bible referred to YHWH as Yehova, while the corresponding Catholic Bible used Yahwe. An older translation committee proposed the compromise compound term, Ambuye Mulungu ‘Master [an honorific term] God’, but the current committee preferred the indigenous personal (not generic!) name for the High (Creator) God of the Chewa people, Chauta. A serious controversy arose during the Tonga translation of the Pentateuch, when the translation committee decided to employ a more understandable, but non-traditional rendering for the “Sabbath Day” – i.e., buzuba bwa kulyokeezya ‘the day for resting’. One particular church body insisted that the old term Nsabata ‘Saturday’ had to be retained, while others proposed a sort of compromise, that is, the introduction of a new transliteration of the original Hebrew term shabbath, i.e., Sabata. The new Bemba interconfessional version wanted to adopt the orthography proposed by the Ministry of Education, in which long vowels were represented by double letters. Traditionalists clung strongly to the old spelling system which made use of macrons to represent long vowels, saying that the use of two letters would “Tongaize” the Bemba language (since Tonga had long been using double vowels in their Bible and other publications). The widely-spoken Tonga language had two published dialects, both of which had supporters on the early interconfessional translation committee: The major variety was used by people living on the central plateau region, while the other dialect was spoken down in the more sparsely populated Zambezi River Valley. The older missionary Bible had followed the Plateau dialect, and for this reason the Valley dwellers were proposing the use of their dialect in the new translation.

 Present a little “case study” (or two) from your own Bible translation experience (like those above), which illustrates the importance of carefully contextualizing the total speech “situation” of the project by way of research before it is undertaken. Perhaps you can also give examples of some unfortunate results that occurred when such crucial sociolinguistic and inter-group factors were NOT taken into adequate consideration when the translation was being prepared. Discuss these case studies as a class/group to see if you can arrive at some tentative answers or solutions that are more or less acceptable to all. EXERCISE-10 In large, widely-spoken and long-written languages the issue of dialect must normally be decided through extensive research and often considerable negotiation. In this regard, people normally think only of geographically-based dialects, as in the Tonga case above. But sometimes sociologically-based “sociolects” must also be taken into consideration – that is, in order to try to reach people who are either “turned off” to the standard versions of Scripture or who simply don’t understand such translations in a language that they do not normally speak or hear on a daily basis.  The following is an excerpt from the current debate that is raging in Polish circles: Evaluate the several arguments presented for and against a more colloquial, even “slangish” (“hip-hop”), rendition of the Gospels (Good Reading) in Polish (Blumczynski 2007:21, 22, 23, 23-24, 24). Which position would you adopt if the issue ever came up in your linguistic and social setting – and why (give reasons)?

104

Ernst Wendland Arguing from a pastoral and evangelistic perspective, [the priest and professor] Dragula challenged the basic position of the [Catholic] Commission regarding the special status of biblical language, pointing out that the style of Christ’s preaching was not fundamentally different from the language he used in ordinary discourse. … He also noted that the archaizing, high style of language used in numerous Bible translations seems odd to contemporary readers who derive their linguistic taste largely from advertisements, newspapers, and popular literature. The attempt to translate the Bible into contemporary youth slang does not, in his opinion, violate the principle of faithfulness to the original text because it seeks to establish a linguistic and theological continuum between the biblical and the contemporary world. … [F]or people who would not start reading the Bible in traditional translation, a simplified or adjusted version may become the “first contact Bible.” [A]t the climax of his argument, Koziara stated: “The Bible is a temple of the Word to which you have to climb up the stairs. What you need is a guide who can find the right keys to the temple. … Reading the comments of the priest Dragula one can conclude that the author, instead of keys, offers picklocks which can only damage the door.” In short, rather than seek ways of phrasing the text of the Bible in a familiar language, one should turn for help to modern “scribes” – linguists, exegetes, and preachers – who can properly expound the meaning of the Scripture. Weclawski noted that the gospel in hip-hop slang should still be considered a translation (though a somewhat unsuccessful one) rather than illegitimate interpretation. Interestingly, its communicative unsuccessfulness resulting from strong sociolinguistic markedness – and not from using a language variety inherently inappropriate to convey the sacred content – is in his view shared by a number of traditional translations in their overly elevated style. … [I]t may be that “a foolishly ‘consecrating’ version betrays the translated Word not less than a ‘desecrating’ one.” “Religious convictions are always communicated in a social context. Obviously, formal situations demand the high style which, in turn, seems artificial in informal contexts. … An even more important element of the said social context is the recipient. Hardly anyone would insist on banning ordinary language when preaching to children, soldiers, or prisoners.” Consequently, Kudyba challenged the opinion that speaking about God in everyday language results in a trivialization of the truth about him, claiming that “the process of stripping the religious notions of their deeper meanings occurs more often than it is typically assumed: not on the level of speaking about religious issues in ordinary language but rather whenever religious language is used to describe the ordinary [as in modern adverts]. … At the same time Kudyba criticized the attempt to translate the gospel into hip-hop slang as “indefensible” – not from the linguistic or theological but strictly an evangelistic perspective – pointing out that the excess of slang modifications necessarily leads to grotesque results: in his opinion “the text [of the Good Reading] may incite various kinds of laughter (from a friendly smile to a mocking grin) but does not encourage a serious response.” As concerns the actual translation choices, Dragula noted that, on the one hand, the style of the Good Reading may seem rather artificial because of the excess of slang expressions but, on the other hand, a number of phrases suggested by the authors are very evocative and seem to aptly convey the gist of the original text (among the latter, he listed zziomowac sie [to become one’s pal] as an accurate rendering of [ἐσκήνωσεν] in John 1:14, traditionally translated as zamieszkac [to dwell among]). … Stressing the theological legitimacy of the attempts aimed at bring the gospel closer to everyday

Situational frames: Communicating in different circumstances

105

reality, he noted that the risk of trivialization of the biblical message is much broader. “The coexistence of the Gospel with the pop-culture or slang is just as dangerous as its coexistence with folklore or naïve piety.” He argues that even though such translational techniques may deform the gospel, they can also – if used competently – prove very helpful in teaching and preaching. Finally, Dragula admitted that behind his battle for the slang version of the Bible is his concern about the evangelistic strategy of the Church toward the youth.

 Do you have a significant number of young people (or some other distinct social segment, like soldiers) whom you feel are not being reached by the currently available translations of the Bible in YL? What is your evidence for such a conclusion? If the facts are supportive, what translation strategy do you propose for reaching youthful readers (as distinct, too, from a children’s version)? Would a “hip-hop” version, such as that being tried in the Polish setting, possibly work in your situation? Explain your answer.  Now for an example in English – namely, from The Word on the Street, a hip-hop version selling in the UK (Lacey 2003): Study the following selections from a passage that we will be studying in more detail later on, Revelation chs. 4-5 (specifically 4:11 and 5:6-10 – reproduced as originally formatted). The standard NIV translation is given after each portion for the sake of comparison. What is your assessment of this “special-audience” version? Give reasons for your opinion, plus any suggested corrections or modifications that you may have. Make a list of any words or expressions from this English hip-hop sociolect that you do not understand. Our Boss, our God, you’re worth everything. Which is why we bring All the credit, all the respect, all the credibility we can source. You’re so worth it. Of course. You made everything happen. It all started ‘cos you said so. Nothing would exist without you, you know.

“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” ========================================= Then there’s this Innocent One, ripped apart (like a sacrifice from a Flyby Fest in Moses’ time) standing centre stage by the throne; the four creatures and the seniors are close by. Image zooms in; the Innocent One’s got seven horns (subtitle comes up on screen: “symbolic of power”) and seven eyes (subtitle: “God’s spirits on earth duty”). He takes the scriptbook from God’s hand; the four creatures and the twenty-four seniors hit the deck holding harps and bowls full of JLM earth-to-heaven requests. They improvise a new song: You’re qualified to take the scriptbook And to crack open its locks. ‘Cos you were hated, annihilated, assassinated, And your blood’s the buying power, which you donated

106

Ernst Wendland To buy people, whatever their state, To but them back for God. To make them welcome immigrants: a New Nation of reps who know their worth. Who run things his way on earth.

Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. 8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song: 6

“You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. 10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.”

The underlying “text” of a situational context To conclude this chapter, I will present two additional case studies as a way of illustrating some of the diverse considerations that often emerge when the situational frame of reference is carefully examined as part of the wider communicative context of a particular Bible translation project. The first one focuses on several elements of our proposed sociolinguistic model, S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G, namely: the Key, or prevailing connotative and emotive atmosphere evoked during the communication of texts; Instrumentality, here featuring the medium of traditional music; Norms, now involving a society’s traditional mode and manner of religious expression; Genre, in this case, highlighting traditional song/hymn styles; and Setting, namely, that of the rural Quechua peoples who inhabit the Peruvian Andes. From the author’s perceptive conclusion, take note of how the pervasive influence of the sociocultural environment of communication permeates the entire process – how it acts as a powerful non-verbal “text” that affects the twin processes of composition and comprehension: The hymns give an insight into the understanding and expression of the Christian faith in the southern Andes of Peru from colonial times to the present – an understanding that shapes the expression of the faith today and the sense of identity of Andean peoples. It is part of the ‘web of significance’ (Geertz 1973:5) that they themselves have spun and in which they find themselves. This selection is quoted, by permission, from an article published in the Bible Translator (55:3, 2004), by Bill Mitchell, entitled: “Text and Context in southern Peru: Himnos Sagrados de los Andes.” The two books cited are: Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Culture (New York: Basic Books, 1973) and Rosaleen Howard-Malverde, ed., Creating Context in Andean Cultures (Oxford: OUP, 1997). 

Situational frames: Communicating in different circumstances The ‘context-as-text’ mentioned earlier emerges from concrete experience and in turn evokes a whole world. As regards the Quechua language, the linguistic constraints and thought forms molded the appropriation of the Christian message. At the same time, the use of pre-Conquest poetry and imagery took into each new context associations from the past, giving them a continuing validity. Over against the church’s reluctance to express key theological terms in the vernacular is set an amazing readiness to inculturate Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary through the appropriation of ‘royal’ terminology, the Andean understanding of the ‘ultimates of existence’, and the intensely relational Quechua language. This ‘text’ is an “acted document” expressed “in multiple tongues and as much in actions as in words” (Geertz, 18). We note, for instance, that the contours of colonial piety were shaped around a powerful lord/ancestor/father figure whose sufferings resonated deeply with the people’s suffering, and around Mary, the compassionate caring mother, queen of heaven and earth. Such developments were strengthened and fostered by the growth in pilgrimages to the increasing number of Marian and Christ shrines, the devotion to the Santíssimo Sacramento and the importance of the feast of Corpus Christi. All of which live on today. At the same time this piety is expressed in a liturgical language that is paradoxically both contemporary and archaic. In part it emerged in the interstices of the Andean-European culture clash. In part it grew out of the symbiotic relationship between European and Andean cosmovisions, between Christian theology and Andean all-embracing sacrality. It resonates deeply with Andean reality, it provides continuity amidst change. It robes Jesus and his mother in a punchu, puts rubber-tyre sandals on their muddy feet, and bows before them: ‘Mamalláy, Taytalláy’. Studies related to this in the cultures of the Andes Mountains suggest that this ‘text’ is not so much a construct of the outside observer, as it is ‘part of the indigenous conceptual system held by culture members themselves’ (Howard-Malverde 1997:4). It embodies meaning(s) which the members evoke, engage and reproduce in life situations. The ‘text’ can be thought of as a closely interwoven garment formed from the different strands of the Andean peoples’ expressive culture: dance, drama, music, rites and rituals, sermons, Scripture, song, story, and visualisations. This garment is worn by Bible translators as they engage that other text, the Bible. They are informed by both as they translate. At the same time, it is such a normal part of them that they may not always be consciously aware of it. This has many implications for the Bible translation enterprise: One is the need that may arise for consciousness-raising with regard to this ‘text’. Another is related to approaches for training translators--a recent experience in a poetry workshop in Chimborazo, Ecuador may help to illustrate this. Workshop participants were asked to bring a song from each of their communities. These were part of their oral culture. They did not bring them on sheets of paper. “Why would you do that? Everyone knows them! They’re meant to be sung, not read,” they said. Instead they sang and recorded them on the office laptop. These were then transcribed and printed – that in itself was a fun experience for them – it was the first time they had ever seen their songs in print. It suddenly gave them a new experience of their ‘text’, a sense of pride. The discussion, study and analysis that followed of the rich imagery,

107

108

Ernst Wendland the parallelism, the humour, the sarcasm, the emotion, and the contexts of the songs proved to be a journey of discovery of themselves, their own identity, their culture, and the value and dignity of their language. We were all enriched. The Biblical poetry and its translation then took on a different dimension. In addition to the exegesis of the Biblical text, all of us involved in Bible translation need to become ‘exegetes’ of ourselves and of our cultures.

The second example further illustrates the powerful situational influence of culture – in particular, a traditional world view and ancient way of life – on the interpretation of a well-known passage of Scripture, namely, Isaiah 53:6 in Tonga, which reads as follows in the RSV: All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way;

and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

In the excerpt below, several references are made to the necessity of providing a more adequate cognitive framework for receptors to enable them to better comprehend the sense and significance of the biblical text, for example, by means of explanatory or descriptive footnotes and an appropriate illustration (based on Wendland and Hachibamba 2000b:548-549). This case-study also underscores the need for adequate, setting-sensitive research to determine how well/poorly (correctly/wrongly) average members of the TL audience have construed the Scriptures in their language: Do they really understand what they are reading (or, more likely, hearing)? EXERCISE-11 Here we are often asked one of the most crucial queries of all: What are “sheep” really like? These animals are not traditionally herded by the Tonga, and many people have never even seen a sheep because they tend to be restricted to the vicinity of large commercial farms and ranches. The word used to translate “sheep,” mbelele, is strangely related to the expression used to refer to the indigenous “pangolin” cibbata-mbelele, the spotted variety of which is believed to bring good luck to a person who happens to find one and bring it home to the village. The ominous significance of sheep “going astray” is therefore also unfamiliar to most listeners, especially in view of the next line which states that these sheep (“we”) each had its own “path” to follow. Hence some comment on the cultural background of the biblical text would again seem to be needed in a footnote, along with an illustration (if possible) of a sheep or herd of them. The much more familiar “goat” (impongo) cannot be utilized as a clarifying “local equivalent” in this case for two major reasons: because of the importance of sheep in the overall biblical setting and record, and due to the undesirable connotations connected with goats, especially males, in Bantu culture, such as being unruly, destructive of crops, and worst of all, sexually (over)active. Sense considers the “meaning” of a verbal text from the perspective of the author and what she or he intended to communicate to a particular audience in and through her/his text (as nearly as this can be determined on the basis of textual as well as extra-textual evidence). Significance considers text “meaning” from the perspective of the audience/readership (whether the intended group or any other) and what they derive from the text cognitively, emotively, and volitionally when interpreting it in their particular situational context. 

Situational frames: Communicating in different circumstances

109

The notion of a “scapegoat” implicit in this verse (note the possible allusion to Leviticus 16:21-22) is well known in Tonga religious practice. Thus a substitutionary, sacrificial animal bearing the sin(s) and/or disease(s) of society may be prepared by ritual and sent out into the bush and far away from the village to remove from the vicinity some aggrieved or avenging spirit (cizwa). However, the particular creature used for this purpose is quite different, namely, a chicken. This is because the latter will not find its way back home to bring a curse back on the community, like some larger animal (such as, a goat, dog, or even a cow) would do. Another important variation from the biblical sense in this context concerns the notion of a human scapegoat to atone for some communal crime or offense before God (Leza), which is unknown in Tonga indigenous religion. The closest correspondent unfortunately involves the practice of witchcraft, where a “witch/sorcerer” (mulozi) will maliciously and surreptitiously utilize the “life force” (muuya) of a close family member in order to empower a certain charm for self-protection or to enable some sorcerous activity for the purpose of personal enrichment. In this case of course the innocent “substitute” is completely unwilling while the agent, and beneficiary, is made guilty by means of such nefarious, antisocial action. Therefore, in view of the potential disparity and consequent confusion with respect to both form and function in the present context, the desired biblical concept of vicarious sacrifice (with reference to the foundational “atonement” ritual of Leviticus 16) might well deserve some exposition in a note because of its importance to the prophetic imagery which appears especially in this and the following verse.

 Describe a similar experience that you know of as it concerns the text and communication of the Scriptures in your setting: What was the sociocultural or situational problem that arose in connection with a particular translated passage and how was the difficulty resolved (or is a solution still being sought)?

6. Textual frames of reference The pervasive influence of intertext Intertextuality and genre markers No text exists in isolation. It always subsists within an enabling, enriching cognitive context that helps to shape and define it. That is what we have been considering in the preceding sections. No text exists in and of itself alone either. Rather, it always consists, more or less, of other texts. In other words, a given text is either partially or wholly derived from, based on, related to, or in some way conditioned by other texts with respect to general ideas, presuppositions, structural arrangements, particular concepts, key terms, or memorable phrases. These are all different aspects of intertextual influence. Earlier oral and written texts thus serve as “external” textual frames of reference for current texts (“internal” textual frames are considered in chapter 7). Sometimes the reiteration of wording is exact, or nearly so, in which case a known source (pre-text) is usually acknowledged, unless it is assumed to be well-known. At other times, prior thoughts and expressions are recycled much less directly and attribution may or may not be given, depending on the type of discourse and its degree of formality. Finally, no speaker or writer deliberately produces a text that is totally unique, completely cut off from some standard structures, genres, verbal patterns, rules of composition, topics or issues of importance – or even culturally common nonverbal norms and customs of behavior. The previously discussed sociocultural, organizational, and situational “mental models” (schemata, scripts, etc.) of thought and action explicitly or implicitly inform and influence the process of text composition as well as that of communication. This is contextual “pressure” in action. Iconoclasts and non-conformists may resist or rebel against the familiar forms and representations of content of traditional discourse or customary behavior, but their creativity and ability to innovate must remain within certain publicly determined limits or they will simply not be understood or appreciated by their contemporaries. In fact, creative as well as critical thinkers depend upon past discourse in order to make their point (e.g., by way of innovation or caricature) and to take everyday expressions of meaning in a modified or completely new direction. The authors of Job and Ecclesiastes, for example, presuppose that their readers (or hearers) are familiar with the basic “wisdom tradition” of Hebrew religious sages (as set forth in the book of Proverbs) as they seek to persuade people to view the ways of God in the world from a fresh sapiential perspective. For more specific examples, we might note the important signaling capacity of the distinctive markers of a particular literary genre, which offer readers (hearers) an initial textual framework and an important mental guide for interpretation. Such traditional text templates strongly suggest to consumers how a certain composition ought to be I am defining “text” in a narrow, verbal sense. “Intertextuality” thus involves the influence of one text (the pre-text) upon another, either directly by way of citation, or indirectly through paraphrase and various degrees of allusion. 

Textual frames of reference

111

perceived, understood, and also applied in keeping with the type of discourse that is being formally announced in this way. EXERCISE-1 Consider the following passages and tell what kind of writing in general you would expect to follow these citations in the text at hand. In the blank space put the letter of the passage in Scripture that is quoted, choosing from the references listed below (all texts taken from the RSV): • These are the descendants of Esau (that is, Edom): • Oh that you would kiss me with the kisses of your mouth! • Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb… • Therefore, thus says the LORD of Hosts: Because you have not obeyed my words… • Better is a dry morsel with quiet than a house full of feasting with strife. • O give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; for his steadfast love endures forever! • Therefore, let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity… • While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy… • In that day the LORD of Hosts will be a crown of glory, and a diadem of beauty… • How lonely sits the city that was full of people! • A man once gave a great banquet, and invited many… • We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you.

a) Rev. 14:1 f) Prov. 17:1 k) Gen. 36:1

b) Psa. 107:1 g) Lk. 14:16 l) Lk. 5:12

c) SoS 1:1 h) Jer. 25:8

d) Isa. 28:5 i) Col. 1:3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

e) Lam. 1:1 j) Heb. 6:1

Most Bible translations simply reproduce the genre markers of the original text in a fairly literal manner. Alternatively, if there is no overt marker in the original, neither does the translation give any indication at all of what sort of text follows. That is certainly true of a more literal, formal correspondence version like the RSV. In other languages, however, such a non-proactive policy can often lead to problems of interpretation. For example, a different kind of discourse marker is needed in Chewa to mark the exclamatory wish of SoS 1:1, “Oh that you would kiss me with the kisses of your mouth!” A formally correspondent rendition does not work at all here and would be regarded as obscene, or at best improper. Rather, a euphemistic, contrary-to-fact conditional construction is needed: “If you had only embraced me!” On the other hand, a more explicit signal of a parable is required in Luke 14:16 to clearly indicate that Christ is telling a parable, and not a true story: “But Jesus killed him with a parable (an idiom), and said…” The important textual frame of reference provided by literary genres will be considered further below (ch. 7). EXERCISE-2 What is the case in your language: Do any of the passages listed above need to be marked in a special way to indicate the genre of literature that follows? Give examples

112

Ernst Wendland

if you know of any. Which other biblical (sub-) genres come to mind that need to be correspondingly distinguished in your language? How is this done? Give an example or two of such genre-marking.

Examples of intertextual influence The writers (and editors) of Scripture were clearly influenced by other texts – oral and written, religious and secular, verbal and non-verbal – when they composed their books. Such intertextuality may be manifested more or less explicitly in the biblical text – that is, as a direct citation, an indirect allusion, or just a passing reference (“echo”) used only to establish a general verbal or conceptual context. The importance of intertextuality for biblical interpretation is underscored at the very beginning of the Scriptures in the account of “the serpent’s” (hanachash) temptation of “the woman” (ha’ishah) He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” (Gen. 3:1b, NIV)

What the LORD God (YHWH Elohim) actually said of course was this – quite different! And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden…” (Gen. 2:16)

The woman too apparently misunderstood God’s prohibition, for she mis-quotes what he had commanded them, both reducing the permission and also adding a major restriction: “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ ” (Gen. 3:2b-3)

Along with this change in the textual representation, we must observe the equally important shift in the respective situational settings of these different utterances, for they add significant implicatures to the words that are being spoken. In tempting the woman, the serpent suggests that God was harsh and unreasonable by including every tree in his prohibition. For her part, the woman, with the man apparently standing silently at her side (Gen. 3:6), seems to adopt this same perspective, perhaps to a lesser degree, as she adds her own limitations to God’s original command concerning the forbidden tree as well as all the others in the garden. In any case, the point is that quotations, allusions, and other types of textual representation with reference to what was said or done on some prior occasion in the discourse history of God’s people are a vital part of the overall “meaning” of any biblical text. This is in turn an important aspect of the wider sense and significance that an author presupposes as being “known” and accessible (perceptible) to his intended readership. Throughout this coursebook, I use the male pronoun to refer to individual biblical authors since most reliable scholars still feel that there were no women among those who composed the original 66 books of the Protestant canon. 

Textual frames of reference

113

To first century Jews such as Jesus of Nazareth and his followers, the collection of writings that we use to call the ‘Old Testament’, was Holy Scripture, a divine revelation that was relevant to their past, present and future. As Holy Scripture, it provided them with their religious imagery and their religious language. As soon as Jesus’ followers tried to express the significance of the message and person of Jesus, they did so largely in terms derived from Scripture, and they considered the Jesus event and its effects to be the ‘fulfillment’ of Scripture (Moyise and Menken 2004:1).

As the preceding quote suggests, there are manifold intertextual echoes, exact as well as paraphrased, of major and minor persons, events, precepts, principles, figures of speech and images that resound throughout the corpus of Scripture. One must therefore interpret any given conceptual reiteration in the light of the contextual frame of reference that was provided by the original occurrence. Indeed, as the familiar hermeneutical precept goes: The Scripture interprets itself. This is why it is very difficult, if not impossible, to correctly understand and appreciate the New Testament writings apart from the theological and religious framework that has been established by the Old Testament. This assumption of inter-textual dependency is also highlighted at the onset of the NT canon by a number of crucial passages that reflect the influence of the OT within the Synoptic Gospels – for example, the structured genealogy that begins the book of Matthew (1:1-16), the messianic prophecy that headlines Mark’s narrative (1:2; cf. Mal. 3:1, Isa. 40:3), and the two personal psalms of praise that both embellish and inform Luke’s opening account announcing the births of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ (1:46-55, 68-79). And speaking of psalms, the Psalter is, on the whole, probably the OT book most widely used as a textual frame of reference in the NT whether as foreground (directly quoted) or background material (alluded to); 67 psalms are found in one form or another in 13 NT books, usually in many more than one passage (Moyise and Menken 2004:247-250). More often than not, it is the didactic, authoritative force of a cited psalm that comes to the fore in these instances, rather than its expected expressive or panegyric appeal (e.g., Rom. 3:9-20). At times the operation of intertextuality in the Scriptures is very subtle and undoubtedly imperceptible to those who do not have access to the original text. Thus it may be that just a single word (or root) in the biblical text has a possible correspondent of significance in another passage. This may well be the case, for example, with the Hebrew verb (h-g-h) which is found in Psalm 1:2 (“meditate”) and 2:1 (“plot”). There are a number of connections that join these two inaugural psalms of the Psalter together as a conceptual as well as a structural unit, and this general tendency strengthens the likelihood that any potential lexical pairing is yet another instance of such linkage. The respective cotexts of these two verbs are quite different, however, and this obviously affects the specific interpretation of each (i.e., positive versus negative deliberation). For example, Psalms 1-2 are framed by the term “blessed” (); they evoke basic themes that are distinctive of both the Law (torah) and wisdom (hokmah); and they together focus on the theme of righteousness as the life style of those who wish to participate as citizens in the universal rule of Yahweh’s Anointed One (Messiah). 

114

Ernst Wendland

We cannot determine the direction of intertextual influence with this pairing or decide whether the association that we now discern was intentional or not. The placement of psalms one and two in juxtaposition is no accident, however, and such a compositional (or canonical) reality renders lexical and conceptual correspondences (or contrasts) of this nature worthy of note, for Bible translators as well as exegetes. For example, translators must decide whether it is desirable, or even possible given the different contextual meanings, to render the single Hebrew term (h-g-h) by using the same verb in the TL, e.g., “ponder.” This question, in turn, must be investigated in terms of the functional significance of the literary forms in question, and whether it is likely that this was a perceptible feature with appreciable relevance (thematic, pragmatic, artistic, etc.) for the original worshipers. In other instances, the lexical variations of apparent parallels may be much more extensive and hence important for the meaning of each text in relation to the other. Carefully compare Yahweh’s promise made through the prophet Nathan to King David as recorded in 2 Samuel 7:11b-16 and 1 Chronicles 17:10b-14 and note where the major differences occur. Then suggest a possible reason for these deviations, given the probable compositional dates of these two documents, Chronicles coming much later than Samuel: 2 SAMUEL Moreover the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house. 12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men; 15 but I will not take 4r my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever. r7.15 Gk Syr Vg 1 Chron 17.13: Heb shall not depart 1 CHRONICLES I declare to you that the LORD will build a house for you: 11 When your days are over and you go to be with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He is the one who will build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever. 13 I will be his father, and he will be my son. I will never take my love away from him, as I took it away from your predecessor. 14 I will set him over my house and my kingdom forever; his throne will be established forever.

As already noted, Old Testament intertextuality (usually via the Septuagint, LXX) is rather thickly interwoven within the discourses of Christ and the New Testament epistles generally. These compositional threads are of considerable structural, thematic, as well as contextual significance, for they contribute a great deal to the overall unity of the Scriptures and its primary message, which centers in the “salvation history” of God’s people as they move by grace and divine provision from one covenantal setting to the next. The Messiah himself took great pains to emphasize this essential continuity of faith and righteous living, as correctly understood and applied in the light of his new gospel message. In Matthew 5, for example, the Mosaic moral code is emphasized again and again as a major text topic near the onset of Christ’s well-known

Textual frames of reference

115

“disciples discourse” (spanning chs. 5-7) – namely, his foundational personal testimony in support of the “law” (i.e., Greek nomos = Hebrew torah) in 5:17-10, followed by the periodic reminders of 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, and 43. The question then for Bible translators is simply this: does the broad, cohesive cognitive framework provided by the Lord here for didactic purposes in this passage strike a chord of recognition and elicit a response from people who read (let alone hear) it today in their varied vernacular texts? If not, is this loss of significance not worth doing something about, whether textually or paratextually, in the translation? The same question concerning relative perceptibility could be asked of a book like Hebrews whose interpretation depends on its readers’ correct understanding of the sequence of selected OT passages that the writer quotes as part of his exposition, from the beginning of his Christ-centered composition (1:5-13) to the comforting conclusion (13:5-6). In the case of such heavy intertextuality (with respect to quality as well as quantity), it may not be sufficient as a contextualizing device for many readers (and all audiences!) simply to list the OT cross-references in the margin or as footnotes. A much more detailed – perhaps even invasive! – hermeneutical background, or key, must be supplied so that the intended TL constituency can perceive the great relevance of these intertextual cords, which play such an important part of the author’s eloquent argument on behalf of their “great Shepherd of the sheep” (13:20; cf. Psa. 23; Ezek. 37:24-28; Jn. 10:11). The apostles’ teaching about Jesus, the Christ, was clearly anticipated and often forcefully announced by many salient writings of the Hebrew Testament, thus lending credence as well as continuity to their uncompromising message (just pick them all out, for example, in Peter’s Pentecost sermon of Acts 2:14-39). EXERCISE-3  Pick one substantial instance of intertextuality that you find in the book of Hebrews and explain how the OT (LXX) citation lays an essential hermeneutical foundation (or frame of reference) for the passage at hand. Give special attention to pertinent information that might not be perceived or understood correctly by average readers who live in your sociocultural and religious setting.  Point out any textual “clues” to interpretation that you might incorporate within your translation, and then suggest the wording of an expository note that would be necessary to introduce or clarify the rest of the background that is required to increase the text’s relevance.

The subtle pervasiveness and consequent exegetical as well as translational importance of intertextuality in NT interpretation is well illustrated by the following instance taken from Romans 15 (Hays 2005:111-113). Obviously, for the Apostle Paul this intertextual contextualizing device was a very prominent aspect of his epistolary compositional technique. The citation of Ps. 69:9 in Rom 15:3 occurs at the climax of Paul’s careful response to the pastoral problem posed by the tension between the powerful and the powerless. The powerful are called upon to forego their prerogatives and to please the neighbors

116

Ernst Wendland in the interest of building up the community (vv. 1-2); this act of pleasing the other rather than oneself is warranted by the example of Christ, exemplified in the psalm quotation. …

The aptness of the quotation would be enhanced for readers who remembered its immediate context in Ps. 69:6ff.: Do no let those who wait for [ὑπομένοντές; cf. ὑπομονή in Rom. 15:5-6] you be put to shame [αἰσχυνθείησαν; cf. Rom. 1:16; 5:5; 9:33; 10:11] because of me, Oh Lord, Lord of the powers [κύριε κύριε τῶν δυνάμεων]. (1) Do not let those who seek you be dishonored because of me, O God of Israel. 1 Heb. “O Lord, LORD of Hosts” – (Adonai YHWH Tsiba’oth) This is an example of the allusive technique called metalipsis, which is pervasive in Paul; the most telling elements of Paul’s subtext are suppressed in his overt citation. Anyone who hears Ps. 69 as the prayer of Christ [as intimated in Rom. 15:3] would immediately realize the relevance of these petitions to the counsel that Paul is offering the Romans; the Messiah who prays such a prayer in the midst of suffering is a powerful model for the other-regarding conduct that Paul is urging. Paul wants the Roman Christians to echo the prayer of the Messiah by saying, in effect, “Do not let one for whom Christ dies be put to shame because of me” (cf. Rom. 14:15). (The sense ascribed to the psalm in this interpretation is hardly what historical criticism would regard as the original meaning of the text. Paul, however, was not deterred by such constraints.) Against this background we can more adequately understand the function of the “hermeneutischer Lehrsatz” in Rom. 15:4… The Scriptures kindle and sustain hope (Rom. 15:4). How? By placing human life in a Christological and eschatological framework. The life pattern of suffering for others, defined by the Christ in Paul’s reading of Ps. 69, is possible only for those who hope in God’s ultimate vindication. One must have hope to live sacrificially as Jesus did, even in the midst of conflict and suffering, trusting that God wills the community’s eschatological unity (vv. 5-6).

EXERCISE-4  Evaluate the preceding interpretation of the verses cited – is it convincing? If not, tell why. If you agree, how do you propose setting forth Paul’s reasoning more clearly for an audience in your setting? If you feel that an explanatory note is necessary, suggest a possible wording that would work in YL.  How then does Paul’s argument in Rom. 15:1-6 link up with what he says later in vv. 7-13? Summarize the point and purpose of the several OT passages that are cited in this latter portion of the pericope.

The intertextual pressure of a prior translation Just as one biblical text exerts intertextual pressure upon another to varying degrees and in different respects (e.g., in terms of lexical selection, syntactic arrangement, discourse style, connotative coloring, and hermeneutical choice), so also one prominent translation often verbally influences a later version. Thus it can be shown that the latter clearly consulted its predecessor, not only in wording, but at times also

Textual frames of reference

117

incorporating some of the same errors! This, too, is an instance of contextual conditioning, in this case, of the wording of one translation operating on the compositional form of another. Some of the best known examples of versions that have subsequently had widespread intertextual and interlinguistic influence are the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and the King James Version. But along with this admirable group of inspirational base texts, another translation deserves honorable mention (at least) in this regard, namely, Martin Luther’s German translation, which became a life-long project of the Reformer. The following examples (based on Bluhm 1965:169-180) illustrate certain aspects of the impressive verbal impact of Luther’s version on the entire English tradition of Bible translation – in particular, the forerunner Tyndale’s translation of Ephesians: Eph. 1:10 Tyndale: when the tyme were full come Luther: da die zeyt erfullet war NOTE: Luther did not appreciate double genitives and thus sought to avoid them in his translation, in this instance by employing a dependent clause, which is evident also in Tyndale’s rendering. Eph. 1:19 Tyndale: accordynge to the workynge of that his mighty power Luther: nach der wirkung seyner mechtigen sterck NOTE: All of Tyndale’s Greek and Latin sources retain the double genitive construction, but here he again follows Luther’s use of an adjective to eliminate one of these. Eph. 1:22 Tyndale: the heed of the congregacion Luther: zum heubt der gemeynen NOTE: Tyndale kept the distinctive “Lutheran” term (concept) gemeyne at every occurrence of ecclesia in Ephesians (8x), using congregacion instead of Wycliffe’s chirche, which was later reinstated by the KJV. Eph. 2:2 Tyndale: after the governor that ruleth in the ayer Luther: nach dem fursten, der ynn der lufft herrschet NOTE: Luther perhaps leaned on the Latin translation of Erasmus in order to clarify the complicated original Greek construction here, but he added an upgrade in the relative clause, which Tyndale apparently approved of. Eph. 2:22 Tyndale: and hath broken doune the wall in the myddes that was a stoppe bitwene us Luther: und hat abgebrochen den zaun, der da zwischen war NOTE: Tyndale here approximates Luther’s dynamic rendition of the original. Eph. 2:15 Tyndale: the lawe of commaundements contained in the lawe written Luther: das gesetz der gepot, so fern sie schrifftlich verfassen waren NOTE: Tyndale does not achieve Luther’s idiomacity in this case, but he obviously learned something from the German text in his effort to clarify the sense of this difficult verse (Wycliffe’s version is an obscure literal rendering of the Vulgate). Eph. 3:5 Tyndale: in tymes passed Luther: ynn den vorigen zeytten NOTE: A literal reproduction of the Greek is evidenced in the KJV’s “in other ages” – and Wycliffe has “to other generaciouns”.

118

Ernst Wendland Eph. 3:19 Tyndale: which is the love of Christ, which love passeth all knowledge Luther: die liebe Christi, die doch alle erkentnis ubertrifft NOTE: Tyndale follows Luther’s substitution of a relative clause for the original Greek participle and his inclusion of the adjective “all,” which is found in no other version. Eph. 4:18 Tyndale: straungers from the lyfe which is in god Luther: entfrembdet von dem leben das aus got ist NOTE: Tyndale, like Luther, converts the original genitive “of God” into a relative clause and inserts a clarifying preposition – in his case “in,” rather than Luther’s “aus.” Eph. 4:24 Tyndale: in true holynes Luther: yn rechtschaffener heylickeyt NOTE: In both versions, and in no other prior to this time, do we find one of the original genitives transformed into an adjective to produce a more natural vernacular expression. Eph. 6:2 Tyndale: the first commaundement that hath eny promes Luther: das erst gepot, das eyn verheyssung hat NOTE: In this case, the Greek prepositional phrase “in a promise” is restated as a full explanatory clause – nowhere else prior to Tyndale except in Luther’s German text. Eph. 6:11 Tyndale: against the crafty assautes Luther: gegen den listigen anlaufft NOTE: Again, this way of expressing the Greek occurs nowhere else prior to this except in Luther first, and then Tyndale – thus suggesting a rather clear dependence.

It is worth reading Bluhm’s overall assessment of the creative influence of Luther on Tyndale in the form of a vernacular textual frame of reference (1965:170): Tyndale was very much aware of the pioneer achievement of the man who set the general pattern for Tyndale’s own popular, highly idiomatic rendering. As a literary genius in his own right he more often than not provided his own relatively free translation. He was obviously not content with merely copying Luther. … Instead, he reproduced in his own tongue the general spirit of Luther’s German, thus succeeding in creating a New Testament in the vernacular second…only to Luther’s masterful version. EXERCISE-5 It is important to note the qualification that is given with regard to such intertextual translational “borrowing”: The borrowers of the second version must be competent and experienced enough not to simply copy the model translation(s) that they are using. No matter how good this text may be in the language concerned, it will not turn out that way if rendered literally in the new target language.  Do you agree with the preceding assertion? If not, tell why. What may be done to prevent linguistic interference from the model version and conceptual skewing with respect to the biblical text from occurring in the current translation that is being prepared? Give as many suggestions as you can that can serve as guidelines for a team in this situation.

Textual frames of reference

119

 Compare Tyndale’s final version and the Authorized Version (KJV) reading at Romans 12:1 (below). What does this suggest about the influence of the former version upon the latter? (Of course, there were other English translations available to the AV’s translators, but they all came after Tyndale.) Tyndale: I beseech you therefore brethren by the mercifulness of God, that ye make youre bodyes a quicke sacrifise, holy and acceptable unto God which is youre reasonable servynge off God. KJV: I beseech your therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.

 The following is the Chichewa translation of Rom. 12:1 in three versions. The first citation (A) is from the old “missionary” version of 1927; the other two are modern versions completed within the past ten years. Which of the latter two, B or C, is a “new” translation and which is a rather light “revision” of the oldest translation? The revision obviously “borrowed” heavily from the old version; in other words, the level of intertextual influence was high, perhaps unacceptably so – since it was not acknowledged at all by the publishers! (Note: it should be possible to do this comparative exercise without an English back-translation.) A: Cifukwa cace ndikupemphani inu, abale, mwa zifundo za Mulungu, kuti mupereke matupi anu nsembe ya moyo, yopatulika ndi yokondweretsa Mulungu, ndiko kupembedza kwanu koyenera. B: Tsono abale, popeza kuti Mulungu watichitira chifundo chachikulu chotere, ndikukupemphani kuti mupereke matupi anu omwe kuti akhale nsembe yamoyo, yopatulika, ndi yokondweretsa Mulungu. Imeneyi ikhale njira yanu yopembedzera Mulungu mwauzimu. C: Chifukwa chake, ine ndikupemphani inu abale, mwa chifundo cha Mulungu, kuti mupereke matupi anu nsembe yamoyo, yopatulika, yokondweretsa Mulungu – kumene kuli kupembedza kwanu kwa uzimu.

 Do have an example of this sort of intralingual “borrowing” that has served to contextualize the text of a particular Bible translation in your setting? Was there a good outcome, as far as this new version is concerned, or were the results unsatisfactory from the point of view of the primary target audience and the purpose of the new translation? Explain your answer, with reasons, and give an illustration or two (cf. also Exercise 13 of chapter 4 and Exercise 10 of chapter 10).  With reference to the three Chewa translations above, what major “organizational” issue (cf. ch. 4) could arise out of the fact that versions A and B have been sponsored by the United Bible Societies, while version C was published by the International Bible Society (all three operating in the country of Malawi)?

120

Ernst Wendland

Primary versus secondary (and tertiary) translations In certain parts of the world where formal educational standards are low and opportunities for advanced studies few, many Bible translators are not able to refer to the biblical languages, to Hebrew and Greek. They thus cannot produce what is known as a primary translation, based on the original text. Rather, they must depend on another translation, usually a primary version that has been prepared in a language of wider communication (LWC), such as English, French, Spanish, and so forth. Theirs will then be what is termed a secondary translation. In this case, the linguistic and cultural frames of reference of the primary, or “intervening,” version often act as a barrier or blinder to translators, sometimes preventing them from gaining an adequate grasp of the biblical source in terms of content, style, and function. In such “secondary” communication situations, consultants or advisers must devise different compositional strategies to try and compensate for their translators’ loss of direct contact with the original text, for example, through the careful use of special exegetical tools (analytical dictionaries, interlinear translations, Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias), translation resources (special handbooks keyed to the biblical texts, word processing programs like Paratext), and practical techniques based on some sort of comparative translation method. The so-called base-models approach, for example, begins with a careful analysis of a relatively literal primary version (i.e., the base – e.g., the [N]RSV) to give translators some idea of the actual linguistic forms that were used in the biblical text. This is then closely compared with a number of LWC model versions (e.g. for English: GNT, CEV, NIV), which suggest to translators how the base may be restructured and re-expressed in different ways in order to present the text in a more meaningful manner and/or to carry out certain communication goals more effectively in another language. Most helpful in this text-framing interlingual translation exercise are well-prepared model versions that are available in a language that is very closely related to the one into which the Bible is being rendered (the target language), e.g., a Chichewa translation as a model for one in Chisena or Chinsenga. This is true even though such “models” often happen to be a translation of a translation, i.e., a tertiary version. In any case, the aim of this method is never to render any single translation literally, but rather to re-present the sense and significance of original text using a natural target language style in a way that best fulfills the primary communicative objectives that were designated for the new version (its current Skopos). These aims, in turn, should have been clearly spelled out in the project “commission” or “agreement” form (the Brief). Great care must be taken, however, in the use of translation models, whether primary or secondary. A formal over-dependence on any one version (including slavishly following the forms of the original Hebrew or Greek document) will inevitably lead translators to introduce many foreign lexical collocations, syntactic structures, and, worse, entire mis-matched genres into the TL text. Similarly, the undiscerning, uncritical use of a relatively easy-to-understand model, such as the English GNT or CEV, Chinyanja, Chisena, and Chinsenga are closely-related east-central Bantu languages (Zone N) spoken in Malawi and eastern Zambia. 

Textual frames of reference

121

can also produce some serious problems – such as linguistic unnaturalness, erroneous meanings or implications, even complete unintelligibility – in any translation that follows it too closely. This is because the word usage, sentence construction, and basic stylistic preferences do not often correspond very closely between the SL and TL. EXERCISE-6 If the following marked expressions from the GNT translation (second UK edition, 1994) of Christ’s parable of the “Shrewd Manager” (Luke 16:1-8) are rendered literally in Chichewa the result will most likely be an ambiguous, unnatural, or meaningless text (the problematic elements are italicized). Furthermore, it is probable that many second-language speakers of English in a country like Zambia, for example, would also experience difficulties with most of these expressions. I have tried to limit the examples to those involving translational issues within the GNT, not problems that arise due to a mismatch in the respective sociocultural settings, namely, the Ancient Near East and modern south-central Africa. [Brief explanations of the problems involved are given in brackets]: The Shrewd [This is not a familiar adjective; much better is “clever” for the adverb φρονίμως –v. 8.] Manager 1 Jesus said to his disciples, “There was once a rich man who had a servant who managed his property [How could a ‘servant’ be placed in charge of managing someone’s property?]. The rich man was told that the manager was wasting his master’s money [An extended passive construction is difficult to process; it is also more natural to put the accusation, even if the source is unknown, into direct discourse – e.g., “People were telling him, “…”. There is also a problem of ambiguity: Is “the manager” the same person as “a servant” who is mentioned earlier in the verse?], 2 so he called him in and said, ‘What is this I hear about you? [This would be interpreted as a real question by many – and the rich man does not give his manager a chance to answer at all!] Hand in a complete account of your handling [Whether a pun was intended here or not, it does not sound natural: why “hand in,” rather than the more direct “give me”?] of my property, because you cannot be my manager any longer.’ 3 The servant said to himself, ‘My master is going to dismiss me [This is too high-level a verb for this particular cotext. Why not the more idiomatic “fire me”?] from my job. What shall I do? I am not strong enough to dig ditches [In Africa, “farming” would be a more suitable image, and is in fact allowed by the original σκάπτειν ‘to work the soil’.], and I am ashamed to beg. 4 Now I know what I will do! [The manager has just asked himself, “What shall I do?”– so how can he turn around and say, “Now I know…” In natural Chewa, a pragmatic term plus a perfect verb tense would suggest the manager’s sudden shift in thinking here, which is marked in the original by asyndeton and an aorist verb: “Alright, now I have known what I must do…”] Then [This word implies that the man has already explained “what (he) will do,” which has not yet occurred in the text. Try: “After I have done this…”] when my job is gone, I shall have friends who will welcome me in their homes [The specific phrase “in their homes” confuses the issue for most hearers–why did the man want to go live with his “friends”? Simply “welcome me” is enough, or more idiomatically, “will help me out”].’ Although this is also a sociocultural issue, GNT’s rendering of οἰκονόμος as “servant” in this context is quite misleading. 

122

Ernst Wendland 5 “So he called in all the people who were in debt to his master. He asked the first one, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 ‘One hundred barrels [In Zambia, “drums” would be a much more familiar unit of liquid measure; “barrels” are occasionally used to refer to petroleum products] of olive oil,’ he answered. ‘Here is your account,’ the manager told him; ‘sit down [What was the point of “sitting down” on this occasion? The original “quickly” ταχέως, left out in the GNT, is more important: “Take your bill right away…!”] and write fifty.’ 7 Then he asked another one, ‘And you – how much do you owe?’ ‘A thousand sacks of wheat,’ he answered [In Bantu languages it is more natural to begin with the quote margin; thus an English version is easier to follow if it follows that pattern. When the margin is put in the middle of an utterance (next sentence), it is even more difficult to track.]. ‘Here is your account,’ the manager told him; ‘write eight hundred.’ 8 “As a result [“Result” of what? – specify “of what he did/how he acted…”] the master of this dishonest manager praised him for doing such a shrewd thing; because [A long sentence with a semicolon is always more difficult to interpret; put a full-stop and begin a new sentence instead. In many Bantu languages, the break at this point needs to be more pronounced and marked to indicate that Jesus is here beginning his own commentary on the parable that he has just told, e.g., Chewa: “As you well know (a single transitional particle)…”] the people of this world [Includes everyone? – ambiguous!] are much more shrewd [clever] in handling their affairs than the people who belong to the light [“Belong” – in what sense? Better: “who walk (a good biblical idiom!) in the/God’s light”].”

 Would the same (italicized) expressions cause difficulty in some non-European language that you know? Point out any other words or phrases in this passage that might be misunderstood or not understood at all.  How would you word the various problem points in English (perhaps with reference to the original text) so that they would be more readily understood (perhaps more accurately expressed as well)?  What does this exercise reveal to us about the different intermediary “text frames” that we provide for Bible translators who cannot refer to the Hebrew or Greek originals? How do you propose teaching the proper use of such LWC versions to such a translation team?

Translation text frames – including how literally or idiomatically the SL document is to be rendered in the TL – always differ therefore according to the intended purpose and setting of use of the version that is envisioned. It is worth underscoring this principle once again. The communicative function (Skopos, which may be unitary or multiple) must be accurately determined on the basis of sufficient research – and agreed upon by all parties involved! – before any translation work is undertaken. This simple (but often overlooked) requirement is one of the most important tenets of modern Bible translation practice. The translation’s goal(s) will in turn influence the project “constitution” (Brief), that is, the explicit statement of its principal terms of reference, including such details as: the project’s organizational framework, the required qualifications for translators, provision of additional staff training, team structure and working arrangements, a proposed schedule of completion, a stipulated

Textual frames of reference

123

manner of qualitative assessment, testing, and revision, and many more. The main pragmatic purpose and its associated procedures must be explicitly formulated in keeping with the wishes of the version’s primary TL audience (as determined by a representative sample of clergy as well as laity). A final decision should be made only on the basis of widespread education and understanding concerning the various available (and possible) options, as well as the pros and cons of one type of translation over against another. EXERCISE-7 Consider the following organizational-textual issues from the perspective of your past, present, or proposed translation project:  What sort of mutual agreement or memo of understanding serves as the procedural “frame of reference” for the Bible translation project that you are working with (or which you know about)? How or on what basis was this agreement formulated?  If you do not have such a documented framework for your project’s operation and oversight, mention some reasons why this would be helpful, even essential, to establish as soon as possible. List some of the important management-related and/or administrative factors that would need to be included.  Which published Bible translation(s) act(s) as a textual frame of reference for the version that you are currently preparing? Have any vernacular models in related languages been included? Why or why not?  Which would be more helpful to use as a model for consultation when translating – a related vernacular version that is more literal or more idiomatic in nature? Explain your preference.  One general translation goal is stated like this: “We want our version to remain as close as possible to the SL text forms in keeping with a natural, understandable style in the TL” – or, as the Preface to the RSV puts it: “as literal as possible, as free as necessary.” Compare this aim in relation to the one that has been adopted for your project: where is it similar – how is it different? Is this a realistic goal to shoot for? Explain why or why not from the perspective of a new translation project in YL.  Is the principal goal of your translation to bring the biblical text closer to today’s readers in terms of style (domestication), to transport today’s readers back to the biblical text (foreignization) – or does your policy lie (perhaps wavering) somewhere in-between these two poles of relative correspondence? Explain the differences among these three stylistic approaches and their ensuing effects on primary translation procedures as these relate to the project that you are working with or have knowledge of.

The inclusion of study Bible notes (some of which were suggested when working with Luke 16:1-8 above) is an attempt to provide a fuller cognitive frame of reference for the passage of Scripture that will help readers to interpret it more easily,

124

Ernst Wendland

accurately, and completely. This increasingly popular method of contextualizing the biblical text will be considered more specifically during our discussion of Revelation 4 below (ch. 9).

Which “text”? The need for textual criticism Thus far we have been considering “textual frames” without much reference to the original text of Scripture. This of course has been a reversal of usual procedure: The first step of every exegetical (and translational) study normally begins with a so-called text critical study of the original document. The aim is to discover where the main difficulties lie with regard to the principal copies available and then to determine how these might be resolved. Many translators, especially those who cannot access the original text of Scripture, simply allow the pertinent UBS Translator’s Handbook (and/or SIL’s Exegetical Summary), plus a selection of standard translations, to take care of this problem for them. In cases of disagreement or doubt, they adopt the “majority opinion” among their various references. In most situations, such a minimal strategy for assessing the quality of the biblical text is quite satisfactory, especially when more recent exegetical resources and study tools are studied in comparison with each other (e.g., Omanson 2006). The following is a brief introduction to the subject, which highlights some of the challenges that translators face in this basic text-framing endeavor (from A Translator’s Handbook on Song of Songs [SoS], G. Ogden and L. Zogbo – the Paratext edition; used by permission): Textual Problems and the Translator Most Bible readers are not aware that translations made from one language to another depend to a certain extent on interpretations made by the translators themselves. That is why translations of a given passage from the original Hebrew or Greek vary from one Bible version to the other. Taking an example from the Song, at 8.10 RSV says “then I was in his eyes as one who brings peace,” TEV “with him I find contentment and peace,” and the New Jewish Version (NJV) “I became in his eyes as one who finds favor.” Each translator has interpreted the Hebrew text in a slightly different way. Differences in translation are not only determined by translators’ choices but also by some other technical factors. These we can only briefly spell out here. First, words in Hebrew are built on consonant roots. Depending on the vowels added to the root letters, these roots can be interpreted as nouns, verbs, participles, adjectives, and so on. For example, the root sh-l-m, found in the example cited above, can indicate a noun “peace” or “security,” a verb “to complete,” “to be complete,” or “to be at peace,” a participle “one at peace” or “one being complete,” or even an adjective “safe” or “peaceful.” Unfortunately for us the first writers of Hebrew wrote with consonants only. Various symbols were eventually added to indicate vowel sounds, but a full system of vowel representation was not used until the time of the Masoretes, scholars living during the ninth and tenth centuries A.D. Much of our interpretation is therefore based on a text that was “completed” many centuries after the original was first written. Furthermore, the markings introduced at this time were for the most part “points” looking like commas and periods, markings that can often be confused. When biblical scholars study the meaning of texts, they try to evaluate how well the Masoretes interpreted the text. This means they may question how they “pointed” a given word. Changing the vowels

Textual frames of reference

125

of a word can change the whole meaning of a verse! How words are divided can also affect the meaning of a text. In English the string “anear” can be taken as “an ear” or “a near.” Similarly problems of word division in Hebrew may also enter the picture. Finally, some Hebrew consonants are very similar in appearance and lead to confusion as to the original text. For example, the letters y and w look alike (y and w ), as do r and d (r and d ). We can see the problem in 2 Kgs 16.6, where Edom and Aram (Syria) are confused because of the very slight difference in the two letters d. If there was an error in copying, the whole meaning of a phrase can be affected. We only have to look at the number of footnotes in many translations that say “Hebrew text unclear” or “Hebrew meaning unclear” to realize that the translator faces many decisions about the correct text. Proposed changes to the text are called “emendations,” and every Bible translation has to come to terms with them. In the discussion of very difficult texts in the Song, this Handbook will try to explain some of the most important proposals.

EXERCISE-8 The following are several samples of text-critical and text-interpretive issues that occur in the final chapter of SoS (ch. 8) as discussed by the handbook mentioned above. Evaluate the quality and relevance of the guidance that is given from the perspective of the translation project that you are working with. What corrections or improvements can you suggest? How important is such information in providing translators with a sufficient textual frame of reference to carry out their work? Explain your position on this matter. 8:2 Into the chamber of her that conceived me: as the RSV footnote indicates, this phrase is a problem for interpreters and translators. The problem is that instead of the Hebrew here has the verb “teach.” It translates as “you/she will teach me.” However, many scholars suggest that the correct text should be conceived, as in the parallel 3.4. The two possible interpretations are: into the house of my mother; she [or, you] will teach me. Or else: into the house of my mother, and into the room of the one who conceived me. If the Hebrew text actually says “she [or, you] will teach me,” it is difficult to know why the phrase is included here. Is it simply a phrase that describes the role of the mother, much as the phrase “the one nursing at my mother’s breast” describes the brother? If so, we can translate it as “the one who taught [or, teaches] me [everything I know].” However, there is another possible rendering of the Hebrew: “you will teach me.” This can be addressed to the young man, in which case we assume the young man would be teaching her more about love. This latter is the interpretation that many versions and commentators adopt. tob, for example, renders “you will initiate me.” This majority view is certainly a logical possibility. 8:5 Leaning upon her beloved: the Hebrew participle leaning is from a root that occurs only here, so its meaning is uncertain. From related languages we can narrow

126

Ernst Wendland its sense to “clinging to” or “leaning on.” A general expression like “leaning on [her lover]” or “holding closely to [her lover]” will serve well. Under the apple tree I awakened you: obviously there is a change of speaker here. Translations generally indicate this division by leaving a blank line between the two clauses, as in RSV. Our first question concerns the speaker. If we accept that the introduction in the previous half of the verse is presented by the chorus, then we presume it is one of the lovers speaking here. But which one? The problem is complicated by the fact that there are different versions of the ancient texts. The Hebrew text has first person verbs with masculine pronoun objects, “I awakened you [masculine].” This indicates that the young woman is speaking. However, the Syriac translation (second century a.d.) has feminine object markers, suggesting the young man is speaking. Both views can be found in translations. NEB, NAB, and JB present the young man as the speaker, while TEV, NIV, tob, and frcl consider it to be the young woman. If the latter view is accurate, this is the first time the young man’s mother is referred to (see following line). We will follow the Hebrew text and suggest it is the young woman speaking. Was in travail with you is the attempt of RSV to render the Hebrew root, which can mean “get pregnant” as well as “give birth,” but not travail (as RSV, neb). The following clause contains a different verb, which is the more precise and recognized term for giving birth. In Psa 7.15 the two verbs occur in association with each other, meaning “conceive” and “give birth” respectively. Therefore “conceive” should be used here in place of in travail with: “it was there that your mother conceived you.” 8:6 A most vehement flame: this is a phrase presumably referring to love also, as a description parallel to the previous phrase. RSV considers this line to be only one word in Hebrew (shalhebethyah). Its meaning is at best ambiguous. A number of scholars believe the phrase to be two separate words, the second of which is yah. This latter is then interpreted as an abbreviated form of the divine name Yahweh, giving a translation “flame of Yahweh.” If this were the correct view, this phrase would represent the only reference to God in the entire Song. Those who accept this view think that human love is being compared to divine love. This analysis of the text provides the basis for many commentators’ belief that the Song is not a simple love song, but a treatise on God’s love for his people. There are many other scholars, however, who see no reference to Yahweh at all here, pointing out that the name of God has never once been mentioned in the Song. Some think that, if indeed it is the name of God, it may be nothing more than an idiomatic expression for lightning, “flame of Yah,” parallel in meaning to the previous phrase, “shafts of fire.” As noted above, the phrase is ambiguous. It can also be interpreted as a superlative form (with no reference to Yahweh), “the hottest [or, fiercest] flame.” RSV and NJV follow this sense, as TEV apparently does when it says “like a raging fire” (see also NIV margin). We suggest following the majority view here and so choose to translate with a superlative, “the hottest flame” or “the hottest of all flames.” Where readers are familiar with Bible translations that interpret this latter clause as referring to Yahweh, it may be helpful to include a footnote as some of the French versions do (frcl, tob), stating that “flame of Yahweh” is an alternative interpretation of the Hebrew text.

Textual frames of reference 8:10 As one who brings peace: there are problems with this phrase, as RSV points out. The verb in question is either a participial form of the verb “find,” (jb, TEV, Fox) or a participle of the root meaning “come out.” This latter gives a translation “one who brings out, produces” (followed by NIV, NEB, Gordis). Opinion is clearly divided. However, the problem does not rest there, for how we interpret the phrase determines how we render the fuller sense. Who is it who finds peace? The young woman, or her lover? Who brings or gives peace? The young man, or the woman? NAB, TEV, and JB have the man welcoming the woman; RSV, NIV, NEB and others consider it is the young woman who brings well-being to her lover. Thus there are two problems to be resolved. The first one concerns the subject of the verb brings. As the young woman is the speaker, our conclusion is that she is the subject. What she actually does depends on our interpretation of the verb phrase brings peace. So our other problem has to do with the verb itself; and that is an even more complex problem. Our conclusion is that, because the verb “find” has been used frequently throughout the Song, and the verb “come out” has not, it is more likely that the verb “find” is the one used here. However, in view of the uncertainty, we can put the alternative in a footnote. A third question now flows from the above: What is it that the young woman finds? Peace is the Hebrew word shalom. It carries various meanings, all having to do with a person’s sense of “well-being.” It is a very positive term and may mean “friendship” or “favor.” NAB suggests “one to be welcomed,” while NEB thinks it means “contentment.” In the light of the discussion about the young woman’s physical maturity, what does shalom mean here? It may well be some kind of euphemism for sexual fulfillment. However, the root also has the meaning “complete,” so it is our opinion that she is using shalom to portray the fact that she has reached full or complete maturity. Thus the translation of the phrase brings peace is “one who has reached maturity,” “one who is complete [fully mature].” Translation of the entire clause then becomes “So he thinks of me as one who is now mature,” “He sees me as one who has reached full maturity.” In view of the problem with this text and interpretation, we will need to include a footnote with a reference to the Hebrew idiom used. The whole verse can say: I was a wall, but now my breasts are as tall as towers! Therefore I have found favor in his eyes.* (* Or “Therefore my lover thinks of me as fully mature.”) 8:12 As one who brings peace: there are problems with this phrase, as RSV points out. The verb in question is either a participial form of the verb “find,” (jb, TEV, Fox) or a participle of the root meaning “come out.” This latter gives a translation “one who brings out, produces” (followed by NIV, NEB, Gordis). Opinion is clearly divided. However, the problem does not rest there, for how we interpret the phrase determines how we render the fuller sense. Who is it who finds peace? The young woman, or her lover? Who brings or gives peace? The young man, or the woman? NAB, TEV, and JB have the man welcoming the woman; RSV, NIV, NEB and others consider it is the young woman who brings well-being to her lover. Thus there are two problems to be resolved. The first one concerns the subject of the verb brings. As the young woman is the speaker, our conclusion is that she is the subject. What she actually does depends on our interpretation of the verb phrase brings peace. So our other problem has to do with the verb itself; and that is an even more complex problem. Our conclusion is that, because the verb “find” has been used

127

128

Ernst Wendland frequently throughout the Song, and the verb “come out” has not, it is more likely that the verb “find” is the one used here. However, in view of the uncertainty, we can put the alternative in a footnote. A third question now flows from the above: What is it that the young woman finds? Peace is the Hebrew word shalom. It carries various meanings, all having to do with a person’s sense of “well-being.” It is a very positive term and may mean “friendship” or “favor.” NAB suggests “one to be welcomed,” while NEB thinks it means “contentment.” In the light of the discussion about the young woman’s physical maturity, what does shalom mean here? It may well be some kind of euphemism for sexual fulfillment. However, the root also has the meaning “complete,” so it is our opinion that she is using shalom to portray the fact that she has reached full or complete maturity. Thus the translation of the phrase brings peace is “one who has reached maturity,” “one who is complete [fully mature].” Translation of the entire clause then becomes “So he thinks of me as one who is now mature,” “He sees me as one who has reached full maturity.” In view of the problem with this text and interpretation, we will need to include a footnote with a reference to the Hebrew idiom used. The whole verse can say: I was a wall, but now my breasts are as tall as towers! Therefore I have found favor in his eyes.* Footnote: * Or “Therefore my lover thinks of me as fully mature.” 8:13 Your voice may be the object of the participle are listening or of the following verb let me hear. Translations are divided on this matter; JB agrees with RSV, but NJV and NIV, along with a number of commentators, think voice is the object of hear. This gives a sense “Let me hear your voice.” The phrase your voice follows the preposition TEV seems to understand your voice as doing double duty in this verse, making it both the object of “hear” and the object of “listen”: “Let me hear your voice from the garden, my love; my companions are waiting to hear you speak.” 8:14 Your voice may be the object of the participle are listening or of the following verb let me hear. Translations are divided on this matter; JB agrees with RSV, but NJV and NIV, along with a number of commentators, think voice is the object of hear. This gives a sense “Let me hear your voice.” The phrase your voice follows the preposition TEV seems to understand your voice as doing double duty in this verse, making it both the object of “hear” and the object of “listen”: “Let me hear your voice from the garden, my love; my companions are waiting to hear you speak.”

Textual support of the canon A consideration of the textual framework provided by the original documents of Scripture is closely related to similar concerns that pertain to the biblical canon (a collection of books officially accepted as sacred “Scripture” by a particular religious community) as a whole. This is a subject that is being explored nowadays in a spirit of greater flexibility but also with a certain amount of controversy in some circles. We

Textual frames of reference

129

must realize that major church bodies differ on this crucial question: What comprises the divinely inspired, authoritative “canon”? How many books does this include – the traditional Protestant 66 or more? The canon of Scripture rightly creates a primary textual frame of reference for biblical interpretation (as noted earlier: “Scripture interprets Scripture”). However, it must first be agreed among all parties supporting a translation project what exactly constitutes the canonical text that forms the basis for their work (sometimes also the order of books that are to be included). In the past, this matter was pretty much taken for granted since the national Bible Society was usually represented by Protestant church denominations that generally agreed on the issue. That is not always true nowadays as the scope and diversity of membership in many instances has been increased to serve the wider Christian community. In any case, this is yet another matter that deserves due consideration, especially during the formative stages of a “Bible” translation project. EXERCISE-9: Considering the Canon  Do issues of canon (its selection and internal sequence) concern the Bible translation in your language (or in a related language), for example, the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books within the Old Testament? If so, mention one or more of the difficulties that have been encountered and how these were resolved.  What about the standard chapter and verse numbers: Has there been any proposal to revise these in the light of recent scholarship or on the advice of standard commentaries and versions (e.g., to combine two or more closely related verses into one larger paragraph unit for the sake of more restructured translation or a modern format)? Which system of chapter and verse numbering is used in the book of Psalms? Will the Catholic edition differ from the Protestant version in this respect? Explain.  Can you think of examples of some church denominations that tend to favor certain books or portions of the Bible more than others (e.g., the NT epistles) – in an obvious, perhaps even contentious manner? If so, does this clear partiality affect the joint program of Scripture translation in any way, for example, with regard to the order of preference in which the books are chosen for translation – or selected as portions for publication? For example, which book of the Bible should be chosen as the first portion to publish as a sample? Should the books of the Bible be published in canonical order, beginning with the OT and Genesis? Why or why not would this be an appropriate choice in your setting?  Providing an interpretive framework for the canon of Scripture on behalf of a remote or isolated target group may require a more progressive, measured procedure. This is a translation-publishing plan that seeks first to create a sufficient “narrative background” of familiar or easier-to-interpret biblical books in order to facilitate the subsequent understanding of the more difficult books, e.g., poetic, prophetic, epistolary texts. If you have participated in such a gradual text-contextualizing program, describe its motivation, implementation, and results (if available).  In some world settings, it is not possible, perhaps for financial reasons, to publish an entire Bible. Instead a selection is made of those books that are deemed most crucial for the particular culture, society, and situation concerned. If this happened

130

Ernst Wendland

to be the case in your area of the world, which OT and NT books would you select to comprise such a “mini-canon” – say, of 26 instead of 66 books? Can you provide a brief rationale for your chosen inventory? Discuss your different listings as a group and see if you can come up with a common abbreviated canon. Which biblical books seem to cause the most controversy regarding inclusion – and why?  At times the provision of a hermeneutical frame of reference for the biblical books will be expanded to include the production of a series of non-scriptural booklets that are intended to describe and explain some of the principal features of the Bible’s physical environment and cultural setting. Briefly tell about any extratextual biblical enrichment endeavors of this nature that you have either participated in or know about. Evaluate the success of such text-framing projects and what might have been done to improve the outcome. Mention several of the key Scripture-related subjects that would merit publication as separate informational texts in your locale.

7. Intratextuality A text’s internal frame of reference In the preceding lesson we considered several prominent external textual frames that provide a point of reference for the translation of a given passage of Scripture – in particular, those that arise due to some intertextual relationship with some other book of the Bible. We also noted the context that is created by an earlier translation in the TL as well as by Scripture versions in other languages that the receptor community has access to, especially certain well-established versions in so-called languages of wider communication (e.g., English, French, Spanish, Swahili). We might begin with a review of these two important categories of influence. EXERCISE-1  The Apostle Paul clearly bases his argument against a legalistic approach to religion in Galatians 4:21-31 on the narrative found in Genesis 17:19 and 18:10-15. List the different comparative relationships that Paul brings up and summarize his application to the current extratextual (socio-religious) setting among the Galatian churches.  What prophetic passage does he cite in verse 27 and what is his main point here? Describe the operation of intertextuality as a strategy in the rhetoric of Paul’s argumentation.  What special difficulties then does this Galatians passage present for translators in your language (YL) – with special reference now to its intertextual frame of reference? Mention the most important of these and suggest some ways in which they might be dealt with. EXERCISE-2 Make a listing of all the Bible translations that people in your community read, study, preach, and teach from on a regular basis –both those that exist in your mother tongue and also those in other languages. Try to list these in their relative order of importance.  Which is the most important version? Suggest a reason as to why this is the case.  Since the version that you have just mentioned is widely used, why is another translation necessary? In other words, why are you preparing or planning a new translation – what special purpose(s) is it intended to serve? Write out Galatians 4:27 below using three Bible translations that people in your speech community commonly refer to. You may include a draft in your language that you have completed, but not yet published. Do this in the spaces provided after the NIV rendering, which is given first.

132

Ernst Wendland Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children; Break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains; Because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

 Now point out the major differences that you see among these four versions as you compare one with another. Try to explain these translations in terms of the diverse frames of reference that we have been discussing in this coursebook. In other words, how might a significant Sociocultural, Organizational, or Situational factor have influenced the translation that you find in one or another of these versions?  Perhaps the chief variations appear as a result of the application of a different translation policy or procedure. Try to point out one or two examples of this and explain what the main differences are.

Literary hermeneutical clues In this lesson we will survey and exemplify several prominent literary (artistic, rhetorical, architectonic) characteristics of biblical writings that serve individually, but particularly in combination, to establish intratextual, i.e., text-internal, frames of reference which act as implicit guides to their own exegetical interpretation. The presentation here illustrates through textual application a number of the categories and distinctions that are outlined in chapter 6 of Wilt (2003). In one sense, these structural and stylistic features act as formal hermeneutical clues that have been built into the biblical text by the original author, whether deliberately or intuitively, to direct his target audience (readership) along the path of the most desirable (source-intended) semantic and/or pragmatic understanding of the message that was conveyed to them in writing. Some markers of this nature are more “ostensible” and hence interpretable, even in translation; others are somewhat less so, while still others may require a great deal of study with reference to the current text of Scripture and its supposed situational context before their “full” (i.e., relatively speaking) symbolical, rhetorical, thematic, etc. significance can be perceived and understood. How one represents a given literary text in another language will depend, first of all, on its presumed intrinsic artistic properties and communicative dynamics in the original setting of message transmission. This formally-organized constellation of stylistic features, discourse structures and speech functions constitutes the original “model” with which any verbal representation in the target language needs to be continually compared and evaluated in terms of possible semantic losses, gains, and distortions.

Intratextuality

133

In this instance we are dealing with the case of a textual “frame [TL] within a frame [SL].” In other words, the diverse compositional influences that underlie the creation of a specific biblical passage or book serve in turn as a formal and semantic frame of reference that must govern or shape its re-creation in a given translation. This would include all of the different literary strategies (to be illustrated below), that an author employed in order to contextualize or direct the interpretation of his text in a given way. Functionally equivalent devices must then be found by translators, to the extent possible, in order to carry out the same or similar communicative goal(s) in the TL. A careful, comprehensive study of the biblical text must therefore be carried out because this provides the foundational corner stone for the entire translation enterprise. As was noted in previous lessons, the subsequent translation will also be guided and directed by the external influence of the project management form (terms of reference) that has already been agreed upon in advance – that is, in keeping with its primary communication goals in relation to a specific target audience as well as in accordance with the combined abilities of its team of translators. The production of any Bible translation is thus dependent upon a host of factors that pertain to the ancient text itself as well as to the contemporary setting in which it is to be communicated today. EXERCISE-3 Critically evaluate the following “relevance theory” approach to stylistic analysis and its relevance for translators (cited in Hatim and Munday 2004:65, 279; original boldface). Then answer the subsequent questions that illustrate the suggestions made with reference to the selection of James 2:14-17. While it is certainly true…that what can be said in one language can be said in another, it is also true that this is often restricted to semantic content. In the area of stylistic properties, for example, linguistic features tend to be far from universal. To cope with this specificity, relevance theory has adopted the ‘communicative clues’ model. Stylistic properties are no longer seen in terms of their intrinsic value, but rather through the kind of clues they yield to guide the audience to the intended interpretation. … Focal effects (emphasis, etc.) may be achieved by such formal means as stress in some languages, but not in others. Stress is a communicative clue which, if unavailable in the TL, may be replaced by other syntactic means that serve a similar function (e.g., clefting as in it is his vision that was impaired). In these TLs, clefting (like stress) would be a crucial communicative clue. Languages differ not only in the patterns of structure employed but also in the values assigned to what could be a similar pattern (e.g., repetition). Cumulative effects conveyed by sequences of elements also tend to vary across language and cultures (does parallelism, together with other relevant devices within a given configuration in English, perform a similar role as it does in other languages?). In addition to this factor of complexity, there is ‘frequency of use’ in the TL to consider. Take the case of repetition or parallelism, for example. From the perspective of relevance theory, the effect of such structures is seen in terms of ‘the cost-benefit correlation between the effort needed to process a stimulus and the contextual effects to be expected as a reward’ (Gutt 1991:140). With repetition or parallelism being ‘fashions of speaking’ used frequently almost by default in a range of Eastern languages, will such a structure be as ‘noteworthy’ in these languages compared, say, to English?

134

Ernst Wendland Τί τὸ ὄφελος, ἀδελφοί μου, ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν ἔργα δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ; μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν; 15 ἐὰν ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφὴ γυμνοὶ ὑπάρχωσιν καὶ λειπόμενοι τῆς ἐφημέρου τροφῆς 16 εἴπῃ δέ τις αὐτοῖς ἐξ ὑμῶν, Ὑπάγετε ἐν εἰρήνῃ, θερμαίνεσθε καὶ χορτάζεσθε, μὴ δῶτε δὲ αὐτοῖς τὰ ἐπιτήδεια τοῦ σώματος, τί τὸ ὄφελος; 17 οὕτως καὶ ἡ πίστις, ἐὰν μὴ ἔχῃ ἔργα, νεκρά ἐστιν καθ᾽ ἑαυτήν. 14

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 14

 Pick out three marked stylistic features (communicative clues) that are manifested in the previous selection. What is the apparent rhetorical function of each one in this particular textual setting? What would you posit as being the principal communicative goal (illocutionary force) of this passage as a whole (within the cotext of James, chapter 2)?  Do you have these same linguistic/literary features in your language? If so, are they used with the same (or similar) communicative value and relative frequency of use? Explain. If not, which functionally equivalent stylistic forms could you use in your translation? Give an example, with explanation, based on the James passage above.  Finally, explain how you would proceed to measure or assess “the cost-benefit correlation between the effort needed to process a stimulus and the contextual effects to be expected as a reward” with respect to the example(s) that you have given. Can you suggest any other way to determine whether a satisfactory degree of “functional equivalence” (or “relevant similarity”) has been achieved in your translation? If so, outline this procedure. If not, where would you go to find a possible answer – which translation resource would you turn to? [If time allows, have individuals in the class or translation teams do some comparative research, then report their findings and the analytical or practical solutions arrived at to the group.]

The following is a selective overview of five important internal textual strategies that serve to guide one’s interpretation of any larger biblical discourse: genre selection, compositional shifts, patterned recursion, rhetorical highlighting, and sound (phonological) support. These are composite groupings (sets of “communicative clues”) in that each one incorporates a number of different facets, devices, and/or procedures. They are not the only ones that might be examined but they seem to offer a good representative sample. Together, these five overlapping and interconnected literary frames of reference provide a varied perspective on the total text structure and functional inventory that must be thoroughly investigated together as the first step in the A more detailed description of these and other literary-focused discourse analysis techniques is found in Wendland (2006:88-103). 

Intratextuality

135

overall translation process. In other words, this assortment of artistic and rhetorical features represent a large proportion of the compositional building materials that were employed to construct the diverse passages and pericopes of Scripture in their original linguistic form, each reflecting the specific theological or ethical purpose for which it was initially composed. Also discussed in this unit are different possibilities for utilizing the typography and format of print in order to display pertinent aspects of the discourse organization for Bible readers (the options for representing these in audio and video media products need to be more fully explored as a separate study).

Genre specification The subject of genre, that is, a conventionally recognized and reproduced type of literary discourse, has come up already on a number of occasions in this coursebook. This is a crucial aspect of any textual analysis and one that we normally consider first since knowledge about the kind of composition that one is working with will (or should) influence how one interprets and later translates it into another language. Genre thus sets up a pattern of expectations with respect to structure, style, purpose, occasion of use, and (in some cases also) content. Such a discourse framework acts like a roadmap together with a set of directions that enables the analyst to know where she or he is going within a text and thus to travel from one place to another with understanding and confidence. EXERCISE-4 Evaluate the following quotation from STEPS (Salisbury 2002) regarding a relevance theory perspective on genre (by Christoph Unger, cited by Bo-Krister Lyungberg STEPS:81): We can summarize then: genre may be important to the understanding of texts because it makes certain contextual assumptions easily available for interpretation. This is because genre knowledge is – like other kinds of cultural knowledge – information which a culture regards as highly relevant. ... Cultural knowledge becomes highly accessible as context and influencing expectations of relevance – [this] is especially likely when there is a word denoting a genre in the language. ... The way genre influences text comprehension (where it does) is describable by the same means as the role of context in utterance interpretation in general. Thus, there is nothing special about genre in this respect. ... However, the task of assessing the role of genre in translation is a sub-task of the task of assessing the role of context and context-availability, which is the main task in communication and translation.

 Apply these thoughts on genre to the James 2:14-17 passage above: What genrebased “contextual assumptions” does this passage evoke for you as you read it? How I apply this manner of literary study to a detailed study of Paul’s letter to Philemon in Wendland 2005. I must stress the fact that these guidelines do not constitute a complete “recipe” or an ideal “model” for carrying out a successful text analysis; they are simply my personal suggestions, given by way of summary, that may encourage readers to develop their own methodology, one more appropriate to their needs. 

136

Ernst Wendland

does such knowledge inform and/or influence your interpretation of this particular text? Give one specific example of this.  What is the term that you use for “genre” in YL? Is this an etic (borrowed) or emic (indigenous) term? Do you differentiate between oral and written genres of discourse? If so, explain in what way.

There are many different genres (and sub-types) of literature in the Bible, and so the first step of analysis is learning how to distinguish one from another. I cannot consider this subject in great detail here (cf. Wendland 2004:101-123), but do wish to underscore its importance to translators as they study the original text and then seek an appropriate way of re-expressing that in their language, not only in terms of words, phrases, clauses, and sentences, but also with respect to the larger units of discourse along with their implicit communicative goals. Each one of these patterns of arrangement serves as the compositional structure that provides an essential hermeneutical frame of reference as we perceive and interpret any literary text, whether secular or religious. EXERCISE-5 Carefully examine the two passages, A and B (from Exodus 14-15, RSV), below and do the following: Break the text up into meaningful utterance (line/sense) units by drawing a single slash mark (/) at the end of each one. Next put another slash (thus making it a double marker: //) at the end of what you perceive to be a larger “poetic paragraph” or strophe unit in the text. Most such greater “breaks” are marked by a major shift in form and/or content, especially if multiple (see Compositional disjunction below.) The first several lines have been done for you as a sample of what to do in this exercise. A. 5 When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, / the mind of Pharaoh and his servants was changed toward the people, / and they said, / “What is this we have done, / that we have let Israel go from serving us?” // 6 So he made ready his chariot and took his army with him, 7 and took six hundred picked chariots and all the other chariots of Egypt with officers over all of them. 8 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt and he pursued the people of Israel as they went forth defiantly. 9 The Egyptians pursued them, all Pharaoh’s horses and chariots and his horsemen and his army, and overtook them encamped at the sea, by Pi-ha-hiroth, in front of Baal-zephon. … 19 Then the angel of God who went before the host of Israel moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them, 20 coming between the host of Egypt and the host of Israel. And there was the cloud and the darkness; and the night passed without one coming near the other all night. 21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. 22 And the people of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left. 23 The Egyptians pursued, and went in after them into the midst of the sea, all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. 24 And in the morning watch the LORD in the pillar of fire and of cloud looked down upon the host of the Egyptians, and discomfited the host of the Egyptians, 25 clogging their chariot wheels so that they drove heavily; and the Egyptians said, “Let us flee from before Israel; for the LORD fights for them against the Egyptians.” 26 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand over the sea,

Intratextuality

137

that the water may come back upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen.” 27 So Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to its wonted flow when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled into it, and the LORD routed the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. 28  The waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea; not so much as one of them remained. 29 But the people of Israel walked on dry ground through the sea, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left. 30 Thus the LORD saved Israel that day from the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the seashore. 31 And Israel saw the great work which the LORD did against the Egyptians, and the people feared the LORD; and they believed in the LORD and in his servant Moses. B.1Then Moses and the people of Israel sang this song to the LORD, saying, / “I will sing to the LORD, / for he has triumphed gloriously; / the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea. / 2 The LORD is my strength and my song, / and he has become my salvation; / this is my God, and I will praise him, my father’s God, and I will exalt him. / 3 The LORD is a man of war; the LORD is his name. // 4 Pharaoh’s chariots and his host he cast into the sea; and his picked officers are sunk in the Red Sea. 5 The floods cover them; they went down into the depths like a stone. 6 Thy right hand, O LORD, glorious in power, thy right hand, O LORD, shatters the enemy. 7 In the greatness of thy majesty thou overthrowest thy adversaries; thou sendest forth thy fury, it consumes them like stubble. 8 At the blast of thy nostrils the waters piled up, the floods stood up in a heap; the deeps congealed in the heart of the sea. 9 The enemy said, ‘I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil, my desire shall have its fill of them. I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them.’ 10 Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them; they sank as lead in the mighty waters. 11 Who is like thee, O LORD, among the gods? Who is like thee, majestic in holiness, terrible in glorious deeds, doing wonders? 12 Thou didst stretch out thy right hand, the earth swallowed them. 13 Thou hast led in thy steadfast love the people whom thou hast redeemed, thou hast guided them by thy strength to thy holy abode. 14 The peoples have heard, they tremble; pangs have seized on the inhabitants of Philistia. 15 Now are the chiefs of Edom dismayed; the leaders of Moab, trembling seizes them; all the inhabitants of Canaan have melted away. 16 Terror and dread fall upon them; because of the greatness of thy arm, they are as still as a stone, till thy people, O LORD, pass by, till the people pass by whom thou hast purchased. 17 Thou wilt bring them in, and plant them on thy own mountain, the place, O LORD, which thou hast made for thy abode, the sanctuary, O LORD, which thy hands have established. 18 The LORD will reign for ever and ever.”

Answer the following questions based on your examination of the two passages above, A and B:  What differences in terms of patterns of lineation do you observe between the two texts A and B?  Mention at least three other ways in which text B is different from A in terms of its formal style.  How does this difference pertain to function – in other words, how does the apparent purpose of text B differ from that of A?  On the basis of this exercise then, you would conclude that text ___ is an example of poetry and the distinctive stylistic features that you have mentioned may be regarded as primary indicators of “poetic” discourse in the Bible. How does a poetic text differ from a “prosaic” one in terms of how its basic message is communicated – as well as the effect that is evoked in or elicited from an audience?

138

Ernst Wendland

 Examine all the places where you put a double slash (//) marker and then mention your reasons for marking a major/larger discourse division at these points.  Finally, compare your major textual units in sample B with those of the GNT and NIV and point out where the chief differences occur. Choose which arrangement of the text you prefer – your own or one of the other versions in each case and give reasons for your preferences.

Serious Bible readers, lay people as well as clergy, depend on the concept of genre much more frequently than they might think to give them an initial idea or “feel” of how to read (listen to) and interpret a given passage of Scripture, which, as a library of sacred documents, offers a wide variety literary types to choose from. Some texts tend to be more prosaic in nature, others more poetic, and still others somewhere in between. List below the three main stylistic features that you found to distinguish selection B above – hence key indicators of poetic discourse: a) ____________________________________________________________ b) ____________________________________________________________ c) ____________________________________________________________ EXERCISE-6 Read through the poetic passages given below and then list two additional distinguishing features of biblical poetry. d) ____________________________________________________________ e) ____________________________________________________________ Now try to identify the specific [sub-] genre of poetry that each selection represents by marking it with a given letter from the list of text types that follows these examples (all taken from the RSV): Out of the eater came something to eat. Out of the strong came something sweet.

_____

Pour out your wrath on them; let your fierce anger overtake them. May their place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in their tents.

_____

 He is like a shrub in the desert, and shall not see any good come. He shall dwell in the parched places of the wilderness, in an uninhabited salt land.

_____

Your neck is like the tower of David, built with elegance; on it hang a thousand shields, all of them shields of warriors.

_____

4

139

Intratextuality Your glory, O Israel, lies slain on your heights. How the mighty have fallen! Tell it not in Gath, proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon, lest the daughters of the Philistines be glad, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised rejoice.

_____

Long may he live! May gold from Sheba be given him. May people ever pray for him and bless him all day long.

_____

Like a bird that strays from its nest is a man who strays from his home.

_____

Adah and Zillah, listen to me; wives of Lamech, hear my words. I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me.

_____

The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.

_____

For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your descendants, and my blessing on your offspring.

_____

I am weary with my moaning; every night I flood my bed with tears; I drench my couch with my weeping.

_____

Does God pervert justice? Or does the Almighty pervert the right? If your children have sinned against him, he has delivered them into the power of their transgression.

_____

He rode on a cherub, and flew; he came swiftly upon the wings of the wind. He made darkness his covering around him, his canopy thick clouds dark with water.

_____

And I will encamp against you round about, and will besiege you with towers and I will raise siege works against you.

_____

The law of thy mouth is better to me than thousands of gold and silver pieces.

_____

140

Ernst Wendland For of the wise man as of the fool there is no enduring remembrance, seeing that in the days to come all will have been long forgotten. How the wise man dies just like the fool!

_____

Let Israel be glad in his Maker, let the sons of Zion rejoice in their King! Let them praise his name with dancing, making melody to him with timbrel and lyre!

_____

The ironsmith fashions it and works it over the coals; he shapes it with hammers, and forges it with his strong arm; he becomes hungry and his strength fails, he drinks no water and is faint.

_____

a. prophetic curse (Jer. 17:6) c. love lyric (SoS 4:4) e. imprecatory wish (Ps. 69:24-25) g. judgment oracle (Isa. 29:3) i. proverb (Prov. 27:8) k. profession of trust (Ps. 18:2) m. salvation oracle (Isa. 44:3) o. praise hymn (Ps. 149:2-3) q. wisdom (Torah) psalm (Ps. 119:72)

b. pessimistic (anti-)wisdom (Eccl. 2:16) d. funeral lament (2 Sam. 1:19-20) f. royal blessing (Ps. 72:15) h. sapiential debate (Job 8:3-4) j. panegyric boast (Gen. 4:23) l. personal lament (Ps. 6:6) n. prophetic analogy (Isa. 44:12) p. theophany of nature (Ps. 18:10-11) r. riddle (Jdg. 14:14)

 Several of the preceding texts are questionable with regard to whether they are more poetic or prosaic in nature; they perhaps represent a “mixed” literary type. Look up the passages listed in b, g, and n in the GNT and note how they have been formatted there. After examining them again, how would you classify these texts? (Give reasons for your choices.)  Which of literary texts cited above would give you the most problems when translating their functional intent into your language (YL)? Tell why and suggest how you might deal with these – creatively (!), that is, using the full stylistic resources of YL, yet without compromising exegetical fidelity to the original text.

Most of the poetry in the Bible is found in the Old Testament, but there are a number of significant occurrences also in the New Testament, most obviously in the case of passages that feature quotations from the OT, for example, Luke 1:46-55, 68-79. Several well-known texts are debatable; in other words, they feature a blend of poetic and prosaic characteristics. Therefore they are formatted differently by the various major translations. EXERCISE-7 Take Philippians 2:5-11, for example, and note how the text is displayed in A (NIV) as distinct from B (RSV) below. Study this passage in its textual context (also in the

Intratextuality

141

original Greek if possible) and then tell which format you prefer and why, citing some of the text’s most prominent stylistic markers as evidence for your decision: A. 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:  Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7  but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8  And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death--even death on a cross! 9  Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10  that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11  and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 6



B. 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10  that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Now adopt a broader perspective and answer the following questions as they relate to your life-setting:  Does the choice of either prose or poetry as a general format of text composition significantly affect your cognitive (literary) frame of reference with respect to how you perceive and interpret the content and purpose of this important pericope? If so, explain the influence that the use of poetry, for example, has on your hermeneutical perspective and outlook on this passage.  How might your personal perspective differ from that of another language-culture that you know or in which you are currently working? Does text formatting make a difference for hearers of the text (an audience)? If you think so, tell why and how so.

Prose texts too may be classified into a great variety of literary genres and subtypes. Below is an exercise similar to the one above in which you are asked to identify, based on your “genre intuition,” the different kinds of discourse that you find manifested in this assortment of passages:

142

Ernst Wendland

_____ In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria.  And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. _____ Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. _____ You shall set the altar of burnt offering before the door of the tabernacle of the tent of meeting, and place the laver between the tent of meeting and the altar, and put water in it. _____ So now, O LORD our God, save us, I beseech thee, from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou, O LORD, art God alone. _____ They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips… _____ When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. _____ There were three cake baskets on my head, and in the uppermost basket there were all sorts of baked food for Pharaoh, but the birds were eating it out of the basket on my head. _____ Be watchful, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love. _____ So I reflected on all this and concluded that the righteous and the wise and what they do are in God’s hands, but no man knows whether love or hate awaits him. _____ A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. _____ Do you not know what I and my fathers have done to all the peoples of the other lands? Were the gods of those nations ever able to deliver their land from my hand? _____ In those times a branch from her roots shall arise in his place; he shall come against the army and enter the fortress of the king of the north, and he shall deal with them and shall prevail. _____ I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her. _____ This is what the LORD says: “Do you see this vast army? I will give it into your hand today, and then you will know that I am the LORD.” _____ I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy, thankful for your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now. _____ The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan. The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabta, Raama, and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan. Cush was the father of Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one in the earth. _____ All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit… _____ Thus says the LORD: “In the place where dogs licked up the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick your own blood.”

143

Intratextuality

_____ Now after some years I came to bring to my nation alms and offerings. As I was doing this, they found me purified in the temple, without any crowd or tumult. But some Jews from Asia --they ought to be here before you and to make an accusation, if they have anything against me. _____ The whole assembly together was forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty, besides their menservants and maidservants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven; and they had two hundred and forty-five singers, male and female. _____ A man once gave a great banquet, and invited many; and at the time for the banquet he sent his servant to say to those who had been invited, “Come; for all is now ready.” But they all alike began to make excuses. a. salvation oracle (1 Kgs. 20:13) c. ritual procedure (Exo. 40:6-7) e. oracle of judgment (1 Kgs. 21:19) g. commissioning (Mt. 28:18-19) i. parable (Lk. 14:16-18) k. case law (Exo. 21:2-3) m. paraenesis (1 Cor. 16:13-14) o. didactic observation (Eccl. 9:1) q. apocalyptic vision (Dan. 11:7) s. aphorism (Mk. 6:4) u. warning speech (2 Chr. 32:13)

b. historical record (Lk. 2:1-3) d. petitionary prayer (2 Kgs. 19:19) f. census (Neh. 7:66) h. speech of defense (Acts 24:17-19) j. beatitude (Mt. 5:6) l. dream report (Gen. 40:16-17) n. vice list (Rom. 1:29) p. genealogy (1 Chr. 1:8-10) r. epistolary thanksgiving (Php. 1:3) t. prediction (Mk. 14:9)

EXERCISE-8  Which discourse (sub-)types from the listing above do you have clear examples of in YL? Which kinds are not found in your oral or written literature? Do you have “mixed” types too? Which type (genre) of text is the most difficult to translate into YL and why is this the case?  Most likely you will have a local genre that is similar to the “parable” (παραβολη) in nature. What is this called in YL and what are its principal stylistic characteristics? Furthermore, what are its main communicative functions as normally used in your social setting? Are you able to copy certain formal features of this TL genre when translating the parables of Christ (e.g., Lk. 14:16-24)? Give an example of such usage – or, tell why this is not possible.

Compositional disjunction Verbal texts are constructed by their author in cognitive chunks of varying sizes (lengths) and shapes (structural formats) to reflect a hierarchical semantic organization of topics and sub-topics. These are normally all related in some way to the major theme and purpose of the pericope at hand – that is, in keeping with its principal genre category. This manifestation of discourse chunking serves as another important

144

Ernst Wendland

intrinsic frame of reference that an author employs to guide his or her readers (hearers) towards the interpretation of the message that she or he wishes to communicate with them. Our minds automatically process such text portions as we hear or read them, but how does this happen? In this section we will examine one important way in which the text of a particular genre is “structured” into a more manageable and memorable format – namely, through compositional shifts, that is, where a break or modification in form, content, or pragmatic function occurs. EXERCISE-9 Examine the following unformatted selections of Scripture (RSV, designated as texts A – Genesis 37:17b-28, B –Hosea 14, and C –Ephesians 6) and place a mark where you think that the discourse “breaks” in each occur. Do this by observing where any prominent shifts in form and/or meaning occur, especially the points where several shifts of this nature are found. Indicate any major divisions that you posit with two slash marks (//), and the lesser breaks with one (/), like you did in Exercise 5 above: A. So Joseph went after his brothers, and found them at Dothan. 18 They saw him afar off, and before he came near to them they conspired against him to kill him. 19 They said to one another, “Here comes this dreamer. 20 Come now, let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits; then we shall say that a wild beast has devoured him, and we shall see what will become of his dreams.” 21  But when Reuben heard it, he delivered him out of their hands, saying, “Let us not take his life.” 22 And Reuben said to them, “Shed no blood; cast him into this pit here in the wilderness, but lay no hand upon him”--that he might rescue him out of their hand, to restore him to his father. 23 So when Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped him of his robe, the long robe with sleeves that he wore; 24 and they took him and cast him into a pit. The pit was empty, there was no water in it. 25 Then they sat down to eat; and looking up they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing gum, balm, and myrrh, on their way to carry it down to Egypt. 26 Then Judah said to his brothers, “What profit is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood? 27  Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh.” And his brothers heeded him. 28 Then Midianite traders passed by; and they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of Katan uses the term “chunking” somewhat differently than I do in this section: “In terms of language and translation, cultural interpreters need to be able to chunk up and down to establish the wider and narrower frames of reference to the source text. Chunking down is necessary for componential analysis to better understand the semantic field of, for example, individual words. … Cultural mediation also requires the translator to be able to chunk up, above the individual and different cultures, to more generic, culture-inclusive frames. Finally, mediators must be able to chunk sideways to find comparable frames in the target culture…” (2004:200). I would term these processes all different aspects of the multifaceted search for functional equivalence when translating. In this section, chunking refers to an author’s (speaker’s) tendency to group sections of semantically-related content together in a discourse (i.e., in paragraph or strophic units), and to mark the text accordingly by means of various conventional signals (e.g., by a longer pause and intonation in an oral text; by transitional formulas of closure and aperture in a written text). 

Intratextuality the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver; and they took Joseph to Egypt. B.  Return, O Israel, to the LORD your God, for you have stumbled because of your iniquity. 2  Take with you words and return to the LORD; say to him, “Take away all iniquity; accept that which is good and we will render the fruit of our lips. 3  Assyria shall not save us, we will not ride upon horses; and we will say no more, ‘Our God,’ to the work of our hands. In thee the orphan finds mercy.” 4  I will heal their faithlessness; I will love them freely, for my anger has turned from them. 5  I will be as the dew to Israel; he shall blossom as the lily, he shall strike root as the poplar; 6  his shoots shall spread out; his beauty shall be like the olive, and his fragrance like Lebanon. 7  They shall return and dwell beneath my shadow, they shall flourish as a garden; they shall blossom as the vine, their fragrance shall be like the wine of Lebanon. 8  O Ephraim, what have I to do with idols? It is I who answer and look after you. I am like an evergreen cypress, from me comes your fruit. 9  Whoever is wise, let him understand these things; whoever is discerning, let him know them; for the ways of the LORD are right, and the upright walk in them, but transgressors stumble in them. C. 1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2  “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), 3  “that it may be well with you and that you may live long on the earth.” 4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. 5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ; 6 not in the way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 rendering service with a good will as to the Lord

145

146

Ernst Wendland and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. 9 Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him. 10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; 16 besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, 19 and also for me, that utterance may be given me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak. 21 Now that you also may know how I am and what I am doing, Tychicus the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord will tell you everything. 22 I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are, and that he may encourage your hearts. 23 Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with love undying.

EXERCISE-10  Make a list of the primary boundary “markers,” that is, the “shifting” features that you employed as a guide to determine where the various breaks occur in each of the three texts above.  Now note any differences among the three sets of break markers, that is, in terms of quantity or kind (i.e., features that were used to indicate a discourse disjunction in one kind of text – narrative, prophetic, epistolary – but not the other). Also mention those discourse features that seemed to mark boundaries in all three types (genres) of text.  Finally, compose a topic phrase (or clause) for each of the major discourse units that you demarcated in each of the three texts, A –B –C. Then propose an inclusive section title that would serve to identify the text as a whole.

You have discovered in the preceding exercises that one important strategy for identifying the break points of any text, no matter what the genre, involves noting where a significant shift, change, or modification in the composition occurs with respect to form, content, or function (communicative purpose). For example, you may detect an

Intratextuality

147

alteration with regard to one or more of the following discourse features, that is, with respect to: the main topic being discussed or referred to, the speaker, addressee(s), type of text (e.g., prose/poetry, direct/indirect/reported speech, exposition/exhortation), or the compositional setting (time, place, circumstances) – to mention a few of the most important. The more features that clearly vary at a particular point in the text, the more prominent and noteworthy the break which may be assumed to occur there. In this way “minor” breaks may be distinguished from “major” ones, for instance, a paragraph (or “strophe” in poetry) from a new section, episode, or stage in an argument (or a new “oracle” in prophetic poetry). It is essential that translators pay close attention to these form-meaning dimensions of discourse structure, for they need to be reproduced – naturally – also in a translation. Thus the beginnings and/or endings of distinct compositional constituents must be clearly evident in the TL, and it may even be necessary to mark such boundaries formally in a special way, for example, by means of a repetition of elements, a transitional formula, or a conjunction that pertains to time, space, the cast of characters (in a narrative), or a logical argument. Overtly marked external borders provide a conceptually distinct, referential framework for the portion of text that is contained within the unit, thus strengthening a perception of its internal bonds of coherence (content) and cohesion (form). On the other hand, the boundaries of a given discourse segment should be supported by a perceptible unity of thought and purpose that is reflected within the section itself. This twofold property of text organization (external unit demarcation and internal unit connectivity) cannot be taken for granted, for instance, if translators decide to mechanically follow the existing divisions of one translation or another, or even a set of standard versions. This simply shows that they have not really mastered the sense and flow of what is being said in the biblical text, or the particular function of each of the distinct segments within the sequentially unfolding discourse progression – whether this happens to be a narrative account, a poetic prayer (psalm), or an epistolary argument. In fact, quite a diversity of opinion may be manifested among the major versions (i.e., translations in a LWC) that are consulted with regard to demarcation. So, when differences of opinion arise as to where the compositional breaks should occur, which version should be followed? Or are translators simply to seek a simple majority opinion and copy that exactly in their TL version? This is why this exercise in discerning text disjunctions is crucial, for it alerts translators to the need for clearly understanding how the SL text is cognitively organized and arranged so that this conceptual structure, as nearly as possible, can be not only discovered in the original document but also appropriately duplicated in their translation. EXERCISE-11  Examine four different translations with respect to where each has made its paragraph breaks within selections B and C above. Compare the NRSV, NIV, GNT, plus one other version of your choosing (possibly an already published vernacular text in either the TL or a related language). Note those places in the text where the greatest difference of opinion occurs with regard to whether a unit should, or should not,

148

Ernst Wendland

begin/end. Can you suggest any possible reason for such disparity at these particular points?  Now compare the divisions manifested in these four versions with where you determined that the discourse breaks should be situated in the preceding exercise. Which version do you agree with most often in this respect?  Do you now wish to revise any of your proposed paragraph (strophe) breaks? If so, can you tell why – what is the textual evidence that leads you to change your mind?  At which verses do all, or most, of the versions agree in their segmentation? Propose suitable “section headings” to fit these principal points of compositional agreement. EXERCISE-12 Even a seemingly minor linguistic shift, if sustained throughout a major portion of the biblical text can serve to signal a significant disjunction that may have thematic implications. Notice, for example, where an obvious change in the prevailing tense pattern occurs in Romans 7:7-25 (refer to the Greek text if you can).  How does this reflect, or signal, the change in Paul’s argument that occurs in these verses? How do the two ethical perspectives, or moral “frames of reference,” that Paul presents in this section relate to what he says in 7:4-6?  Point out the main implication of this linguistic feature for translators in your language. In other words, how will you duplicate the discourse function of this tenseshifting device in YL?  The texts of 2 Peter chapter 2 and Jude manifest many similarities. However, they also seem to demonstrate a major change in their respective frames of reference. Compare 2 Pet. 2:1-3 and Jude 1-4 and point out what the major difference in perspective is. Will this be obvious to most Bible readers and hearers? If not, how can you make this difference more apparent in your translation? How does this temporal disjunction serve to demarcate the first and second chapters of 2 Peter?

Patterned recursion

In addition to the compositional shifts noted above, a literary text is normally also organized in various ways by different kinds of linguistic “recursion.” Such formal reiteration may involve sounds, morphological elements, lexical items, grammatical constructions, and/or larger patterns of discourse structure. The recursion of verbal form may be exact, when it may be distinguished by the term repetition, or non-exact – that is, restatement, which is synonymous, contrastive, and figurative (metaphoric or metonymic) in nature. In the first place then, recursion frequently operates in conjunction with various disjunctive devices to segment and arrange a discourse into sections of varied length

Intratextuality

149

and internal patterning. Furthermore, it also functions to provide these included units as well as the complete text with a unifying sense of semantic coherence as well as formal cohesion. Discerning this essential literary property of unity in diversity – the significant parts all integrated within a meaningful whole – is important both for directing one to make an accurate interpretation of the discourse at hand and also for leading one to appreciate its intrinsic artistic beauty and rhetorical impact. In this section we will examine several types of recursion that are employed, along with the various formal and semantic shifts that also appear, to delineate the boundaries of discrete text segments within a larger verbal composition. A perceptible text-generated arrangement of this kind thus acts as a vital structural frame of reference for interpreting the relationship of ideas that occur within the discourse as a complete unit. This demarcating function exists in addition to the important integrating, or connective, function that recursion, whether repetition or restatement, serves by its very nature. EXERCISE-13 Read through the following passage (Joel 2, NIV text) and make a note of the various instances of recursion that you can find; use different colors of ink, if possible, or connecting lines in order to mark all of the salient correspondences that you see. Italics, boldfaced print, underlining, a few special symbols, and distinctive print fonts have been used to draw your attention to some of the main examples of recursion within the text. At times a more literal (i.e., ‘lit.’) expression is given to reflect the Hebrew repetition more precisely. My proposed set of internal strophe boundaries for Joel 2:1-32 is already indicated in the passage that follows; however, this segmentation is open to discussion and possible revision, which may be carried out when an examination of the text has been completed. Following this passage, a number of guide questions are offered to help focus upon isolating and identifying the principal compositional segments (poetic paragraphs, or strophes) that comprise this typical stretch of prophetic hortatory discourse: 1

 Blow the trumpet in Zion;

sound the alarm on my holy hill. Let all who live in the land tremble,@ for the day of the LORD is coming. It is close at hand- 2  a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and blackness. Like dawn spreading across the mountains a large and mighty army (lit. ‘a strong people’) comes, such as never was of old nor ever will be in ages to come.  Before them fire devours (lit. ‘eats fire’), behind them a flame blazes. Before them the land is like the garden of Eden, behind them, a desert waste--

3

150

Ernst Wendland

nothing escapes them.  They have the appearance of horses; they gallop along like cavalry. 5  With a noise like that of chariots they leap over the mountaintops, like a crackling fire consuming (lit. ‘fire eating’) stubble, like a mighty army (lit. ‘a strong people’) drawn up for battle. 4

 At the sight of them (lit. ‘before them’), nations are in anguish; every face turns pale. 7  They charge like warriors; they scale walls like soldiers. They all march in line, not swerving from their course. 8  They do not jostle each other; each marches straight ahead. They plunge through defenses without breaking ranks. 9  They rush upon the city; they run along the wall. They climb into the houses; like thieves they enter through the windows. 6



10  Before them the earth shakes, the sky trembles,@ the sun and moon are darkened, and the stars no longer shine. 11  The LORD thunders at the head of his army; his forces are beyond number, and mighty are those who obey his command. The day of the LORD is great; it is dreadful. Who can endure it?

 “Even now,” declares the LORD, “return to me with all your heart, with fasting and weeping and mourning.” 13  Rend your heart and not your garments. Return to the LORD your God, for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, and he relents from sending calamity. 14  Who knows? He may turn and have pity and leave behind a blessing-grain offerings and drink offerings for the LORD your God. 12



15



 Blow the trumpet in Zion, declare a holy fast, call a sacred assembly.

Intratextuality  Gather the people, consecrate the assembly; bring together the elders, gather the children, those nursing at the breast. Let the bridegroom leave his room and the bride her chamber. 17  Let the priests, who minister before the LORD, weep between the temple porch and the altar. Let them say, “Spare your people, O LORD. Do not make your inheritance an object of scorn,* a byword among the nations.* Why should they say among the peoples, ‘WHERE IS THEIR GOD?’ ” 16

18

 Then the LORD will be jealous for his land

and take pity on his people.  The LORD will reply 4g to them:# “I am sending you grain, new wine and oil, enough to satisfy you fully; never again will I make you an object of scorn to the nations. 20  “I will drive the northern army far from you, pushing it into a parched and barren land, with its front columns going into the eastern sea 4h and those in the rear into the western sea. 4i And its stench will go up; its smell will rise.” Surely he (è ‘it’) has done great things. 4j

19

 Be not afraid, O land; be glad and rejoice. Surely the LORD has done great things. 22  Be not afraid, O wild animals, for the open pastures are becoming green. The trees are bearing their fruit; the fig tree and the vine yield their riches. 23  Be glad, O people of Zion, rejoice in the LORD your God, for he has given you the autumn rains in righteousness. 4k He sends you abundant showers, both autumn and spring rains, as before. 24  The threshing floors will be filled with grain; the vats will overflow with new wine and oil.

g2:18,19 h2:20 i2:20 j2:20 k2:23

21

Or LORD was jealous . . . / and took pity . . . / 19 The LORD replied That is, the Dead Sea That is, the Mediterranean Or rise. / Surely it has done great things.” Or / the teacher for righteousness:

151

152

Ernst Wendland  “I will repay you for the years the locusts have eaten- the great locust and the young locust, the other locusts and the locust swarm-- 4l my great army that I sent among you. 26  You will have plenty to eat, until you are full, and you will praise the name of the LORD your God, who has worked wonders for you; never again will my people be shamed.* 27  Then you will know that I AM IN ISRAEL, that I am the LORD your God, and that there is no other; never again will my people be shamed.* 25

 “And (it will be that) afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. 29  Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days. 28

 I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and billows of smoke. 31  The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD. 30



 And (it will be that) everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the LORD has said,# among the survivors whom the LORD calls. 32

 Now, having worked through this passage from the point of view of its principal patterns of recursion, answer the following questions with reference to the poetic discourse structure of Joel 2:1-17. They will focus upon the different instances of linguistic shifting and conceptual reiteration that occur. a) The expression “Blow the trumpet in Zion” is found in verse 1 and also in which other verse? What is the special semantic significance of this particular expression? Note: A significant instance of recursion may serve to mark the respective beginnings of different discourse units – a structural device termed “anaphora.” b) Read 2:1 carefully and identify recursive expressions that match correspondents found also in 1:2 and 1:15. These additional instances of anaphora help confirm l2:25

The precise meaning of the four Hebrew words used here for locusts is uncertain.

Intratextuality

153

the presence of a major discourse beginning (aperture) at 2:1. Mention also the major compositional shifts that occur at this point (i.e., differences from the form/content/purpose of the preceding strophic unit in 1:19-20). c) The anaphoric phrase “before them” occurs in verses 3, ___, and ___ to indicate the apertures of three successive strophes (poetic paragraph units). d) What expression is repeated at the beginning of v.3 and the end of v.5? (Notice how the two key terms in each case are reversed in order to form a reversed (A –B : B’ –A’) structure; this device too, a chiasmus, is sometimes used to mark a point of ending, or closure). Note: A significant instance of recursion may serve to mark the beginning and ending of a given discourse unit, large or small –a structural device termed “inclusio.” e) In question (b) above we observed that the expression “all who live in the land” in 2:1 forms an anaphoric relation with an earlier occurrence in ____. Notice also the presence of this same phrase in 1:14, which both ends a strophe and the first “stanza” (a collection of related strophes, i.e., 1:2-14) of the book’s opening “oracle” (consisting of one or more stanzas). Thus this latter recursion also marks an __________________ for the stanza beginning in 1:2. f) What expression occurs at the end of 2:5 and also towards the end of the first strophe that covers vv. 1-2? This similarity is reinforced by the respective similes (a figurative comparison, e.g., “A is like B”) in which they are enclosed. Note: A significant instance of recursion may serve to mark the respective endings of different discourse units – a structural device termed “epiphora.” What similar image appears at the end of 1:20 and 2:5 to reinforce these points of “closure.” g) Another simile of this type occurs at the end of the next strophe in v. ___. In this case the “great army” (which is not mentioned explicitly) is compared to what? Such epiphoric (end-unit) recursion helps to mark the closure of the strophe or larger discourse segment. h) We have already noted that a new strophe begins at 2:6. Where does this poetic paragraph end, and what is your structural evidence for this conclusion? In this case, the strophe manifests a great deal of internal cohesion. What is it that creates such textual connectivity? i) What is the anaphoric expression that leads off the strophe that starts at v. 10? Where does this strophe end? In this verse we hear that the “sky trembles” on account of the great army coming to punish God’s people. Where did we read that the people themselves “tremble”? Thus, different strophe beginnings are marked by this repetition of a key verb; it is therefore an instance of structural __________. j) What important theological phrase is found towards the end of v.11 and also in 2:1? A more detailed study suggests that this inclusio marks the close of a stanza unit, one that covers verses 1 through 11. List some of the prominent shifts that are evident in 2:12, which would support the conclusion that a new major section begins at this point in the text. k) How far does the strophe that begins at 2:12 extend. Note the minor inclusio

154

Ernst Wendland formed by the mention of the divine name (which is always significant) in v. ____. This inclusio is actually part of a larger pattern of recursion and topical correspondence that runs throughout this unit. This pattern may be outlined as follows: X key terms: YHWH + ‘return’ (12a) Y characteristics of a true penitent (12b-13a) Z key terms: ‘return’ + YHWH (13b) Y’ characteristics of YHWH (13c-d) X’ key terms: ‘(re)turn’ …YHWH (v. 14, with the blessings of ‘returning’ specified within) Note: A reversed (chiastic) instance of recursion like this –termed an “inverted parallelism” (or “extended chiasmus”) – serves both to mark the respective beginning and end boundaries of the same discourse unit and also to provide it with internal cohesion and coherence. For another example, see 2:28-29. What important thematic concept is also highlighted by such patterned recursion? l) We have already observed that the phrase “Blow the trumpet in Zion” occurs elsewhere in this chapter in an opening structural position –where? v.____ What is this device called? It is termed ___________________________. m) What gives internal cohesion to the strophe covering vv. 15-17? n) The mention of ‘weeping’ recalls which prior verse? v.____ The latter may be viewed as the beginning of the second “stanza” of the oracle that began in 2:1; thus the term ‘weep’ (symbolizing true repentance) signals the structural boundary marker called ___________________. o) The reference “their God” corresponds to the expression “your God” in which verse? v.____ This end-marking structural device is termed ___________. p) List the principal shifts that are evident at the onset of v. 18: This would indicate that a major discourse unit begins here – a new “oracle” from Yahweh. Read 2:18-27 and suggest how this oracle relates in content, theme, and purpose to the preceding one: Note: It is important to investigate the semantic relationships which the structural patterns of discourse call attention too –the various units and their inter-connections. Such relationships must also be evident, at least implicitly, in any valid translation. The literary structure helps one to understand and interpret the theological and ethical content. For example, the inclusio that is formed by the expressions: “the LORD… will take pity on his people” (v.18) and “the LORD…never again will my people be shamed” (v.27) would suggest that the content in between is “framed” by the prophetic truth that Yahweh will act on behalf of his people and that they can take comfort in this fact despite their current adverse circumstances. q) What recursive elements are manifested between verses 17 and 18? Note: A significant instance of recursion may serve to mark the respective

Intratextuality

155

ending and beginning of adjacent, but distinct discourse units – a structural device termed “anadiplosis.” You can find another important example of anadiplosis at the end of v. 20 (if you interpret this as the end of a strophe –cf. GNT) and in v.21. What expression is reiterated – however, with a significant difference. What element has been changed and what is the significance of this? Note: This is the textual note that the NIV has at the end of 2:20: [j2:20 Or rise. / Surely it has done great things]. This line is also taken as an aperture for the following strophe, in contrast to the arrangement that is shown in the format above. Which format and reading do you prefer, and what is your structural evidence for this? Study the other textual variants that are proposed in the footnotes and point out any one that you feel is merited as a better “reading” on the basis of the literary criteria that we are considering here. r) On the basis of the preceding structural study of Joel 2:1-17, you should now be able to propose an accurate section heading for each of the two stanzas that this oracle contains. Give the verses that comprise each stanza and a section heading that is appropriate – that is, in keeping with the thematic development and the prophetic argument that the discourse sets forth in this progression of verses. s) If time allows, you may identify the recursive structures and important shifts that organize the remainder of Joel 2. Be sure to note inter-segmental relationships and communicative functions for the different discourse units that you propose – the minor within the major ones. t) In addition to the various structural patterns based on recursion and the form/ content shifts that we have already called attention to, there are several other literary devices in the prophetic books which are often found at the beginning of discourse units, thus helping to mark an aperture at such points. List four of the more important of these devices by examining the following passages and then choosing from the options that are given afterwards: ___ 1:15 ___ 1:19 ___ 2:1 ___ 2:12 (i) vocative (ii) exclamation (iii) speech or prophetic formula (iv) imperative/command Note: The correlates of a structural end-point (closure) are not so clear-cut, though at times the indication is quite obvious – for example, the concluding rhetorical question at the end of 2:11. In any case, it is important to keep in mind that literary principle that a combination of features always provides stronger evidence for marking the boundary of a discourse unit – the more distinctive markers, or compositional indicators, there are present in one verse, the surer the analyst can be that a complete segment either begins or ends there. Also note that this method of structure-functional discourse analysis can be carried out with respect to any text-type in the Bible, but it is especially helpful in the case of poetic, prophetic, and epistolary literature.

156

Ernest Wendland

EXERCISE-14  Compare the discourse organization proposed above in terms of the strophic units that have been indicated in the text of the GNT, NRSV, + a version of your choice. Where do the major differences occur?  Which demarcation do you prefer and why – that is, on the basis of what linguistic/literary evidence?  Is there a special way of marking such structural divisions in your language? If so, explain what this is and give an example from Joel 2.

Artistic-rhetorical accentuation This aspect of a literary-structural analysis investigates the various features, artistic (formal focus) as well as rhetorical (functional focus), which an author employs to highlight or to emphasize selected portions of a biblical text, whether prose or poetry. Again, these forms are particularly diagnostic when they co-occur in more concentrated combinations. There are a great diversity of stylistic devices to consider here, but most of these should already be familiar to experienced translators, for example, different kinds of figurative language, idioms, syntactic movement forwards or backwards, adjacent repetition, rhetorical or leading questions, ellipsis, hyperbole, irony – to list some of the more common forms used for focusing and foregrounding in both biblical Hebrew and Greek. These varied artistic features are not merely esthetic or decorative in nature; rather, in the literature of Scripture they always serve some sort of “rhetorical” (pragmatic-communicative) purpose. One of these is to call attention to, and thereby also to “cement,” the textual framework that has been postulated for a given discourse segment, whether major or minor, especially with respect to its main structural boundaries (aperture and closure). At points in the text where such literary devices are contentrated, one might also look for some special significance with respect to content (peak), e.g., a major theme of the composition, and/or expression of emotion (climax), e.g., where the central feelings of the author are concentrated. EXERCISE-15 A number of these artistic-rhetorical devices may be illustrated with respect to form and function within the first stanza of Joel 2 (vv. 1-11). Some questions to more fully explore this literary aspect of the discourse are given below. It would be helpful also to examine them in the Hebrew text, if possible, particularly where cases of To “focus” is to direct one’s attention; to “foreground” is to attract one’s attention. The two processes are clearly related, and thus these two terms are often used interchangeably. “[F]oregrounding is an essential feature of literature which, in cognitive terms, forces the reader to engage fully with the text” (Boase-Beier 2006:130). Presumably, it would act thus for the hearer too, though different devices might be more prominent in this regard, especially the text’s prosodic interpretation by a reader/reciter/performer (e.g., the pitch, loudness, and length of vowel sounds). 4

Intratextuality

157

extensive literal repetition or syntactic movement are involved, since these are not always reflected in an English (or any other) translation. In each case, suggest how the feature at hand may be reproduced with equivalent communicative effect in your translation of the Scriptures. a) What does the first parallel couplet (2:1) in the imperative mode suggest in terms of form and content? What does the metonym “holy hill” refer to? b) Point out the extended metaphor that appears in v. 2a and tell what it calls the listener’s attention to in the present context of occurrence. c) The metaphor referred to in (b) shifts to a simile in v. 2b. What is its basis or ground of comparison (i.e., in which respect[s] is the “spreading dawn” like the advancing “army” [lit. ‘people’])? The latter is itself another key metaphor – to what does it refer (cf. 1:4)? d) A climactic, all-inclusive time reference ends the first strophe (2:1-2); the final expression reads literally, ‘years of generation and generation’. Perhaps one can detect a note of hyperbole here: how would you define this particular figure of speech, and why is it appropriate in this genre of discourse, again helping to establish a certain frame of reference for interpretation? e) In addition to the opening metaphor involving the imagery of fire, the beginning of the second strophe (vv. 3-5) involves an allusion to the story of Creation. How would you define this literary feature, and how is it employed as a persuasive rhetorical device in v. 3? f) Describe how the evocative imagery of fire and or a military cavalry also provides a strong element of cohesion to this second strophe. g) What is the very last word of v. 5 (it is the same in the NIV as in the Hebrew), and what it the significance of its particular syntactic placement at this point in the text? h) There is an ironic repetition of the term “faces” at the aperture of strophe 3 (vv. 6-9) – i.e., “before them” (lit. ‘from his faces’) and “pale…faces.” Explain the irony here. i) The third strophe is held together by a semi-narrative progression of images. What is the topic of this imagery, and how does that fit in with the theme of the prophet’s (Yahweh’s) message in this oracle? Note that the subject of the long sequence of verbs is not stated. What is this implicit subject, and how do you know this? What is the dramatic effect of not mentioning precisely who are performing all these actions? j) Point out the climactic final image of this strophe (v. 9), expressed in the form of a simile. Give the topic, the figure, and the associative ground of this simile. k) The tragic events overcoming “Zion” (v. 1) reach their cosmic peak in the final strophe (vv. 9-10) of this stanza with the mention of the “earth…sky… sun…moon…stars.” Explain the personification that coincides with these all-inclusive references. l) Note the first word of v. 10 (same in English as in Hebrew). What is the significance of this position in the verse? Where else has the divine name occurred in this stanza? Why do you think that it is reserved for this point in the discourse?

158

Ernst Wendland m) Which “army” (lit. ‘strength’ – a metonym) is being referred to here? Point out the irony that is implicit in this particular reference – that is, the army concerned, now with YHWH at the “head” of (lit., ‘faces of’ – more repetition; cf. [h] above) it. n) To mark v. 11 as the thematic and structural peak of this stanza, a number of rhetorical features co-occur here. Another one of these is the syntactic juxtaposition of three emphatic kiy (yk, lit., ‘for/that’) clauses – here perhaps best rendered as “indeed…” or “surely…” What is being emphasized by this recursion? Note also the prophetic keynote “the day of the Lord”. o) What type of utterance concludes this fourth strophe and the stanza? What is the expected answer to this rhetorical question? How does it function here as a literary device?

EXERCISE-16  Go through the second stanza of this oracle, Joel 2:12-17, and record all of the rhetorical features that you can detect. Try to give a functional explanation (note the speech-acts effected) for each of these in relation to the textual context in which they occur. Make a note of any devices that would cause special translation problems in YL; these may be discussed later as a group – that is, why there is a difficulty and what to do about it in the vernacular.  Now carry out a similar exercise with respect to the Greek text (if possible) of the book of Jude: (a) identify the main artistic features that you find in this passage; (b) suggest what the rhetorical function of each is within its co-text; (c) point out those expressions that might cause you difficulty when translating them into your language and propose some tentative solutions that match the forcefulness of the original.  We have now learned three literary techniques that help us (together with a linguistic analysis) determine the discourse structure of a particular biblical pericope: repeating – shifting – marking (accentuation). A careful study of these features can give us a rough idea of how the text has been organized in terms of its main discourse units (paragraphs, strophes) and their inter-relationships, including its point(s) of special significance (peak). Review the segmentation of Joel 2 given above in the light of these three strategies and see if you wish to propose any modifications to the textual arrangement as given. Look in particular for any areas of special convergence, where instances of recursion and accentuation occur together to foreground the text at that point (thus also “defamiliarizing” the discourse, causing the reader/hearer to linger over it and to search for additional meanings or implications). Then suggest what you consider to be the peak strophe of ch. 2 and tell why you think so.  Carry out a similar exercise as outlined above to the epistle of Jude: Summarize its paragraph units and pick out the one that appears to act as the letter’s climax.

Within the structure of a given text of Scripture, including its various internal boundaries and points of special emphasis (peak, climax), the analyst must also make an effort to discover its main functional dimensions – that is, what communicative

Intratextuality

159

goal a particular passage, large or small, is performing in relation to those around it and the discourse as a whole. In many biblical passages, for example, the rhetorical dimension of the text must be carefully investigated. This frequently involves discourse that features instruction (perhaps direction is a better term) and/or persuasion (Levinsohn 2006:5): •

INSTRUCTION: a speaker or writer (exhorter) considers himself or herself to have the right or authority to tell the exhortee how to behave (apostolic authority, in the case of Paul’s epistles). The Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:2–17) are instructional... Directives from employers to employees are typically of this type. In some cultures, parents also have the right to instruct their adult children how to behave once married, etc. This category may even include strong rebukes of existing behavior, as when someone ‘instructs’ a friend to stop maintaining enmity with another person or to stop being lazy. Demands to act in a certain way seem to fit here, too, such as when the Israelites call on Aaron to make them an idol (Ex. 32:1).

•

PERSUASION: the exhorter “appeals to the reasoning logic of the recipient, seeks to convince” (Kompaoré 2004:40). Examples include the request of the daughters of Zelophehad to Moses…, David’s speech to Solomon (1 Chr. 22:7–16…) and Paul’s speech to the philosophers in Athens (Acts 17:22–31). Typically, the exhorter uses persuasion because he or she cannot make the exhortee pursue the desired course of action. However, there are occasions when a person in authority chooses to persuade rather than instruct (e.g., the exhortation of the LORD to Moses in Ex. 3:7–10).

Indeed, these two kinds of composition are normally mixed in the Bible, with some sort of directive appeal (instruction) being combined with various types of supporting reasons or evidence (persuasion). Thus, the hortatory thesis – the major and minor command or exhortation (prescription / prohibition) of a (sub-)section, whether more or less directly expressed – may be preceded or followed by supporting material that is appropriate to the point being made and the author’s purpose (cf. Levinsohn 2006:5-6). The latter species would include a diversity of discourse types such as explanations, ethical motivations, appeals to authority, reminders, warnings, promises, examples, analogies, and so forth – but also inserts of theological affirmation or doctrinal exposition (explanation, description, clarification). It is important, therefore, not only to analyze the original text in terms of its rhetorical strategy, but also to make sure that closely similar imperatives and their implications are conveyed in an appropriate manner in the target language. EXERCISE-17  Identify the main “hortatory thesis” of Joel 2 above, along with any minor ones that may accompany it. Where does this occur in the chapter? So would this be an example of inductive or deductive reasoning? (See exercise 1 of chapter 2.) Explain your answer.

160

Ernst Wendland

 Now identify some of the different types of “supporting information” that the prophet, speaking on behalf of the Lord God, incorporates into his “argument” for a significant life-change among his addressees.  Next, think this text through in your language: Would Joel’s line of reasoning or method of argumentation correspond, more or less, or differ in significant respects with the way persuasive discourse is packaged and presented in YL? Point out any major difficulties that you anticipate in this regard and suggest how these might be best handled in your translation. Give one good example of this.  Finally, carry out a similar sort of rhetorical analysis of the Jude epistle that you examined earlier: Where is/are the principal hortatory thesis(es)? Point out the main supporting evidence for each central imperative or appeal in this text.

Phonic enhancement There is another, often unrecognized method that a biblical author frequently employs in order to contextually “frame” his text as a means of guiding listeners (readers) in the direction of its intended interpretation. This involves the inclusion of certain devices that are applied to the oral-aural dimension of his composition. To be sure, the text of Scripture is written and hence completely silent as it stands; however, in many cases it is clear that the words were composed with eventual public proclamation in mind. The author wrote his text (or uttered it to an amanuensis) so that it could be read – performed aloud – in such a way as to complement the message being communicated in several important respects. Significant sound selection and patterning may be used, for example, to embellish a particular passage in keeping with the nature of its appealing theological content and purpose, or it may be utilized to emphasize especially important aspects of the discourse and, accordingly, to render the religious text as a whole more memorable, hence easier to recall as needed. The phonological organization and articulation of a biblical text, whether the original or its translation, is really another facet of rhetorical highlighting discussed above. But since it is so often ignored or overlooked, we shall consider this as a separate element here. It is essential, whenever possible, to carry out such a close investigation of the sonic arrangement of the Scriptures because this is the first feature to make an impression on any listening audience. In fact, sound appears to be frequently utilized by a biblical author to create a variety of subtle effects that pertain to his text’s content, intent, emotion, attitude, and esthetic value, e.g., alliteration, assonance, rhythm, rhyme, and paronomasia (although one cannot be too dogmatic when interpreting such possible synaesthetic impressionism in the original, a dead language). The “audio effects” of artful literature (orature) can make a significant impact even when read silently by a competent mother-tongue speaker of the language. This potential auditory influence is vitally important, therefore, for any translation of Scripture to capitalize upon, since more often than not it too is a version that will be read orally – and heard – in public. Some of the concerns with regard to the phonological fabric of the text to be

Intratextuality

161

translated, especially one written to be read like the Scriptures, are well summarized in the following quotation (Thomas and Thomas 2006:63): The sound patterns of oral speech are never immediately apparent from a written text, but an analysis of the organization and relationships of the epistle’s grammatical, syntactical, lexical, and stylistic features helps answer such questions as: What is the pace for reading or reciting this? Where are the pauses? Where do sounds invite particular attention? What should be emphasized when reading or reciting this aloud? Knowing the answers to these questions allows the translator to build a translation that will at least partially elicit comparable responses from present-day oral readers and reciters.

The text that will be used to illustrate the sound support system of biblical literature is John 17:1-12, which expresses the first portion of the so-called “high-priestly” prayer of Christ. Since this is part of the Lord’s “upper room discourse” with his disciples (Jn. 13-17), it was obviously meant to be read (and heard) as an oral text. In this case, we discover a rhythmic, highly patterned composition – one that includes many artistic devices, including lineal parallelism, nigh unto poetry. Of course, the phonological arrangement of a text may, indeed must, be supplemented by a number of prosodic features that are not overtly indicated in the original written document, e.g., tempo, stress, pause, loudness, intonation, and perhaps even pharyngeal modification, to indicate various emotions such as sadness, joy, anger, frustration, excitement, and so forth. In order to determine then how a given pericope ought to be enunciated (recited, chanted, sung, etc.) in public, an orator must attempt to internalize the text both sensorily and psychologically (through repeated readings aloud), analyze its meaning in context, posit the most likely communicative implications of its genre, and also identify any explicit as well as subtle clues in the intertextual setting of the passage under consideration (e.g., John 13:21a in relation to 17:1a; cf. Hosea 6:4 in relation to 6:1-3; 1 Cor. 12:31b and 14:1 in relation to 13:1-13). EXERCISE-18 Only the Greek text of John 17:1b-12 is reproduced below – set out on the page in a hypothetical “oratorical” format. Translators who do not know Greek will have to complete this exercise by referring to some standard literal translation (e.g., RSV, NASB) or an interlinear version. A number of questions regarding the oral-aural “envelope” of this passage are given on the right-hand side of the page (in italics) to help lead students more fully into its presumed sound dimension. Certain typographical modifications are also incorporated into the text so as to draw attention to the chief phonological features being discussed relative to it. Any additional devices that become apparent during your analysis of this text should of course be noted and discussed as a group. It should be pointed out that these suggestions are all highly tentative since we don’t really know for sure how the Greek NT text was actually pronounced (the OT text either, despite the long Masoretic tradition). In addition, we have no standard models

162

Ernst Wendland

of poetry to follow with regard to the religious macro-genre of early Christian literature to give guidance as to its principal stylistic, including phonological characteristics. The primary purpose of this exercise then is simply to introduce translators to some of the possibilities concerning the artistic and rhetorical potential of sonic significance in biblical discourse and also to encourage them to employ such techniques in their own rendition of the text in their own language and literary tradition. …Πάτερ, ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα· What sort of a pattern does v.1 display with regard to the δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν, key terms “glorify” (δόξα-) and “Son” (υἱὸς)? How might ἵνα ὁ υἱὸς δοξάσῃ σέ, the lexical (and sound) pattern function in this case? 2 καθὼς ἔδωκας αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός, The parallelism of 2a and 2c would suggest breaking the ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ otherwise long syntactic unit of 2a. Does the rhythm concur? δώσῃ αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Here we see a similar chiastic pattern to the one above, but 3 αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή the rhetorical purpose seems to be somewhat different; ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ suggest what it might be at this point. τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν What is “alliteration”, and what topic it serve to highlight in καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. here in v.3 c-d? 1

ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς Another chiastic structure seems to perform a linking τὸ ἔργον τελειώσας function in this strophe: What parallel thematic elements ὃ δέδωκάς μοι ἵνα ποιήσω· does it connect? (Note also the /s/ alliteration.) 5 καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ The corresponding line-end components in v.5b/d serve to τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον highlight which personal relationship? πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί. 4

Ἐφανέρωσά σου τὸ ὄνομα What may the extra long “poetic” line mark here? τοῖς ἀνθρώποις οὓς ἔδωκάς μοι ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. The 4 lines of v.6 present one chiasmus within another. σοὶ ἦσαν κἀμοὶ αὐτοὺς ἔδωκας This functions to tie the concepts involved into a very καὶ τὸν λόγον σου τετήρηκαν. tight bundle. Summarize the key ideas in this case. 7 νῦν ἔγνωκαν ὅτι πάντα ὅσα δέδωκάς μοι The central thematic notion of this strophe is recycled παρὰ σοῦ εἰσιν· in a rhythmic, poetic sequence of lines. This includes 8 ὅτι τὰ ῥήματα the final series of line-initial conjunctions which add ἃ ἔδωκάς μοι a sense of continuity to the entire progression. 6

δέδωκα αὐτοῖς, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔλαβον καὶ ἔγνωσαν ἀληθῶς ὅτι παρὰ σοῦ ἐξῆλθον, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅτι σύ με ἀπέστειλας.

What sort of an impression would such devices make in YL and literary tradition? Do you have different, but functionally equivalent rhetorical devices that would work in this poetic text?

ἐγὼ περὶ αὐτῶν ἐρωτῶ, οὐ περὶ τοῦ κόσμου ἐρωτῶ ἀλλὰ περὶ ὧν δέδωκάς μοι, ὅτι σοί εἰσιν, 10 καὶ τὰ ἐμὰ πάντα σά ἐστιν καὶ τὰ σὰ ἐμά,

What does the obvious parallelism in sound and structure seem to signal at this point in the discourse? Sound similarity at the end of v.9 links which two persons (pronouns) together in a unity of perspective and action? The first two lines of v.10 feature a verbal correspondence that imitates the content being conveyed – what is that?

9

163

Intratextuality καὶ δεδόξασμαι ἐν αὐτοῖς. 11 καὶ οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, More sound similarity in v.11a-b seems to highlight καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἰσίν, the contrast being presented, which is what? κἀγὼ πρὸς σὲ ἔρχομαι. Πάτερ ἅγιε, τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς. 12 ὅτε ἤμην μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐγὼ ἐτήρουν αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, καὶ ἐφύλαξα, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπώλετο εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ.

Why begin a new strophe here –any evidence? Three lines at the end of v.11 are reiterated in a similar form below in v.12. What is the apparent purpose?

What does the lexical and phonological similarity stress in these closing lines? What is “assonance” and where do you see it at the end? What rhetorical function might it serve at this point?

EXERCISE-19 Now consider the next two strophes of John 17. Call attention to the obvious lexical and phonological features that you can observe in this passage. A number of them have been already highlighted for you. Try to posit a communicative (rhetorical) function for each of these in its co-text and context of use (i.e., John 13-17). As in the preceding exercise, you are free to propose (and defend) different line breaks and strophic divisions. Make a note of any proposed changes as you proceed in your analysis of this text. Finally, pick out what you consider to be the three most prominent phonic features in this passage and suggest how you would reproduce these sound effects and their functions in YL. νῦν δὲ πρὸς σὲ ἔρχομαι καὶ ταῦτα λαλῶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἵνα ἔχωσιν τὴν χαρὰν τὴν ἐμὴν πεπληρωμένην ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. 14 ἐγὼ δέδωκα αὐτοῖς τὸν λόγον σου καὶ ὁ κόσμος ἐμίσησεν αὐτούς, ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου καθὼς ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. 15 οὐκ ἐρωτῶ ἵνα ἄρῃς αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα τηρήσῃς αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ. 16 ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου οὐκ εἰσὶν καθὼς ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. 13

ἁγίασον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ· ὁ λόγος ὁ σὸς ἀλήθειά ἐστιν. 18 καθὼς ἐμὲ ἀπέστειλας εἰς τὸν κόσμον, κἀγὼ ἀπέστειλα αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν κόσμον· 19 καὶ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν [ἐγὼ] ἁγιάζω ἐμαυτόν, ἵνα ὦσιν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἡγιασμένοι ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. 17

164

Ernst Wendland

EXERCISE-20 B. Winter cites, with apparent approval the following conclusion by M. Thrall regarding the quality of New Testament literature: “[I]t is plain that the language of the New Testament as a whole does not reflect the κοινή as it was used by the best educated classes in Hellenistic society, those classes…who were well acquainted with the idioms of classical literature” (2005:145-146). Winter later quotes Aristotle’s observation (in Art of Rhetoric III.12.1) that: “When compared, the speeches of writers appear meager in public debates, while those of the rhetoricians, however well delivered, are amateurish when read…hence speeches suited for delivery, when delivery is absent, do not fulfill their proper function and appear silly” (ibid: 147). This opinion is then assumed to be correct and applied to the writing of the Apostle Paul: “Paul himself indicates that he resorted to plain style, declaring that he used plain speech…” (ibid: 149). So then, “[w]hat does all this mean for the [Bible] translator? Paul wrote in the plain style of Greek that would have been judged as ‘unsophisticated’ by rhetorical standards and ‘vulgar’ in that it did not reflect classical learning and allusions. … That deliberate decision on his part to pursue clarity means that translating his letters demands a comparatively plain style…” (ibid: 150).  Do the selections from the Apostle John (often regarded as being an author of elementary Greek) studied above appear to reflect a rather “plain style” – no matter what “standards” are used to assess these texts? How about the Corinthian passage from Paul reproduced below: “unsophisticated,” “vulgar”? What do you think – and give reasons for your stylistic evaluation and its implications for Bible translation.  It is indeed interesting to observe that one of the co-authors of Winter in the book cited above (i.e., L. Ryken) has in the past voiced quite a different opinion on the stylistic quality of the Scriptures – both Old and New Testaments: The third dominant type of writing in the Bible is literature. … Literature is an art form, characterized by beauty, craftsmanship, and technique. … Literary artistry includes both skill with words and patterned composition. The elements of artistic form that all the arts share include pattern or design, theme or central focus, organic unity (also called unity in variety), coherence, balance, contrast, symmetry, repetition or recurrence, and unified progression. … Literature uses special resources of language such as metaphor, simile, pun, allusion, paradox, and irony. … A literary approach to the Bible is preoccupied with questions of literary form. It is concerned not only with what is said, but also with how something is expressed. … A literary approach also sees value in the artistry that is everywhere evident in the Bible. … The fact that the Bible is an anthology results in a remarkable range of forms and styles. … It is a literary book, but the literature of the Bible is intermingled with theology and history. … If the Epistles [including those of Paul!] are more religiously oriented that most other ancient letters were, they are also more literary. … [T]he Epistles are consistently literary, not only in their figurative language and proverbial style, but also in their highly patterned rhetoric. … We have heard too much about the ‘unliterary’ quality of the New Testament. Even if in the original the vocabulary tends to be that of ordinary speech, there is no way in which we can consider the rhetorical patterning of the clauses to be ordinary (Ryken 1992:12,16,17,20,22,29,32,435,437, 439; cf. Wendland 2004, 2006b).

Intratextuality

165

 How can we reconcile the expressed opinions of Winter and Ryken cited above? Quite impossible, some might say, meaning that we must make a choice of whom to believe. How can we make such a choice – pit one “expert” (whether biblical or literary) against another? A better way would be to come to your own conclusion, based on a careful stylistic and rhetorical analysis of the biblical text (ideally in the original language). Express your thoughts on this issue and give the results of any such analytical studies that you have made with regard to the biblical text. How does this evidence and the conclusions that you have reached concerning the literary (artisticrhetorical) character of the Scriptures impact upon the task of Bible translation? Give a concrete example or application if you can. EXERCISE-21 The following thoughts concerning the “elements of a stylistic approach to translation” come from a recent scholarly study of the subject (Boase-Beier 2006:112-113). Evaluate the following quotes with reference to their possible relevance to your past/present/planned translation of the Scriptures. What insights or applications do you derive for your work, with special reference now to a “literary” approach and the “style” that you aim to achieve in your particular version? [L]iterary translation is, in a very basic and important sense, the translation of style, because style conveys attitude and not just information, because style is the expression of the mind, and literature is a reflection of the mind. … The textual meaning of the source text is more than just the words on the page because it is dependent on context. … Much of what goes beyond the immediate and obvious meaning of lexis and syntax of the source text is its style…, the basis for reader engagement is in its style…, the expression of cognitive state is its style… Therefore it is highly important for a translator to be as stylistically aware as possible, and to use the style as the basis and focal point for a translation. … The translator can convey some of the richness and openness to reader involvement of the source text if it is borne in mind that the style represents (author’s, narrator’s, character’s) choices… This is not to say that these choices represent different ways of saying the same thing but different ways of saying which reflect different ways of seeing; what is said also varies according to how it is said. One of the ways such choices are reflected in the style of the source text is in its use of what Relevance Theory calls weak implicatures…, what Reader-Response Theory has called gaps in the text…, and other writers have called weakly implied meanings… These reflections of choices in the source text, if carried over to the target text, allow for the reader of the target text to similarly engage with the text and create new meanings. … Stylistic figures in the text such as metaphor, iconicity [i.e., where the form of the text somehow reflects or mimics its meaning], ambiguity and the like are not merely in the text. They have cognitive correlates…, and in this cognitive sense they have both a universal basis and an individual context which is to some extent culturally bound. Translators need to make decisions especially about what to do with their culturallybound and individual aspects. These are the sorts of decisions affected by translation strategies such as foreignizing and domesticating…

 Do you view the “Holy Scriptures” as being “literature” – or in at least certain respects “literary” in character? Explain your answer (cf. Wendland 2004:37-46; 2006:45-52).

166

Ernst Wendland

 If indeed you consider the Scriptures as being “literature,” at least certain portions of them, how does this affect your translation procedure? Give a specific example, if possible.  Does the literary, or stylistic, assumption regarding “weak implicatures,” “gaps,” or “weakly implied meanings” in the text clash with your theological assumptions regarding the clarity, or “perspicuity,” of the “Word of God”? Explain.  Point out which elements or aspects of the Scriptures are “culturally bound.” How does this fact affect your policy and procedure of translation? This might well serve as a good topic for a round-table discussion – namely, the subject which is brought up in the final paragraph quoted above. EXERCISE-22 Study the following quotation (from Thomas and Thomas 2006:1) and see if you agree with the thoughts expressed. If not, tell why. If so, give some examples from your Bible translation setting to support the argument being made. Then tell how you might apply these insights in your own project in a practical way. The problem of translation is especially acute in the case of Scripture. For many years biblical translators were influenced by reader-insensitive societies and Western biblical scholarship that concentrated on the written text. The fundamental needs of predominantly oral societies were often downplayed. Inadequate attention was given to the functions of the Bible as a written text and its oral rendition in public worship, study groups and family settings. Today we need only think of how many people listen to the Bible from audio cassettes or the radio to recognize that the Bible is used orally around the world.

EXERCISE-23 Finally, you may practice applying all five diagnostic literary criteria at once with respect to how they converge to create an internal textual frame of reference for interpretation and ultimately also for translation as well. So analyze and characterize the following familiar passage (1 Corinthians 12:12-31, RSV) in terms of the five categories discussed above: genre selection, compositional shifts, patterned recursion, rhetorical highlighting and sound (phonological) support. Remember: the literary devices of repeating + shifting + marking  (reveal) discourse breaks/boundaries + peak(s). If possible, refer to the Greek text (cited afterwards) when doing this exercise, especially with regard to the criterion of sound. You will thus examine the text with regard to its principal stylistic forms, for that is where any literary study must begin and proceed from that linguistic foundation to investigate some of the principal discourse (communicative) functions which the various compositional devices interact together to perform within the current discourse setting – namely, the paraenetic exhortation of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthian Christians. The text has not been formatted at all, so at the end of your study you will have to propose a reasonable lay-out for displaying the discourse on the printed page. After this text analysis then, the class may be organized into groups of 2-3. Each group should translate the following selection into a dynamic vernacular style that is

Intratextuality

167

suitable for a public dramatic recitation of the discourse. The individual selections may then be “performed” in class (in lieu of some more suitable public venue) and later evaluated through group discussion. For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – Jews or Greeks, slaves or free – and all were made to drink of one Spirit. 14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single organ, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body which seem to be weaker are in-dispensable, 23 and those parts of the body which we think less honorable we invest with the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part, 25 that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. 27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 * And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way. 12

12

Καθάπερ γὰρ τὸ σῶμα ἕν ἐστιν καὶ μέλη πολλὰ ἔχει, πάντα δὲ τὰ μέλη τοῦ σώματος πολλὰ ὄντα ἕν ἐστιν σῶμα, οὕτως καὶ ὁ Χριστός· 13 καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν, εἴτε Ἰουδαῖοι εἴτε Ἕλληνες εἴτε δοῦλοι εἴτε ἐλεύθεροι, καὶ πάντες ἓν πνεῦμα ἐποτίσθημεν. 14 καὶ γὰρ τὸ σῶμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἓν μέλος ἀλλὰ πολλά. 15 ἐὰν εἴπῃ ὁ πούς, Ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ χείρ, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος; 16 καὶ ἐὰν εἴπῃ τὸ οὖς, Ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ ὀφθαλμός, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος· 17 εἰ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα ὀφθαλμός, ποῦ ἡ ἀκοή; εἰ ὅλον ἀκοή, ποῦ ἡ ὄσφρησις; 18 νυνὶ δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἔθετο τὰ μέλη, ἓν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ σώματι καθὼς ἠθέλησεν. 19 εἰ δὲ ἦν τὰ πάντα ἓν μέλος, ποῦ τὸ σῶμα; 20 νῦν δὲ πολλὰ μὲν μέλη, ἓν δὲ σῶμα. 21 οὐ δύναται δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμὸς εἰπεῖν τῇ χειρί, Χρείαν σου οὐκ ἔχω, ἢ πάλιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῖς ποσίν, Χρείαν ὑμῶν οὐκ ἔχω· 22 ἀλλὰ πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὰ δοκοῦντα μέλη τοῦ σώματος ἀσθενέστερα ὑπάρχειν ἀναγκαῖά ἐστιν, 23 καὶ ἃ δοκοῦμεν ἀτιμότερα εἶναι τοῦ σώματος τούτοις τιμὴν περισσοτέραν περιτίθεμεν, καὶ τὰ ἀσχήμονα ἡμῶν εὐσχημοσύνην περισσοτέραν

168

Ernst Wendland ἔχει, 24 τὰ δὲ εὐσχήμονα ἡμῶν οὐ χρείαν ἔχει. ἀλλὰ ὁ θεὸς συνεκέρασεν τὸ σῶμα τῷ ὑστερουμένῳ περισσοτέραν δοὺς τιμήν, 25 ἵνα μὴ ᾖ σχίσμα ἐν τῷ σώματι ἀλλὰ τὸ αὐτὸ ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων μεριμνῶσιν τὰ μέλη. 26 καὶ εἴτε πάσχει ἓν μέλος, συμπάσχει πάντα τὰ μέλη· εἴτε δοξάζεται [ἓν] μέλος, συγχαίρει πάντα τὰ μέλη. 27 Ὑμεῖς δέ ἐστε σῶμα Χριστοῦ καὶ μέλη ἐκ μέρους. 28 καὶ οὓς μὲν ἔθετο ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρῶτον ἀποστόλους, δεύτερον προφήτας, τρίτον διδασκάλους, ἔπειτα δυνάμεις, ἔπειτα χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων, ἀντιλήμψεις, κυβερνήσεις, γένη γλωσσῶν. 29 μὴ πάντες ἀπόστολοι; μὴ πάντες προφῆται; μὴ πάντες διδάσκαλοι; μὴ πάντες δυνάμεις; 30 μὴ πάντες χαρίσματα ἔχουσιν ἰαμάτων; μὴ πάντες γλώσσαις λαλοῦσιν; μὴ πάντες διερμηνεύουσιν; 31 ζηλοῦτε δὲ τὰ χαρίσματα τὰ μείζονα. Καὶ ἔτι καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν ὁδὸν ὑμῖν δείκνυμι.

Formatting the textual form As was noted in the preceding exercise, the art of formatting, or spatially “laying out,” a printed text is not an optional feature of the integrated set of activities that constitute the overall work of Bible translation. Rather, it is an essential finishing task, for the typographical format has meaning in and of itself. Therefore, it is an overt means of representing today – via translation – the original text of Scripture so that it can be easily read, and understood, by all literate consumers. The technique of skillful text design makes it possible to display the key compositional characteristics of the original (e.g., an author’s deliberate pattern of contrasting elements or his arrangement of parallel ideas) and also to call visible attention to special aspects of the internal discourse structure, such as its primary boundaries and peak points. These features of graphic architecture, which includes the use of varied elements of typography, guide the oral and silent reader alike both to understand the passage of Scripture that she or he is reading and also to enunciate it clearly when speaking aloud. A variety of visual cues that appear on the printed page are included in this internal framework, for example: section headings, indentation, paragraph breaks, the text layout (meaningful utterance breaks at a ragged right margin), print class, as well as font size and style. To illustrate some of the possibilities here, I have set out below one way of formatting the passage that was analyzed above, 1 Cor. 12:12-31 (in the NIV). The class should discuss this proposal critically and try to come up with their individual suggestions for improvement, with special reference to the Bible reading community that each happens to be translating for (their reading abilities, preferences, publishing traditions, and so forth): The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body – whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free – 12

Intratextuality and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 15

If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 17

20



As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. 21

But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers,

169

170

Ernst Wendland

every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But eagerly desire the greater gifts. And now I will show you the most excellent way. 27



EXERCISE-24  Consider the preceding passage from Corinthians in the light of the advice regarding text-formatting given below (Thomas and Thomas 2006:123-124). Select one suggestion that you would like to apply in your translation; tell why and how you will do this: The appreciation of a text, both for its simple beauty and its complex ideas, is enhanced by a good print layout. Minimally, a non-[standard?] published layout is needed for oral readers who must visualize what they will interpret by voice in audio productions or public presentations. This layout can be prepared by the translation team, perhaps is cooperation with the specialized readers. A more ambitious project, however, is the preparation of a text for publication so that general readers can visualize its structural framework as fully as possible. In this endeavor translators are only members of a larger team of which they may not have traditionally been a part. … A portion publication should offer good opportunities for testing audience response. Formatting text is, to some extent language-specific. …

 What sort of “formatting” devices are available for non-print media? Make some suggestions as to what you would do in order to aurally and/or visually “display” the preceding passage if you were preparing: (a) an audio cassette recording, and (b) a video cassette production.

171

Intratextuality EXERCISE-25

 Carefully study the following poem by George Herbert (1663, cited in Stockwell 2002:67) and then point out how the unique iconic format serves to both structure the text and to also foreground certain crucial aspects of its content and intended emotive impact. Finally, point out any other poetic features that appear to enhance the message of this poignant lament – or is it a eulogy? (Give reasons to support your observations and conclusions.)

Easter Wings

Lord, who createst man in wealth and store, Though foolishly he lost the same, Decaying more and more, Till he became Most poore: With thee O let me rise As larks, harmoniously, And sing this day thy victories: Then shall the fall further the flight in me. My tender age in sorrow did beginne: And still with sickness and shame Thou didst so punish sinne, That I became Most thinne. With thee Let me combine, And feel this day thy victorie: For, if I imp my wing on thine, Affliction shall advance the flight in me. EXERCISE-26  Suggest a suitable printed format for the following Old Testament passage (Genesis 11:1-9, RSV) based on a prior examination of its various literary features (as practiced above).  Conclude with some comments concerning the extent to which a literary (artisticrhetorical) method of discourse analysis helps you in turn to translate more accurately and effectively (that is, with beauty, impact, appeal, and appropriateness) in your language and then also to communicate a given passage of Scripture correspondingly via a selected medium of transmission.  Feel free to question, assess, and/or criticize the methodology presented in this chapter. However, when doing so be sure to make some positive (concrete) suggestions as to how these procedures might be improved through correction, modification, and/or

172

Ernst Wendland

supplementation – that is, with respect to certain crucial aspects of investigation that have been left out or not treated thoroughly enough. Now the whole earth had one language and few words. 2 And as men migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. 3 And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” 5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the sons of men had built. 6 And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. 9 Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused p the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth. 1

8. Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne room (Rev. 4) The preceding study material was, in a sense, all by way of introduction – to provide some background information for understanding a “frames of reference” approach to biblical text analysis. This offers a flexible, multi-faceted method of both exploring and also explaining the complex nature of the textual “onion” that we endeavor to pull apart (analyze) and put back together again (synthesize). This task is accomplished through the twofold process of interpretation and communication, either exclusively in one’s mother-tongue (e.g., an exegetical study) or via another language-culture (e.g., Bible translation). I will now apply the analytical framework that was presented above to a single pericope of Scripture to illustrate how it may be used to enhance our understanding of this passage (Revelation 4) as a composite, but integrated whole. However, space obviously prevents me from providing anything but a partial consideration of this conceptually rich and rewarding passage, so we will have to settle for a relatively limited suggestion of the various parameters that need to be investigated in a more complete “contextualized” study. I have again incorporated various little practical exercises along the way to involve those who may wish to explore the text and its context in greater detail (especially with reference to the closely related passage of Rev. 5 – cf. lesson 11). The following then is only a cursory examination of Revelation 4-5 that illustrates one possible method of analyzing biblical discourse and working from there towards a better grasp of the present text’s potential communicative, and especially translational, implications. The aim is primarily to underscore the importance of taking into serious hermeneutical consideration the various aspects of “context” that have been discussed from a multiple “frames” perspective. It will be up to readers, if they so desire, to take this analysis to a higher, more refined and extensive level of realization. We begin with an overview of several of the principal sociocultural and situational conceptual frames that contextualize the 4th chapter of the Apocalypse. Much of this discussion is conjectural in nature, and so we will not spend a great deal of time on this aspect of the analysis. We turn next to an examination of the actual compositional frame-work of this pericope with a view towards revealing some of the main structural and stylistic features of the Greek text. In the next chapter (9) we will shift from the source document to a target language setting and viewpoint, commencing with a consideration of the current organizational dimension as it is manifested in two contrasting translations of this passage in the Chewa language of Malawi/Zambia. This includes some thoughts about contextualizing the biblical text in translation from a TL perspective as we apply several methods of introducing paratextual supplementary devices. In Chapter 10, the important matter of evaluating the results of this intertextual and cross-cultural communication process is discussed in terms of how to test a translated text of Scripture with regard to its perceived “quality” in relation to a specified target audience. Some questions to initiate a study of Revelation 5 according to a framed contextual approach are suggested in Chapter 11. In the final chapter

174

Ernst Wendland

(12) then we will bring this exploratory survey to a close by considering the present context of education and practical training in which we are working: How can we dialogue together to be better teachers and learners so that we can in turn become more effective translators of sacred Scripture?

The general cognitive environment of Revelation 4 A survey of several plausible (nevertheless debatable) hypotheses concerning the sociocultural, organizational, and situational setting for the book of Revelation offers us a guiding hermeneutical perspective on the focal text under consideration, namely, the pericope covering chapters 4 and 5. This provides the necessary frame of reference that enables us to better comprehend the exceedingly rich cognitive background that must have shaped not only why this passage was composed, but also how it was heard (less often read) and interpreted in its initial communicative environment. This is very different of course from the viewpoint naturally assumed by a contemporary Chewa-speaking audience in south-central Africa, who unavoidably approach Rev. 4 under the prevailing influence of their own life-view, religious beliefs, and world of experience. Is it possible for a secondary, translated text to bridge this great cognitive-emotive gap with its essential sense and significance intact? Despite many formidable linguistic and cultural barriers, we believe that Christ’s commission (Mt. 28:19) assures us that this can be done, at least to a sufficiently relevant degree, so later we will examine several ways of facilitating this conceptual bridge-building process in relation to the passage at hand.

The ANE milieu of Revelation: Its sociocultural and organizational frames Before one can address the contextual (sometimes termed “isagogical”) issues and circumstances that are associated with a thorough exegetical study of any book of the Bible, one must first answer the question of authorship: Who wrote the text? Several credible possibilities have been advanced with regard to the Apocalypse (along with some highly unlikely ones, e.g., John the Baptist in Ford 1975:30): (a) John, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James and a beloved disciple of Jesus; (b) a so-called “John the Elder,” an early influential, but largely unknown prophetic follower of Christ; (c) an anonymous Palestinian disciple of John who assumed the pseudonym “John” when writing this book; or (d) several core members of a “Johannine school” of followers who collaborated in composing this book (or whose separate works were later redacted into a single text), which was dedicated by name to their revered Apostle. This thorny authorship issue, once decided, will determine how one approaches a number of other points of contention, and so it is foundational to the entire interpretive process. To make a rather long story short, I have adopted the historical “conservative” viewpoint (a), despite certain problems that arise in connection with this traditional position. This is because I feel that such a long-standing interpretation must remain as a “given” unless clearly proven erroneous. In my opinion, no convincing argument

Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne room

175

has thus far been advanced to overturn our attributing the authorship of Revelation to John, the last living disciple of the Lord (cf. Johnson 1994:1127). EXERCISE-1 Discuss the pros and cons of the interpretive stance adopted above in relation to the four quotations that follow: The issue is not important to settle since it does not affect the message of the book. Regardless of which John wrote, the author of the book identifies himself as a prophet… Therefore, it is probably that John should be socially identified with a group of early Christian itinerant prophets. (Beale 1999:35-36) “The most certain line of evidence is the early tradition… At least, if this is the true solution it at once explains the rise of the tradition, which none of the others satisfactorily does. But many prefer to leave the authorship an open question.” At all events, the ‘John’ of Revelation makes the clear apostolic claim that though he may have written the book, its real author is none other than Jesus Christ. (Wilcox 1975:23, citing D. Guthrie) The otherwise unknown author of Revelation in its final form was probably a Palestinian Jew who had emigrated to the Roman province of Asia, perhaps is connection with the first Jewish revolt in A.D. 66-70. He regarded himself as a Christian prophet and his composition as a prophetic book… (Aune 1997:lvi) Given the likelihood that some version of the revision and fragmentary hypothesis are correct, it appears likely that both the earlier and the later dates for the production of Revelation are partially correct, since the composition and compilation of Revelation are probably an extended editorial process that began in the 60s and only concluded in the late 90s… (Aune 2003:400; apparently a revision of the preceding quote)

EXERCISE-2 Does the following argument concerning authorship convince you? Explain your own position on the matter and its relative importance for interpreting and translating the books of Revelation. The evidence that allegedly argues against a single author revolves around a number of internal difficulties, falling into four categories: (1) the presence of doublets (the same scene or vision described twice); (2) sequence problems – i.e., persons or things introduced seemingly for the first time when in fact they had already been mentioned; (3) seeming misplaced verses and larger sections; and (4) distinctive content within certain sections that does not seem to fit the rest of the book. In each case, however, there are satisfying alternative explanations. In fact, the difficulties just named stem more from the reader’s presuppositions than from the text itself. We are more likely to discover the author’s original intent if we approach Revelation with the assumption of its literary integrity than if we attempt at every turn to judge it by modern Western mentality. (Johnson 1994:1126-1127)

176

Ernst Wendland

 What are some aspects of “Western mentality” that might get in the way of an objective, or honest, exegesis and evaluation of the book of Revelation?  Does the fact that most or all of the alleged “internal difficulties” cited above happen to be rather common in the oral narratives of non-Western peoples, e.g., those of central Africa, have any bearing on one’s perspective on the original composition and intended “performance” of the text of Revelation today? Explain – with examples, pro or con, if you have some at hand.  Consider the following quote and its implications concerning authorship with regard to interpreting the book of Revelation. In short, in the Greek text are we reading and interpreting “John” as the “real author” or as the “implied author”? Ditto for the audience – is this group “real” or only “implied” – and what difference does it make, either to interpreters or to translators? Modern literary criticism, however, has made us aware that what we meet in a text is not the author himself or herself but rather the implied author, i.e., the author as he or she has chosen, consciously or unconsciously, to reveal himself or herself in the written text. … By the same token, the audience envisaged by the creator of a text is not the real audience, but the implied audience, i.e., the audience as conceptualized in literary terms by the author. (Aune 1997:xlix)

After authorship, the next major contextual question to be determined as part of a wider sociocultural study of a given biblical book is historical: When was the book written? There are two main theories concerning Revelation’s most likely date of composition. Proponents of an early date feel that it was written shortly prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This places the book’s references to persecution within the temporal framework of Nero’s oppression of Christians, especially in the vicinity of Rome. Supporters of a later date suggest the reign of Domitian some 30 years later, but certainly before the turn of the first century. It appears as if the persecution of Christians was becoming more widespread then over their refusal to participate in or comply with the rites and rituals of emperor worship. In any case, “under either dating position the book could be understood as a polemic against Rome and especially against compromise with ungodly Roman culture” (Beale 1999:4; cf. Aune 1997:lxix-lxx). Thus, while the date of composition cannot be established with certainty (I favor the later alternative, along with most commentators), the predominant faith-life issue facing Christians of the day, whether earlier or later, was one of manifest personal and corporate fidelity: To whom should loyalty be given, ultimately, to Caesar or Christ? “Every age has its equivalent test of a Christian’s true allegiance; for them it meant actual persecution and the threat of martyrdom” (Wilcox 1975:22). But at least that ultimate test, when faced, forcefully clarified the character of a person’s faith; for many complacent “Christians” today who are not really put to such a drastic life-threatening trial, the real internal testing of spiritual allegiance has never been undertaken.

Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne room

177

EXERCISE-3 Consider the following line of reasoning in relation to a date for Revelation’s writing: The explanation in Revelation 17:9-11 as to the meaning of the seven heads of the beast has been investigated with a view to determining the date of Revelation… Two meanings are given in the text, the one identifying the seven heads with the seven hills of Rome, the other representing seven emperors. … The list of emperors up to Domitian is Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespatian, Titus, Domitian – twelve in all. Of these John states that five have fallen, one is (the sixth) one is to come (for a short time only), the eight is one of the seven and will be the antichrist. Starting from Julius Caesar, John would be writing in Nero’s reign… (Beasley-Murray 1997:1028)

 What is the problem with such an attempt to contextualize the biblical text in this manner (which B-M does not agree with)?  After reading several of the works on Revelation cited in the closing Reference section, what conclusion do you arrive at concerning the most likely date of Revelation’s composition? What difference does this date make to the book’s interpretation? Is this issue of dating, or historical record-keeping, a matter of concern in the religious setting in which you work? Explain why or why not.

The chaotic historical circumstances and pressing socio-political situation that form the conceptual background for the message of Revelation is probably best delineated by the specific problems that were besetting the seven representative Christian churches addressed in chapters 2-3. While frequently expressed in graphic images and figurative language, there can be no doubt that the prominent structural position of this stylized seven-fold hortatory-epistolary discourse is intended to act as a broad literary frame of reference that sets the scene for the more apocalyptic visions and prophetic pronouncements that follow the prominent throne room setting in chapters 4-5. The letter genre is also marked more broadly by the typical introduction of 1:4-5 and closing in 22:21. Accordingly, a survey of the critical issues brought out in these seven pastoral letters may serve as a helpful introduction to the sociocultural setting and institutional environment that contextualizes the book. These two cognitive frames must be considered together because of the critical interpersonal concern that unites them – namely, religion – for in that day and age there was no such thing as a separation of church, state, and culture as we so often find today, at least in Western countries. The following list summarizes some of the main trials being faced by believers and the chief threats to the true teachings and orthodox practice of the Christian religion, as viewed from the inside by the Lord Christ himself: • •

False teachers (“apostles”) who promoted anti-Christian/biblical doctrines (2:2, 2:24) Roman persecution for remaining loyal to the Christian “sectarian” faith (2:3, 2:13)

178

Ernst Wendland • • • • • •

Ethnic oppression, especially against fellow Jews who had become Christians (2:10, 3:9) Complacent and careless (“lukewarm”) Christians (2:4, 3:1-2, 3:15-17) Attractions towards a syncretistic brand of “Christianity” (2:6, 2:14, 2:20) Poor social conditions and economic status (2:9, 3:8) Serious social pressure to practice state-sponsored “emperor worship” (2:13) Immorality in keeping with the pagan society at large (2:14, 2:22, 3:4)

The Lord’s fervent message to the members of these diverse congregations (there is little indication that it is intended for religious outsiders) is thus twofold: To those who were still living a biblical faith, whether strongly or only weakly, he says, “Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you a crown of life” (2:10, NIV). To the rest, to the uncommitted, the compromisers, and all apostates, he says, “Get serious and repent – look, I am standing at your door and knocking!” (3:19b-20a). EXERCISE-4 Read Revelation 2-3 plus any reference material at hand and then review the book’s situational summary given above, revising or augmenting this as necessary in keeping with your own research. Now try to put yourself into the picture: Imagine that you are a member of a small, embattled church body – a tiny minority in a society rife with pagan religions and philosophies. The temptation to immorality and corruption is everywhere. False preachers and unscrupulous teachers are splitting your congregation. There is strong competition, even oppression, from a rival church denomination that calls itself “Christian” but does not have Christ. Local semi-religious cults associated with some of the key economic sectors of the community are constantly exerting pressure to come join in with them. The government too, which sponsors a self-centered, “patriotic” form of devotion, is becoming more insistent on its demands to participate and threatens dire consequences for all “conscientious objectors.” In this tumultuous socio-religious environment then you receive a letter from the most respected Christian leader in your area, and you are asked to read and discuss it as an assembled congregation.  How do you think that a frank discussion of the seven letters of Rev. 2-3 would develop in terms of arguments and counter-points? What is the rhetorical impact of considering them all together, rather than as separate texts? Suggest how the author himself indicates that this is the way he wanted these letters to be read: one after the other, then deliberating over the composite message of the entire corpus.  Are there any world settings today that would approximate some of those portrayed in Revelation 2-3? Point out which of the seven congregational scenarios approximates one that you know of in your locale.  How does this sort of thinking yourself into the situation affect your reading of the book? Is this a book that can simply be broken off after silently reading a single chapter or even a related cluster of them? Explain the effect of doing this and suggest

Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne room

179

why the message of Revelation was perhaps intended to be communicated all at once in the form of a single extended dramatic performance or an oratorical recital.

The situational setting of John: Apostle, pastor, prophet The situational frame of reference of the book of Revelation is completely encompassed, hence also characterized by, the sociocultural (religious) and institutional circumstances described above. However, the book is unique in the NT for its rather intricate communication setting. In a way that is very typical of OT prophetic writings (Wendland 2004:115, 153, 260), so also the text of Apocalypse features a complex, embedded structure of largely unidirectional, divinely-motivated discourse (speech) levels at its very beginning (1:1-2; cf. 22:6). The salient relationships are displayed in Figure 15. 1* God  Jesus Christ 2* Jesus Christ  angel 3* angel  John 4* John  Christ’s “servants” // the Church (7 churches) Figure 15: Layered communication setting of Revelation

Figure 15: Layered communication setting of Revelation

These last-mentioned, literally ‘slaves’ (δούλοι), the weak in faith and life as well as the strong, are represented, perhaps typologically, by the varied recipients of “the seven churches in the province of Asia” (1:4). Within this external framework of communication then, there are a number of internal speech events recorded, involving a diverse array of dramatis personae within the prophecy, e.g., Christ → John (1:17-20, 4:1), Christ → “the angel of the church in Ephesus” (2:2-7), “four living creatures” → “one sitting on the throne” (4:8), angel hosts → Lamb (5:12), slain martyrs → “Sovereign Lord” (6:10), “multitude…from every nation” → God/Lamb (7:10), “a voice from heaven” → John (10:4), “kings of the earth” → fallen “Babylon” (18:10). The close of the book (22:6-21) also features a rich combination of speaking voices which appear, in conventional narrative fashion, to announce the dramatic peak of the discourse (a “crowded stage”). It is important to discern the multilayered “external” communication setting of Revelation, for this not only helps to identify the prophetic nature of the book, but it also indicates the very secondary role played by the divine mouthpiece (and scribe), John. His message is really one from the “Lord” – this deliberately ambiguous designation, as throughout the book, expressing a profound theological truth: the Lord Jesus Christ in the NT is distinct from, but divinely equal to YHWH of the OT! Revelation then is a special “word of God and the testimony of Jesus [the] Christ” (1:2) to his fellowship of believers of every age concerning “what you have seen, what is now, and what will take place later” (1:19). In essence, this is a reiterated pastoral message For a somewhat different perspective on the embedding that characterizes the various locutionary levels found in Revelation, see Pattemore (2003:121). 

180

Ernst Wendland

of powerful comfort and encouragement for the faithful, a “testimony” (1:2; 22:16) that is perhaps best epitomized in the book’s seven beatitudes (1:3; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7, 14) and in the final speech of “the Alpha and Omega” – “Jesus…the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star” (22:12-16). EXERCISE-5 Evaluate the following conclusions (of Hellholm, cited by Aune 1997:lxxxi) regarding the implications of Revelation’s composite communicative situation for the message being transmitted by this book. Are there any corrections or modifications that you wish to suggest – either to what is proposed below (e.g., regarding “the central message of Revelation”), or to the opinions expressed above to begin this section? [David] Hellholm finds that the most profoundly embedded text at the functional communication level coincides with the sixth, i.e., the highest, grade of the macrostructure of the Revelation of John (sic). This most embedded text is Rev 21:5b-8, a passage that Hellholm claims expresses the central message of Revelation. … This analysis leads Hellholm to draw three major conclusions (Semeia 36 [1986] 45-46): (1) The first conclusion concerns virtuality: the phenomenon of the most profoundly embedded text as the bearer of the central message of an apocalypse is an invariable feature of the genre. (2) The second conclusion concerns function: the reason for the hierarchic embedment of texts centers on the matter of the authorization of the message. (3) Third, he concludes there is a direct relationship between communication embedment on the pragmatic level and the content on the semantic level. The message of Revelation is the promise to those who conquer that they will live with God in his new world and the threat that the cowardly and unfaithful will be separated from God (the ‘second death’).

 How much of this information concerning the situational setting of Revelation is essential for readers of the book to know so that they can correctly process its content? List three of the most important facts, in your opinion. What is the most effective way to convey such material to readers? To hearers?

The conceptual context presupposed by the throne room vision To a certain degree, what is said in this section regarding the setting that John’s imagery evokes in Rev. 4 anticipates our discussion of intertextuality below because here, as well as elsewhere in the book, so much of the conceptual background is established by numerous allusions and references to pertinent OT prophetic texts. As will be pointed out in the later structural discussion below, the vision through the “open door” of chapter 4 (4:1) continues the scene that was initiated in chapter 1, where the book as a whole is formally introduced (1:1-8) and John, having been seized by the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, is commissioned as a prophetic scribe to “write down” everything that will be revealed to him (1:10). This miraculous reception into the divine presence is reminiscent of the call accounts of several well-known Hebrew prophets, notably Isaiah (ch. 6) and Ezekiel (chs. 1-2). It thereby establishes the credentials and credibility, as it were, of John the apostolic scribe since he too is required to transmit a message to God’s people that will be quite awful, even terrifying in many respects. But the same merciful divine initiative is also at work, for the primary purpose of

Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne room

181

what will be revealed is to bring a contextual “blessing” to all those who hear and obey what the Lord has to say through his prophet (1:3). The essentially paraenetic (hortatory) character of this Apocalypse is thus established at the outset, and this serves as a vital hermeneutical frame of reference and guide for the work as a whole. That is to say, the message of the book is primarily for those who are already believers and who live amidst diverse sufferings and tribulations in the here-and-now: They are encouraged to take heart, for the ever-living Lord has already conquered sin, death, and the power of Satan (1:17b-18). This once-for-all victory in the past guarantees for all time a blessed outcome in the future for everyone living in the present who “overcomes” the enemy by faith in Christ (2:7, 11, 17, 26-28; 3:5, 12, 21). There is a sudden shift of setting that occurs in ch. 4 as John is apparently snatched up in spirit (or: by the Spirit?) from his remote earthly place of exile on Patmos (1:9) and received up through a door into the awe-inspiring presence of God in heaven (4:12). Such “throne-vision reports, often involving heavenly ascents, occur frequently in both prophetic and apocalyptic literary contexts in early Judaism as well as in the later rabbinic hekalot literature” (Aune 1997:276-277). Six distinct scenes in Revelation feature God’s heavenly throne room: 4:2-5:14, 7:9-17, 11:15-19, 14:1-5, 15:2-8, and 19:1-8. Most of the book’s joyous doxologies and poetic hymn fragments occur in these settings, and thus they serve functionally as important pause-points in the drama, that is, periodic reassuring images of calm stability, divine control, and focused worship amid the turbulent visions which surround them. Four additional items of note contribute to our understanding of the cognitive background that underlies such throne room scenes, which would have been assumed to be known to an ANE audience (citing Aune 1997:277): •

•

•

•

The focus of the throne vision is almighty God presiding over his heavenly court, surrounded by a variety of angelic beings or lesser deities (angels, archangels, seraphim, cherubim) who function as courtiers (e.g., Exod. 15:11; Ps. 8:5, 29:1; Mt. 25:31-32). All such descriptions of God enthroned in the midst of his worshipful heavenly host are based on the ancient conception of the divine council or assembly found in Mesopotamia, Ugarit, and Phoenicia, as well as in Israel (e.g., Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7; Ps. 82:1, 6, 89:5,7). This motif of the divine council is frequently associated with prophecy in the OT, for prophets were thought able to join the assembly, to hear the deliberations of the council, and then to announce God’s will upon the earth (e.g., Job 15:8; Jer. 23:18; Amos 3:7). Most royal throne visions, for obvious reasons, are set in heaven, though in some passages the earthly temple of God and heavenly throne room appear to merge (e.g., Isa 6:1-13; Mt. 19:28).

EXERCISE-6  Would people in your Bible translation setting have any analogues at all in their oral or literary tradition that correspond, even partially, to the previously described conceptual context for Rev. 4?

182

Ernst Wendland

 If so, what are some of the main correspondences or similarities that you can draw on to re-create the essential aspects of this vision?  If not, identify the principal areas of contrast, difference, or absence that would need to be dealt with in a supplementary paratextual device of some kind, e.g., section headings, introductory sectional notes, cross references, explanatory study notes, illustrations (but not too shocking or imaginative!).  Give a short sample of one (or more) of these informative contextualizing devices that you would like to propose for use in the TL that you are working in (give an English back-translation). EXERCISE-7 Comment on the two hermeneutical observations below: Do you think that they are possible, convincing, or not very credible at all? Having read both selections, what is your conclusion about the major significance – the theological as well as pastoral “relevance” – of the throne room vision report of Revelation chapter 4? Revelation 4 sets forth the Seer’s foundational vision of God as creator of this world and as the one who is worthy to be worshiped. The images of this throne scene both draw upon and disrupt the associations people might have had with imperial worship. … In short, the rich, multivalent imagery by which John describes the throne and the participants in heavenly worship has the effect of making the worship witnessed in imperial-cult settings seem puny by comparison. (Saunders 2003:143-144) The inaugural vision places the seer in the heart of the Jewish prophetical and apocalyptic tradition. It indicates that he is one of the privileged few who experienced the vision of the throne or chariot, Heb. merkabah, an experience which was regarded as the climax of mystical progress. Indeed, it cannot be a coincidence that the word “throne” appears in every chapter of Revelation except 9, 10, 15, 17, 18. Twice it is used with reference to “Satan’s” throne: Rev 2:13, 16:10 (the beast’s throne). This suggests that the main theme of the work is theocracy versus dominion of Satan. (Ford 1975:76)

 Do the perspectives described above mean that the book of Revelation has relevance only for receptors who possess a conceptual framework that includes a good idea of what the “imperial cult” and “emperor worship” are all about? Explain your answer.  What might be some “functionally equivalent” mental models of such royal and/or divine throne scenes for people living in different parts of the world today? Begin with your own sociocultural setting.

The formal representation of Rev. 4: Textual frames I will preface my own analytical remarks regarding the discourse structure and style of chapter 4 with an extended quotation of a relevance theory perspective on the textual organization of the book of Revelation (Pattemore 2003:160-163):

Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne room Discourse analysis, then, is inherently pragmatic and it is this drive to understand texts within the pragmatics of real communication which leads us to the principle of relevance as the primary criterion for discourse structure. In searching for optimal relevance over the various levels of discourse structure of a biblical text, it needs to be clearly understood that we are primarily seeking to uncover the relevance to the original readers, which I have earlier called synchronic relevance. However, we do it, of necessity, from within our own cognitive environment and there are considerations of this diachronic relevance which inevitably affect our view. The hope of insights into the relevance perceived by the original readers rests on a number of assumptions. Fundamentally we assume that human thought processes, in particular logical and inferential processes, are to some degree universal and unbounded by local and temporal conditioning. Thus what appears to us as a logical or inferential relationship we assume would have appeared so to first century A.D. readers/hearers as well. Second, we assume that we can reconstruct a sufficient amount of the cognitive environment of the first readers/hearers to make meaningful statements about their probable perceptions of relevance. But Blass has argued correctly that in the absence of contextual information it is valid to construct a hypothetical context if we can show that this leads to optimal relevance for the text. In fact we will most often be working with cognitive environments that are a mix of evidenced and hypothetical contextual assumptions. The test of our hypotheses will be the degree of relevance obtained for the text. There remains an unavoidable degree of opacity of the original context, however, in that we don’t know what we are lacking about it. We can construct positive aspects of contexts with a greater or lesser degree of probability, but we have no way of knowing what additional parameters, whether features of the situational environment, or earlier texts, or relational assumptions, have simply disappeared without trace. These considerations have some implications for the way we analyze discourse: (1) The context within which the structure of a text is understood is the mutually mani-

fest cognitive environment. This is composed of the cotext, the situational context, the intertextual relationships, as they have become a part of both the author’s and audience’s mental geography. (2) Text units, or integral text sequences, are units over which relevance is optimized. This applies to both large and small units. (3) Relationships perceived between text units are those relationships that optimize relevance. This means that significant contextual effects are experienced for acceptably low processing effort. (4) More complex relationships should only be postulated where there is a failure to account for the presence of a particular feature by means of linking to the most readily accessible cognitive environment. (5) The significance of discourse markers is always that which optimizes relevance. This means, for example, that in Revelation meta tauta (“after these things”) does not always operate on the same level. The referent of “these things” will be such as to maximize cognitive effects for minimal processing effort.

183

184

Ernst Wendland

In a sense, my effort to understand and set forth the discourse of Rev. 4 in subsequent sections by means of various methods of literary-structural analysis is simply a limited, but text-specific outworking of this broader cognitive enterprise. My aim is to perceive and construe meaning (“relevance”) in terms of the formal compositional fabric of the pericope at hand – plus what we can safely deduce concerning the intended audience’s probable “cognitive environment,” which the author assumed that they would be able both to access without difficulty and also readily apply to an interpretation of the text. EXERCISE-8 Evaluate the following perspective on the controversial discourse organization of Revelation, with special reference to chs. 4-5 (Saunders 2003:128-129, 140-141). How does this jibe with your past and present reading of this book? The “problems of sequence and repetition” [citing A.Y. Collins] are only problematic when we attempt to violate the Seer’s directions for how to use this work. … [I]t was meant to be performed as a whole, not taken apart and preached piece by piece. Revelation begins with a clear prologue (1:1-8) that corresponds to an epilogue (22:6-21), both of which draw on epistolary convention (1:4-6; 22:21), contain prophetic oracles (e.g., 1:7 [cf. Dan. 7:13; Zech. 12:10, 12 LXX]; 22:16b [cf. Isa. 11:10; 60:3]), and echo one another verbally (1:1-3//22:6-7; 1:8//22:13). Everything between the epilogue and prologue is presented as a single vision, although that vision has several distinct, yet interrelated, elements. … [B]ut the Seer’s careful interlacing of the material in chapters 4-22 resists any single organized scheme – or, rather, permits diverse outlines. The effect is a performance that resists fragmentation, whether by ancient or modern audiences, and that presents an integrated, unified alternative to the mythic patterns of the empire. This, in turn, alters the ways audiences engage the work. The account in chapter 5 of the Lamb opening the scroll provides the narrative foundation for all that follows in this book, for it is this seven-sealed scroll that contains the visions of salvation and judgment that comprises chapters 6-20. The visions of God as Creator and Redeemer (chaps. 4-5) who is making a new heaven and a new earth (21:1-22:5; see esp. 21:1-5) forms an interpretive frame around chapters 6-20, where the images of judgment and destruction are dominant. This structural frame prevents the audience from hearing the visions of chapters 6-20 merely as descriptions of destruction and chaos or as a cry for vengeance on the part of the saints. The visions of chapters 4-5 make clear that the power of God displayed throughout the book is the power of the Lamb who was slain, whose death redeems his followers to serve as priests, and whose worship unifies the whole of creation (cf. 5:11-14). … The interpretive lens supplied by the visions of heavenly worship in chapters 4-5 is thus indispensable for interpretation of the whole performance.

 Does such conceptual integration and unity characterize the manner in which the typical audience (or readership) in your setting perceive and apply the text of Revelation? Explain your answer.  What can be done by Bible translators to encourage such a holistic, dramatic, and meaningfully structured approach to this prophetic work – to increase its perceived relevance for, and rhetorical impact upon text consumers today?

Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne room

185

Co-text: Demarcating the pericope beginning at 4:1 There is little doubt that a new major text unit begins in the book of Revelation at 4:1 – “After this…” (Μετὰ ταῦτα); cf. 7:1; 7:9; 15:5; 18:1; and 19:1). The preceding, tightly-constructed discourse section comprising the letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor concludes in 3:22 (originating from 2:1, with an overlap at 1:19-20, cf. 1:11), thus creating the need for a fresh start. But in fact, this turns out to be a resumption of the divine invitation to John to write down the prophetic vision that he “saw” (εἶδον– cf. 1:2, 12) concerning “what must happen after these things” (ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα – 4:1; cf. 1:1, 19). Here the eternal triune God (1:4-5) was about to reveal to him a multifaceted message regarding the spiritual state of Christ’s Church – past, present, and future (vv. 19-20). The same thunderous, trumpet-like voice is speaking to John (4:1; cf. 1:10, 12) as he prepares to describe what is beyond the open door in heaven. The seven letters of chapters 2-3 are not irrelevant, however, to what John has to report now in 4:1ff., for this sequence of epistolary exhortations serves to specify, albeit in highly figurative, symbolic terms, the nature and situation of his ostensive audience, namely, the various local congregations that he had been formerly serving as a pastor in this politically restive region bordering Europe and Asia. The select group of seven churches should probably be taken as a metonymic token of worldwide “Christianity,” consisting of near apostates and unstable adherents as well as all Christ’s believing and obedient “servants” (1:1, 22:6). It is much more difficult to determine the conclusion of the primary discourse segment that begins in 4:1. Obviously, several points of termination might be proposed, depending on the scope, or structural level, of the compositional unit that one has in mind for analytical purposes. A new, minor stage in the revelatory account occurs in 5:1 with the reiteration of the anaphoric formula “And I saw…” (Καὶ εἶδον), which appears in this shorter, and also a longer form periodically throughout the rest of the book as an important marker of aperture (the final occurrence being in 21:22 – “And I did not see a sanctuary…”). The pericope covering 5:1-14 is very closely related to the preceding text of ch. 4 due to the many thematic elements and personages that these two passages have in common – in particular, the central character, “the one seated upon the throne” (5:1), and those mysterious heavenly beings, the “four living creatures” and the “[24] elders” (5:14). This busy liturgical scene of resonant worship around the heavenly throne comes to a calming close in 5:14, and a contrastive sequence of seven tumultuous visions of various calamities and catastrophes (the six seals) commences at 6:1. The next occurrence of the major disjunctive discourse marker “After this…” (Μετὰ ταῦτα) occurs in 7:1, which may be therefore regarded as the onset of another principal division of John’s prophecy, and yet another in 7:9. But notice that these two sections are clearly enclosed within the ongoing report of the progressive opening of the seven seals (cf. 8:1), which may in turn be viewed as incorporating a new set of judgment visions involving “seven trumpets” (8:2ff; cf. 11:15)! In conclusion For a convincing argument in favor of the twofold division of the “body” text (epistle) of Revelation, i.e., 1:12–3:22 and 4:1–22:9, see Pattemore (2003:119-120). 

186

Ernst Wendland

then, it seems reasonable to consider the text of chapters 4-5 as being a single, tightly integrated discourse segment composed of two sequentially related descriptive panels (ch. 4 + ch. 5), which therefore need to be discerned and interpreted together. EXERCISE-9  Examine several major Bible versions that you have access to. How do they demarcate the section covering chs. 4-5: Do they treat these two chapters together as a distinct, unified discourse unit?  Do the respective section headings of chs. 4 and 5 underscore this cohesive narrative-descriptive relationship? If not, can you propose an appropriate revision or alternative wording where needed, yet one that preserves the semantic distinctiveness of each pericope?  Evaluate this proposal: “4:1-11 Main Event: John saw in a vision three different kinds of heavenly persons as they worshipped God in heaven.” (Ott 2005:ch. 4:1) EXERCISE-10 A study of the wider contextual “cotext” of a pericope of Scripture includes a consideration of a given text’s communicative function within the larger composition and also this same passage as it, too, is manifested in the form of a hierarchically, as well as syntagmatically-structured discourse unit.  Evaluate the following conclusion regarding the significance of the throne room scene of Rev. 4-5 within the book as a whole. Do you have any corrections or modifications to suggest, based on your current conception of the overall structural organization of Revelation? (Perhaps you may wish to leave this for some future study, waiting until you are actually engaged in a translation of the book yourself). As the vision of Christ in Revelation 1 leads into the seven letters, so the vision of heaven in Revelation 4-5 leads into the main body of the Revelation. It initiates the process of events leading to the unveiling of the final kingdom of God (Rev 6-19) and at the same time determines the symbolism of the first series of messianic judgments (Rev 6:1-8:5). (Beasley-Murray 1997:1030)

 Does this particular discourse structural perspective, if you agree with it, have any important implications for Bible translators? If so, mention what these are.

A literary analysis of the text For the purposes of illustration, my literary method of investigation pays special attention to the artistic (formal) and rhetorical (functional) features of the biblical text. Accordingly, I will selectively apply the five aspects of an intratextual, “internal textual frame” analysis (cf. chapter 7) to Revelation 4 in the following order: genre specification, phonic enhancement, compositional disjunction, patterned recursion, and rhetorical accentuation.

Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne room

187

Categorization: What is the genre of Revelation? Is Revelation a prophetic apocalypse or an apocalyptic prophecy? “The hermeneutical significance of the literary genre of biblical books has become increasingly obvious, for the meaning conveyed by the generic packaging of texts provides the indispensable context for understanding the constituent parts of a composition” (Aune 2003:401). Agreed – but the question now is: What is the genre of Revelation? Due to its opening words (Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ…), the book is often (too) quickly categorized simply as an “apocalyptic” text. In reality, however, it is a multivalent generic hybrid that is comprised of a number of masterfully interwoven discourse types and sub-types. To be sure, some of the typical features of an ancient Jewish apocalypse are manifested, such as: graphic visual imagery, involving great earthly calamities and cosmic battle scenes which feature God’s victory over Satan and the forces of evil; familiar apocalyptic symbols, including key numbers, and fantastic visions; a predominantly future temporal orientation (moving progressively from the readers’ present to some indefinite, but impending point of climactic consummation); and an elaborate, flamboyant style of writing that attracts as well as moves the audience (for the text is surely meant to be uttered aloud), both cognitively and emotively. But excluding the superscription and verse 1, the term ἀποκάλυψις occurs nowhere else in the book of Revelation, and so for various reasons (see below) it seems more accurate to construe this as a reference not to “the literary genre, but rather [to] the revelatory character of the book and its divine origin as ‘the revelation from Jesus Christ’ (subjective genitive)” (Aune 2003:401). Another potential macro-genre term occurs in 1:3, as a divine “blessing” (μακάριος) is pronounced upon all who read, hear, and take to heart “the words of this prophecy” (τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας). A similar expression is found twice in proximity at the very end of Revelation (22:18-19) to form an inclusio; there receptors are warned not to add to or remove anything from the meaning of “the words of this book of prophecy” (τῶν λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης). The same word “prophes/cy” also occurs several other times in the book, thus reinforcing its significance as a designator of primary genre (10:11; 22:7, 10). The prophetic character of Revelation is supported by the text itself for the Old Testament prophetic books are alluded to (though never directly quoted) nearly 300 times. “John the prophet was evidently acquainted with all that [biblical] background, for it is recognized by virtually all scholars that his work reflects a mind soaked in the OT, and his language is dominated by it” (Beasley-Murray 1997: 1026). A thorough knowledge of this conceptual background is therefore important for one to correctly understand both the content and also the purpose of this book. That purpose is clearly stated in the text’s opening paragraph. Thus, along with the moral imperative to think and behave in an appropriate way (1:3), there is the command to recognize the book’s theological authority as “the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ” (1:2; cf. 22:6-11). Further evidence in favor of an approach that views Revelation as being essentially a prophetic work – an apocalyptically-colored prophecy as it were – is the prominence given to its heavenly setting in the very throne room of God who is the source of the discourse (chs. 1, 4-5; cf. Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 1-2). In conclusion:

188

Ernst Wendland The apocalyptic-prophetic nature of Revelation can be defined as God’s revelatory interpretation (through visions and auditions) of his mysterious counsel about past, present, and future redemptive-eschatological history, and how the nature and operation of heaven relate to this. … The heavenly revelation usually runs counter to the assessment of history and values from the human, earthly perspective and therefore demands that people change and realign their views with the heavenly view. … In particular, John writes because he perceives that there is a real danger that the churches will conform to the values of the world system and not to God’s transcendent truth… (Beale 1999:38).

But as was already noted, a prominent section of epistolary discourse has been incorporated within the hybrid genre described earlier, namely, chapters 2-3, over and above the prominent external “letter frame” (1:4-5a / 22:21-22). However, the affinity of these two discourse types must be recognized, for a NT epistle will often correspond to OT prophetic works in terms of its hortatory style and content. The hermeneutical implications of this identification, if accepted, are vitally important, for it supports the position that the message of Revelation is not limited largely to the future, whether imminent or afar off; rather it has immediate here-and-now significance for believers of each and every age. This point is well stated by Beale (1999:39): The main purpose of the epistolary genre elsewhere in the NT is to address problems that have arisen in the various churches. The epistolary writers elsewhere in the NT appeal to the readers’ present and future participation and blessings in Christ as the basis for their appeals to obedience. … [T]he entire Apocalypse is not merely a futurology but also a theological psychology focusing on past and present, within which the first-century readers were to think and which was intended to alter their behavior. … Since one of the major topics of chs. 1-3 is the implications of Christ’s death and resurrection for believers living in the present, as well as the future, we would expect the same ‘already and not yet’ notions to be prevalent throughout the body of the book.

Finally, some scholars have recently pointed out that there are also a number of distinctly narrative segments in the book, which exhibit standard discourse features such as setting, atmosphere, character, dialogue, point of view, and even the development of a plot (with a climax). In fact, many of these analysts would argue that the main genre which incorporates and provides an interpretive framework for all the rest is that of a “[his]story with many narrative layers intertwined” (Saunders 2003:119): At one level, Revelation is an account of John’s visionary experiences while exiled on the island of Patmos, and especially while observing events in heaven and on earth from the exalted setting of the heavenly throne of God. The story of worship and the events that take place in the heavenly realm constitute a second, distinct, yet interrelated, level of the narrative. Revelation also tells the stories of the beast and its violent conquest of the people of God; and of Babylon, the city where Israel was both taken captive and seduced, including Babylon’s commercial and military conquests and eventual destruction. But

Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne room

189

even more than these, the Apocalypse tells the story of the revelation of Jesus Christ… His story is…the overarching drama within which the other layers of the narrative have their place (ibid.:119-120).

As the last sentence suggests, we also sense an unmistakable element of drama – of a public performance – in the book of Revelation. This dimension comes to the fore in the prominent segments of worship, liturgy, prayers, and hymnody that are interspersed throughout the text. The book as a whole is thus “punctuated with a number of liturgical or quasiliturgical [literary] forms, including amens (1:6; 19:1; 22:21), hallelujahs (19:1, 3, 4, 6), doxologies (1:5b; 4:9; 5:13-14; 7:12; 19:1), the Trisagion (i.e., 3 x “holy”; 4:8), and 16 hymns or hymnlike compositions (man antiphonal) set in heavenly throne-room scenes that provide a theological commentary on narrative developments (4:8c, 11; 5:9b-10, 12b, 13b; 7:10b, 12; 11:15b, 17-18; 12:10b-12; 15:3b-4; 16:5b-7b; 19:1-3, 4b, 6b-8)” (Aune 2003:402-3; several of these references have been corrected). The performance of liturgy then is essentially dramatic in character, and this central aspect of the message of Revelation is periodically highlighted throughout the book through reiteration of the key verb προσκυνεω ‘worship’, especially in the medial chapters that contrast the false worship of the “beasts” of this world (ch. 13) with true worship of the “Lamb” of God (ch. 14). What then is the principal genre of Revelation – the overall guiding perspective that gives us the primary, most inclusive hermeneutical framework for understanding the text? On balance, I prefer, not a singular, but a mixed, multiple perspective, namely, that of an apostolic prophecy, cast in the stylistic mold of an apocalypse, written down in a letter form, and dealing primarily with the salvation history of God’s people. Such a composite literary designation, though problematic for purists, seems to most adequately reflect the book’s main purpose, which is a forceful discourse of paraenetic exhortation and encouragement to believers living in very troubled and uncertain times. Beale, in my opinion, well captures the essence of the timeless pastoral aim that emanates from this narrative-prophetic-apocalyptic-epistolary text (Beale 1999:33, material in brackets added): John’s purpose in writing is, therefore, to encourage those not compromising with idolatry to continue in that stance and to jolt those who are compromising out of their spiritual anesthesia so that they will perceive the spiritual danger they are in and repent and become witnesses to the risen Christ as Lord. … Therefore, the focus of the book is exhortation to the church community to [worship and] witness to Christ in the midst of a compromising, idolatrous church and world. EXERCISE-11  In view of the preceding discussion, how would you classify the book of Revelation in terms of genre? Come to your own conclusion and cite some evidence to support it. What difference does this decision make to your perception, interpretation, and translation of the text? Can you give a concrete example?

190

Ernst Wendland

 What is the predominant (sub-)genre that is manifested in ch. 4, and what is your evidence for this? Can ch. 4 be considered for the purpose of discourse categorization in isolation? Explain. If not, where does the account beginning in 4:1 end?  Evaluate the following three quotations concerning the nature and purpose of Revelation, and then suggest how the observations that you agree with may affect your understanding of this book: Apocalypses exhibit a threefold function: (1) to legitimate the message (and/or the messenger) through an appeal to transcendent authorization, and (2) to create a literary surrogate of revelatory experience for hearers or readers, (3) so that the recipients of the message will be motivated to modify their views and behaviors to conform to transcendent perspectives. (Aune 2003:401) [T]hese [Jewish] apocalypses are pessimistic concerning the outcome of God’s present activity in the world; and for hope they look to the eschatological end, when God will once again intervene and defeat evil in the world. Though Revelation is often read in this manner, there are great differences, for it describes the climactic event in history as already completed – in the victory of the slain Lamb (ch. 5). At the present time, the Lamb’s victory is being worked out in the obedient suffering of his followers. (12:11; 15:2). (Johnson 1994:1126) [Revelation is] a prime example of a narrative of resistance, a work designed to create imaginative space for discourse and social practice that pose a sharp alternative to ‘empire.’ Revelation was created for oral performance amid the Eucharistic gatherings of the early Christians. In these assemblies, the Apocalypse both described and evoked worship of the Lamb who was slain as the Lord of all creation. Revelation, in fact, presents worship itself as the definitive act of Christian resistance against the idolatry and violence of Roman imperial domination. (Saunders 2003:118)

EXERCISE-12 Although we may not wish to interpret Revelation simply, or primarily, as a narrative account, we do have to make a decision as to how to handle the overt temporal framework and marking that overlays the book – whether as a strictly chronological record, or just the opposite – as an a-chronological discourse, or somewhere in between. A number of different hermeneutical perspectives have been proposed in this regard; the main positions are summarized below: a) Preterist: Revelation is understood almost exclusively in terms of a first century setting. John is talking only about the early Christian Church as it relates to the Roman Empire at that time. All of the events and prophecies of the book were fulfilled by the Fall of Jerusalem (70 AD) or shortly thereafter. b) Historicist: Revelation gives a detailed forecast of world history right up to the present time of the interpreters, who tend to adopt a Western-dominated perspective on these crucial events and stages, including, for example, the Dark Ages, the Protestant Reformation, the French Revolution, the collapse Soviet Empire, and in particular, chronic Middle Eastern turmoil. c) Futurist: From ch. 4 on, Revelation offers a programmatic scenario of what

Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne room

191

will happen at the end of the world – in particular, the events that will usher in the second coming of Christ, a temporal millennium, and the final victory of God/Christ over the forces of Satan and his human as well as demonic cohorts. d) Idealist: Revelation does not deal with real or specific events at all – past, present, or future. Rather, it portrays in a dramatic, idealistic fashion images of timeless religious relevance, that is, concepts, ideas, and warnings to God’s people of all times, e.g., his sovereign rule in human history, the ultimate triumph of good over evil, and the need to remain faithful to Christ in all of life’s trying situations. e) Ecclesiologist: Revelation, from ch. 4 on, does present a general temporal framework, one bounded on the “already” (past) side by Christ’s first coming (or his defeat of Satan and sin on the cross) and on the “not yet” (future) side by the Lord’s second coming in glory. In between these two poles, the story of Christ’s Church, essentially his rule in the hearts of believers, is figured in cyclical, or recycled, fashion – first from one perspective of testing and trial, then from another, but eventually culminating in a final, climactic struggle and a public, judicial reaffirmation of his victory over Satan and all evil.  Which chronological perspective on Revelation do you prefer and why? What are the exegetical implications of this decision concerning the book’s time setting?  What then are the translational implications of your position, say for example, on the type of transition that you see between chs. 19 and 20 – with respect to a guiding section heading and your rendering of the initial expression in 20:1 “And [then, now, next?] I saw…” (Καὶ εἶδον …)?  How do you interpret the transition between chapters 3-4: “After these things, behold, I saw…” (Μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ…)?  What would be the temporal implication of a literal rendering of the preceding expression for your primary TL audience? Is there any need to correct this impression? If not, tell why. If so, how would you do this – that is, establish an accurate temporal perspective on the throne room scene of chs. 4-5? EXERCISE-13 Evaluate the following perspective on a major theme of Revelation in relation to its possible original contextual motivation and application to a contemporary setting (from an unpublished email essay by Prof. Samuele Bacchiocchi, “The setting of Revelation and the mark of the beast” – sent to me on 20/01/2006): “…[W]orship is the central theme of Revelation. It is the key to understand much of the book. No other book of the Bible contains so many worship scenes. Time and again John is shown heavenly beings praising God (4:9; 7:12; 11:17) and serving him in his temple (7:15; 22:3). … The verb ‘to worship’, proskuneo – a fundamental liturgical term – occurs 24 times in Revelation. This represents almost half of the New Testament occurrences. … [T]he reason worship is so central in Revelation is because John was

192

Ernst Wendland shown in vision that worship is the root cause of the titanic controversy between Christ and Satan. … The first reason for the centrality and conflict over worship is to be found in the threat of Emperor Worship. By the time John put pen to paper the emperor cult had so penetrated the political and economic institutions of the Roman Empire, that it had become increasingly difficult for conscientious Christians to remain loyal to Christ. … The second reason for the centrality of worship in Revelation is John’s concern over the influence of pagan worship upon the Christian congregations of Asia Minor. We detect this concern in the messages of rebuke to six of the seven churches. … In John’s time false worship was promoted especially through the emperor cult which forced Christians to choose between Christ or Caesar. Today false worship is promoted by a variety of satanic agencies through both Christians and pagan religions.”

Granted that worship is an important aspect of the Lord’s message to his Church of every age, does this fact about Revelation have any implications for the book’s translation today – or can it be safely ignored and left up to the theologians and Bible commentators to deal with? Explain your answer.

Articulation: How was the original text proclaimed? Below the Greek text of Revelation 4 has been set out in the form of a hypothetical oratorical representation of the discourse, that is, one that is deliberately composed in anticipation of an oral articulation when the discourse is delivered. While this representation (including the various formatting devices) is highly conjectural, it is guided by the perceived interaction of a typical constellation of phonological stylistic features such as, rhythm, balance, variation for either foregrounding or backgrounding, recursive patterning (in sets of seven, especially with καὶ – initial utterances), and periodic, boundary-marking stress points. Read the text aloud and see if you agree; note the points where you would like to suggest a revision in terms of line length or a discourse break: Μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ θύρα ἠνεῳγμένη ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἡ φωνὴ ἡ πρώτη ἣν ἤκουσα ὡς σάλπιγγος λαλούσης μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ λέγων, Ἀνάβα ὧδε, καὶ δείξω σοι ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα. 1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

εὐθέως ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι, καὶ ἰδοὺ θρόνος ἔκειτο ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον καθήμενος, 3 καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ὅμοιος ὁράσει λίθῳ ἰάσπιδι καὶ σαρδίῳ, καὶ ἶρις κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου ὅμοιος ὁράσει σμαραγδίνῳ. 4 καὶ κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου θρόνους εἴκοσι τέσσαρες, καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς θρόνους εἴκοσι τέσσαρας πρεσβυτέρους καθημένους περιβεβλημένους ἐν ἱματίοις λευκοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν στεφάνους χρυσοῦς. 2

Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne room

193

καὶ ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου ἐκπορεύονται ἀστραπαὶ καὶ φωναὶ καὶ βρονταί, καὶ ἑπτὰ λαμπάδες πυρὸς καιόμεναι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου, ἅ εἰσιν τὰ ἑπτὰ πνεύματα τοῦ θεοῦ, 6 καὶ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου ὡς θάλασσα ὑαλίνη ὁμοία κρυστάλλῳ. 5

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Καὶ ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ κύκλῳ τοῦ θρόνου τέσσαρα ζῷα γέμοντα ὀφθαλμῶν ἔμπροσθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν. 7 καὶ τὸ ζῷον τὸ πρῶτον ὅμοιον λέοντι καὶ τὸ δεύτερον ζῷον ὅμοιον μόσχῳ καὶ τὸ τρίτον ζῷον ἔχων τὸ πρόσωπον ὡς ἀνθρώπου καὶ τὸ τέταρτον ζῷον ὅμοιον ἀετῷ πετομένῳ. 8 καὶ τὰ τέσσαρα ζῷα, ἓν καθ᾽ ἓν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ, κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν, καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντες, Ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

καὶ ὅταν δώσουσιν τὰ ζῷα δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ εὐχαριστίαν τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, 10 πεσοῦνται οἱ εἴκοσι τέσσαρες πρεσβύτεροι ἐνώπιον τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων καὶ βαλοῦσιν τοὺς στεφάνους αὐτῶν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου λέγοντες, 11 Ἄξιος εἶ, ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, λαβεῖν τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν, ὅτι σὺ ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ τὸ θέλημά σου ἦσαν καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν. 9

EXERCISE-14  Evaluate the preceding discourse as it has been displayed: What do you think of its aural potential and structural credibility – e.g., with respect to the poetic lineation based on the sequence of καὶs? What about the additional complex formatting for v. 11? Where would you propose that changes be made, and why?

194

Ernst Wendland

 What does the phonological organization suggest about the composition itself in terms of genre?  Do you feel that the text is more poetic or prosaic in nature, and why?  Do you detect any special thematic significance or rhetorical emphasis at points where the sound pattern appears to deviate noticeably from expectations? Describe what you observe (hear!) in this respect – and suggest what significance this may have in relation to the surrounding cotext.  What are the translational implications of your phonological analysis of this pericope, for example, those passages that seem to make a special rhythmic impression? How can you render this text with equal phonic appeal and impact in YL? Make some suggestions – with examples.  As you think about translating this passage into YL, consider the following advice (from Thomas and Thomas 2006:71-72). Do you agree with everything that is said? Pick out one or two of these observations by oral-translation specialists and tell how they can help you prepared a more oral-aural-sensitive version in YL. Give an actual example, if possible. Making a translation particularly for oral presentation requires special attention to the needs of listeners. Orality is primarily about sound. Clues for understanding and emotional appeal are communicated through sound. While it is true that signals for some sound qualities are rarely recoverable from anything written (e.g., volume), others are strongly signaled through the written text (e.g., repetition, rhythm) and still others are indicated by the context (e.g., tone of voice). Effective oral communication is also highly structured. The hearer needs to be able to remember what was said through what has been heard. The structure that provides the framework for memorability need not be simple and is often highly complex. Predominantly literate peoples may stereotype orality as simplicity, perhaps even connecting it with lack of education or intelligence; they should be reminded of those prized, highly refined literary treasures around the globe that are primarily recited orally, including by persons who do not have reading skills.

Disjunction: How is the discourse demarcated into segments? Here we look for likely break points in the pericope, which may be defined as a distinct, “meaningful” (cognitively enriching, coherent, relevant, etc.) unit of written discourse. Such breaks in the text are normally marked by shifts in form, content, setting, speaker, and/or function; the more there are at a given point, the stronger the perceived disjunction. Temporal, spatial, or logical transitional expressions and conjunctions also serve to signal the beginning of a new compositional unit – a paragraph in prose, a strophe (stanza) in poetry. In addition, the prominent close of one section, e.g., by means of an emphatic quote of direct speech, automatically distinguishes the following passage as being the onset of a new structural unit. The distinct discourse segments of a text normally combine with one another to form a hierarchically-integrated

Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne room

195

structure, with smaller portions being included within larger ones to comprise the compositional whole, which is naturally greater in sense and significance than the sum of its constituent parts, considered as isolated units. Uncertain or ambiguous cases normally appear in the analysis of a given text – that is, where one cannot be sure whether or not a substantial break (pause) in the passage occurs. But such debatable points can often be resolved on the basis of recurrent patterns that are developed over large stretches of discourse produced by the same author (speaker). The broad compositional patterns of a text often vary according to the literary genre from one language to the next, hence the importance of this feature to Bible translators, who will usually be seeking to approximate a natural, easy-tofollow manner of expression (especially vocally!) in their language. Well-formed sentences (utterances) alone are not sufficient however; translators must be able to render unified paragraph (strophic) and larger units in the TL, for this provides a vital conceptual framework for the interpretation of a text – and also acts as an essential guide to its oral articulation and aural comprehension. Analyzing the textual segmentation of Revelation presents special challenges because its author does not always observe the normal rules of koine Greek composition, for example, in his predilection for formal patterns of seven. This produces a lot of variation in the standard English (French, Spanish, German, etc.) versions, as a quick perusal of several translations quickly indicates. What are translators to do in such cases – when the most standard or dependable versions fail to provide an answer, or when commentaries and other resources do not agree either on a single demarcation of the passage at hand? Determining the “majority opinion” is one solution; simply choosing a single traditional version to follow is much less reliable. But it is helpful for translators to be able to analyze the original text themselves so that they can make a more informed, and defensible, decision in this matter, which, as suggested, must also be guided by the normal patterns of composition in the TL, according to the discourse genre concerned. EXERCISE-15  Identify the segments (paragraphs) into which the Greek text given above has been divided.  How many standard translations that you regularly consult when translating agree with this segmentation of Revelation 4? Do these versions seem to agree, more or less, with a different demarcation of this pericope? If so, outline that particular structural organization (give the verses that comprise each text constituent).  What textual evidence appears to support the structure given above, that is, with breaks indicated at verses 2, 6b, and 9 (note the dotted lines)?  If you wish to propose a modified structure for Revelation 4, give your reasons for doing so – based on the major points of disjunction that you have identified in the text.

196

Ernst Wendland

 So, what difference does it make, as far as the Bible translator (or even the preacher) is concerned, how the original text is divided up? Give an example from Rev. 4 to support your answer.

Recursion: What syntagmatic and paradigmatic patterns appear? Recursion, which may be exact (repetition) or synonymous (restatement), is perhaps the single most important literary feature in biblical discourse, whether Hebrew or Greek, prose or poetry. Distinctive examples of phonological, morphological, lexical, and syntactic recursion may be manifested syntagmatically (in an adjacent or proximate sequential position) or paradigmatically (the analogous or associated instances being spatially removed from one another). Recursion thereby acts to create diverse bonds of cohesion within a segment of text, thus reinforcing its integrity and the unity of message being conveyed. Paradigmatic recursion is also used by the biblical writers to construct different patterns of formal correspondence – parallels that serve to mark the boundaries (the beginning and end points) of distinct discourse units both within a passage and without, that is, defining the outer borders of the pericope under study. Literary analysts designate the various kinds of recursion by different terms, but for our purpose it is not the particular forms of classification that is important, but rather the various functions which they perform in the text – that is, communicative goals that need to be reproduced in any translation, whether by repetition itself, or by some suitable rhetorical device in the TL. Some of the notable instances of recursion to be found in Rev. 4 are listed below, along with a brief description of their ostensible function within this pericope (some of these occurrences have been marked in the format of the Greek text displayed above): • The prominent sequence of (usually) utterance-initial καὶ-s acts as the structural backbone and rhythmic foundation of this pericope (as elsewhere in the book of Revelation). • Μετὰ ταῦτα (“After these things” – i.e., “Here’s the next vision…”), found at the beginning and ending of v. 1, forms an inclusio that demarcates this as the introduction to the throne room vision. Note that there is some disagreement among scholars as to where v. 1 ends, that is, either before or after the second occurrence of μετὰ ταῦτα (cf. Omanson 2006:530). Where would you place the break – and why? (This decision will affect the analysis of the next instance of recursion below.) • The mention of πνεύμα in v. 2 and v. 5b creates a minor inclusio on the borders of paragraph 2. This literary correspondence has possible exegetical implications by identifying the ambiguous “spirit” of v. 2 as referring to the same Nearly ¾ of the sentences of Revelation begin with καὶ (Aune 1997:270). Thus, where it does not appear (the absence of an expected form) may mark a point of significance in the discourse, as at the beginning of v. 2, the onset of a new paragraph. Elsewhere in chapter 4 the omission of καὶ announces a unit-concluding segment of direct speech (vv. 1b, 8b, 11b) and may also indicate background descriptions (e.g., vv. 5b, 6b, 8a, 9b).



Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne room

•

•

•

•

197

divine being who is associated with “the seven spirits of God” (v. 5), i.e., the Holy Spirit. The key word θρόνος (“throne”) is of clear thematic significance, for it occurs throughout this pericope, from beginning (v. 2) to end (v. 10b), but with a special concentration (9x) in paragraph 2 (vv. 2-6a). “Throne” appears in the nominative case only on its first occurrence, when it is preceded by ἰδοὺ (“behold!” – v. 2; cf. a similar construction at the onset of v. 1, i.e., anaphora). Otherwise, the term takes the case of its preceding preposition (the only exception being at the onset of paragraph 3 in v. 6b, when “throne” is in the genitive following the prepositional phrase ἐν μέσῳ –“in [the] middle of”). Reference to an important participant group of this vision – namely, ζῷον / ζῷα “living creature(s)” creates a cohesive bond in paragraph 3 (vv. 6b-8). The plural form introduces this exalted order of heavenly beings in v. 6b, and it occurs again by way of structural anaphora at the onset of paragraph 4 (v. 9). The doxology that marks the climactic close of paragraph 3 (v. 9) begins with the emphatic Trisagion “Holy, holy, holy!” (Ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος), with obvious reference to Isaiah’s corresponding vision of God’s throne room (Isa. 6:3). The last paragraph includes several notable instances of chiastic recursion that form a thematic inclusio and contribute to the sense of “end stress” that is manifested here at the close:

A “glory and honor” (9a) B “to the one who sits on the throne and lives forever” (9b) B’ “before the one who sits on the throne…to the one who lives forever” (10a) A’ “[the] glory and [the] honor” (11a) Finally, to conclude the pericope (11b): C “you – you created” D “all things” C’ “and through your will they came into being and were created!” (added length foregrounds C’)

In closing, we might note also several crucial instances of intratextual recursion that tie the present throne room scene into the discourse that has preceded it in Revelation: • The key image of a “throne” (θρόνος) noted above (4:2) occurs twice in the passage that rounds out the previous pericope (3:21) and the major discourse unit that covers chs. 2-3. This instance of structural anadiplosis functions both to link the two pericopes together and to announce, or foreshadow, the latter text at the end of the former (cf. also the corresponding mention of a “door” θύρα in 4:1 and 3:20). This reiteration of “throne” also connects the scene of ch. 4 with that of the book’s opening vision (1:4; cf. also the “seven spirits/sevenfold Spirit before the throne” in this verse as well as in 4:5). • Our supposition that the vision of ch. 4 is a resumption of the one that opened the book is reinforced by several important examples of reiteration that appear

198

Ernst Wendland at the beginning of this pericope, for example: the emphasis upon physical sight (“I saw,” “I will show,” “behold!,” “in appearance” – 4:1-3; cf. 1:2, 11-12, 17, 19-20); also the reference to hearing (“And the voice I [had] first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said…” – 4:1; cf. 1:3, 10, 12, 15-16).

Recursion, whether exact or synonymous, never appears gratuitously in the Scriptures; rather, it always has some formal (structural), semantic (thematic), or pragmatic (e.g., esthetic, emotive, relational, ritual) function to perform within the text at hand – and often beyond. EXERCISE-16  Evaluate the evidence for significant instances of recursion that has been presented in this section. Do you have any corrections to suggest? If so, be sure to give your reasons, based on the actual text.  Do you have any additional examples to offer? (Give these forms as well as their apparent discourse functions.)  Does all the repetition that we find in ch. 4 (e.g., “throne,” “living creature[s]”) sound natural in YL? If not, point out those instances that you would eliminate. Who/ what in particular does most of this lexical recursion serve to emphasize? Explain your answer. Is the same communicative effect apparent by a more or less literal rendition in YL? If not, what might be done to compensate for the loss of focus?  Is it clear in your translation that the two expressions ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος (v. 8d) and τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ (v. 9b; cf. 2a) refer to one and the same person? Does the added attribution τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων (v. 9c) help in this regard? If not, what can you do in YL to clarify this essential reference?

Accentuation: How is the text artistically and rhetorically heightened? The typical biblical text is accentuated by a diverse array of literary devices that may be broadly classified as being more or less artistic (focus on formal embellishment or semantic heightening) or rhetorical (focus on pragmatic persuasion). The feature of parallelism, for example (cf. “recursion” above), is especially prominent in Hebrew poetry, but as our study of Rev. 4 has indicated, it is also frequently manifested in prose texts (poetic prose). Other important techniques, such as rhetorical questions, figurative language (especially metaphor and simile), hyperbole, irony, word order manipulation, direct speech, and the use of intensive devices (e.g., full pronouns, deictic pointing, non-finite verbal predicates, exclamations, etc.), may be found in just about any type of discourse. These special stylistic forms, especially when combined, are variously employed in Scripture to reinforce the beginning (aperture) or end point (closure) of distinct text units, to highlight items of particular interest or concern to the author, and/or to draw attention to some major point of climax (emotive/pragmatic) or peak (thematic/structural) within the composition.

Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne room

199

As the preceding analysis has indicated, Rev. 4 is a discourse that is dominated by several different types of recursion. But a number of other important accentuating or foregrounding devices are also present, as listed below: • Use of the pragmatic deictic particle ἰδοὺ (“look!”) calls attention to a new visionary scene (in this case resumed from the end of ch. 1) – first from a more general perspective: “a door standing open in heaven” (v. 1a), and then more specific: “a throne standing in heaven” (2a). The listener’s perspective is then deftly shifted to “someone seated on the throne” (2b). • Dramatic suspense is created when the identity of this obviously focal personage in heaven is not immediately revealed, as would be expected in an ordinary narrative description. Interestingly enough, the throne, as noted above, is kept in the see-er’s vision throughout the episode, as is the scenery around the throne (vv. 3b-8a). But the person occupying that crucial place is not identified by the prophetic speaker, though he is picturesquely described (v. 3a) and referred to indirectly only as the “one who is seated on the throne” (vv. 9-10). • At last the central divine character is revealed – not by the speaker, John, but by the heavenly host – and significantly, in the form of direct discourse (vv. 8b, 11a). This person is none other than “the Lord God Almighty” (κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ) – the eternal YHWH, “the one who was, and who is, and who is coming” (ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος). The Deity being identified by these praise epithets is further spotlighted at the very end of the pericope through additional attribution set within direct address: “…because you-you [are the one who] created all things…” (11b). The stage has thus been carefully set for the vivid disclosure of ch. 5, when the identity of God the Creator is merged with that of “the Lamb who was slain” – implied: Jesus the Christ – the Son and God are indivisibly one! This is indeed a masterful use of descriptive perspective and the manipulation of conceptual frames of reference to enhance the progressive, hence more impact-generating, articulation of one of Revelation’s supreme theological truths. • As part of the build-up within the dramatic interlude before the great revelation (to John, and us) of the one who occupies the throne, there are many graphic images that appeal to the sense of sight (e.g., a brilliant aura “of jasper and carnelian” – v. 3, an emerald-colored “rainbow” – 3, 24 elders seated on thrones and “dressed in white with crowns of gold on their heads” – 4, “flashes of lightning” – 5, “seven blazing lamps” – 5, a great “sea of crystal” – 6) along with several references to attention-getting sound (e.g., the sound of a “trumpet” – 1 and “rumbling thunder” – 5). The effect of all this diverse imagery is to evoke a dynamically rich, kaleidoscopic frame that surrounds the enduring throne in the middle of view and the focal personage sitting upon it – whom we never do see at all. Most surprising of all in this remarkable angelic scene are those fantastic “four living creatures” (τέσσαρα ζῷα) – with their “six wings” and manifold “eyes” – which surround the heavenly throne and momentarily divert our attention from the One who sits there (vv. 6b-8). They are not security guards of course (why would the Lord need to be protected?), but seem to be chosen worship leaders, who in their ceaseless chorus of praise also disclose the God who alone is “worthy” to be so exalted (v. 11).

200

Ernst Wendland • Brilliant syntactic balance and an equally captivating poetic appeal are displayed in the beasts’ enthusiastic utterance of acclamation at the end of v. 8. Each line of the tricolon consists of three parallel segments, in probable allusion to the triune God who is being magnified (“Spirit” – v. 2a, “Lord” [Christ], and “God Almighty” – v. 8): Ἅγιος – ἅγιος – ἅγιος κύριος – ὁ θεὸς – ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ἦν – καὶ ὁ ὢν – καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. This hymn is the first of five that punctuate the vision of chs. 4-5, also anticipating many similar paeans that distinguish similar throne room scenes throughout the book (4:11; 5:9-10, 12, 13; 7:12, 15-17; 11:15, 17-18; 12:10-12; 15:3-4; 16:5-7; 18:2-8; 19:2-6). These poetic inserts not only lend a perceptible level of stability and cohesion to the rapidly changing vistas of the text, but they also serve as an important hermeneutical framework by offering fervent reflections on the theological significance of the visions in which they are embedded. • Metzger notes only one major text-critical issue in Rev. 4, that is, concerning the seemingly awkward verb ἦσαν in v. 11: “The difficulty of the text (where we might have expected the sequence ἐκτίσθησαν καὶ ἦσαν) was alleviated in several witnesses either by reading οὐκ ἦσαν or by omitting ἦσαν καὶ” (1994:665). Metzger gives the present UBS4 text an “A” rating. A literary argument supports this reading, namely, one based on the presence of an accentuating device in the current text. Thus, here at the end of the pericope, the author concludes the closing paean of praise with an emphatic epexegetical καὶ: “And by your will they existed – yes, they were created!” (cf. Aune 1997:269). The final verb ἐκτίσθησαν is anticipated phonologically by the active form ἔκτισας at the start of the sentence and by ἦσαν at the end of the preceding line.

EXERCISE-17  After completing your own discourse analysis of this text, point out any other artistic or rhetorical features that have not been mentioned in the preceding description. How do these serve to accentuate the account? How can these be best rendered in YL? Point out any special problem areas and discuss these in class.  Which are the principal speech acts that occur in ch. 4? How do you recognize these as such; how are they marked? Do these SAs need to be signaled in a special way in YL? Explain.  Do you observe a distinct climax of emotion in ch. 4? If so, where does this occur, and what are the markers of climax that you feel are most prominent here? Do such “communication clues” operate in the same way in YL? If not, what functional substitutes can you propose?  What about a peak of thematic significance? Or do you conclude that these two potential high points in the discourse, the emotive climax and thematic peak, happen to coincide in this pericope? Explain.

Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne room

201

EXERCISE-18  Do your scholarly resources point out any other text critical issues in Rev. 4 that need to be considered? If so, summarize the most important of these and suggest, in addition to the normal arguments in such cases, one that is based on the results of a literary (artistic-rhetorical) analysis.  If you cannot find another case study, try this one: In v. 6 “the phrase ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ θρόνου, lit. ‘in the midst of the throne’, is problematic because it is followed by the phrase κύκλῳ τοῦ θρόνου, ‘and around the throne’. The two phrases are apparently in tension, for it is not at all clear how the four cherubim can be both ‘in the midst’ and ‘around’ the throne at the same time” (Aune 1997:271).

Consequently, some commentators (and versions?) propose omitting the initial ‘in the midst of the throne’ as a gloss of some type, though it certainly does not clarify the text and thus the original is by far the harder reading. Do you see anything in John’s distinctive structure and style of writing in Revelation that would further support the present Greek text? EXERCISE-19  What about formulating an appropriate section heading for the discourse unit beginning in ch. 4? Evaluate the suggestion given in the UBS Translator’s Handbook (Paratext 6 version): TEV “Worship in Heaven.” Other possible headings include: “A vision of God on his throne in heaven,” “A vision of God being worshiped in heaven,” “John sees God on his throne in heaven,” or “John sees God sitting on his high chief chair in heaven.”

 Do you have a better alternative to offer? If so, explain your wording. How does such a section heading serve to create an appropriate conceptual frame of reference for the following section of text?  How do you go about the process of identifying and formulating such “relevant” titles for the various discourse units that occur in your translation? What is your methodology? (Discuss different options.) EXERCISE-20 Text critics and commentators alike have noted, with some consternation, the roughcast style that is manifested in the book of Revelation – normally attributing this to the low-level literary skills of its unknown author, who “is often ungrammatical and uses barbarous idioms” (Beasley-Murray 1997:1032): “The Greek of Revelation is the most peculiar Greek in the NT, in part because it exhibits interference from Semitic languages. ... The Greek of Revelation is not only difficult and awkward, but it also contains many lexical and syntactical features that no native speaker of Greek would have written” (Aune 1997:clxii, cxcix).

202

Ernst Wendland

But could there be another explanation for this seemingly inferior and deficient use of language – could the text in fact be deliberately “defamiliarized” as a comprehensive rhetorical technique that realizes an important hermeneutical objective? That is what Saunders proposes as a crucial aspect of what he terms the author’s “discursive tactics” (2003:135), which fall into three general categories: a) Genre bending: “Revelation ‘transgresses’ prior rules, offering its audience multiple generic options and interpretations from which to choose, thereby ‘providing more room for the reader to participate in the production of its meanings’ ” (Saunders 2003:127, citing G. Linton). b) Idiolect creation: “John is intentionally speaking an ‘idiolect,’ an artifice that employs grammatical transgressions as part of an attempt to alter the collective consciousness of its audience. … John intentionally adopts and decolonizes the (Greek) language of the (Roman) colonizer. … The effect of John’s peculiar dialect…is to tell the story of Jesus in the language the people heard everyday, but to speak this language with an alien inflection and alternative meanings” (ibid:131). c) Scenic dislocation: “Revelation’s visionary movement carries the audience back and forth between heavenly and earthly realms, blurring both temporal and spatial orientations in the process. … Amid the shifts and the dislocations that follow [4:1 – note this pivotal point in the text, ew] throughout the book, the narrative reconstructs the audience’s perspectives on reality (1) by reorienting the audience to a different defining center of identity and power; (2) by affirming that human perception of time and space is partial and limited … (5) by articulating a new vision of where the creation is headed” (ibid:135-136).

 Evaluate the significance and possible relevance of Saunders’ observations and conclusions – that is, with regard to how the style and use of language creates a unique cognitive frame of reference which is essential for the book’s interpretation.  Does such a stylistic and compositional evaluation, whether positive or negative, have any implications for the translation of Revelation in YL? If so, what are these? (Give an example or two.)

Varied intertextual notes and chords resound in Revelation 4 (5) [W]e have seen that John’s use of the Old Testament is not a matter of plucking phrases at random out of contexts, but consists in careful and deliberate exegesis of whole passages (Bauckham 1993:246).

Strictly speaking, intertextuality – the deliberate use of one text within another – is another important literary feature (a type of recursion, as noted above), one that every author (or orator) depends on, but due to its ubiquity in Revelation, it is considered here as a special topic. Commentators differ on exactly which OT and extra-biblical texts they see alluded to in the various visions, but they all agree that a great many are involved, originating primarily (and not surprisingly) from the Psalms and the four “major” prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. Thus the massive For a handy listing of “Old Testament and other texts alluded to in Revelation,” see Rowland (1998:737-743). 

Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne room

203

intertextuality that constitutes the warp and woof of this book naturally has an important bearing on its interpretation – intimating, in the first place, that the text offers a prophetic perspective and message for God’s people in the here-and-now across the generations of time, not for some ill-defined audience living in the unrealized, far-away future. When it comes to specifics, however, the task of identifying the various intertextual threads is not so easy, as a close, comparative glance at any two scholarly commentaries quickly reveals. This is because John does not appear to cite the OT directly, or exactly – whether from the Hebrew text or that of the LXX Greek – and never do we find diagnostic quotative markers, such as, “as it is written,” “this was done, that it might be fulfilled,” or anything similar. His interpretation and use of the received Scriptures is thus covert and not explicit but perhaps, since he does not view himself as “the author” of the text he is writing, this lack of attribution is not surprising. Rather, his message is viewed, in its entirety, as being “the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ” (1:2), who commands “his servant John” exactly what to “write” of the things he sees and hears (1:11, 19; 2:1). Due to its varied, but untraceable intertextuality, the prophecy evokes an ever-current intimation of its own relevance and is, in effect, self-renewing in essence, despite the fact that it is comprised of so many familiar words, images, and ideas that have been culled from the former Testament to God’s people. Revelation is, for all God’s people, Apocalypse now – not just then (whether past or future)! Beale categorizes the use of the OT in Revelation into three types of allusion: “clear allusion: the wording is almost identical to the OT source…; probable allusion: [where]…the wording is not as close [but]…still contains an idea or wording that is uniquely traceable to the OT text…; [and] possible allusion: the language is only generally similar to the purported source…” (1999:78). But again, rather than getting too involved in matters of formal distinction, for us a more important consideration would be that of communicative function: What is the point and purpose of all this intertextuality operating so prominently throughout the book of Revelation? What sort of an interpretive frame of reference does it provide? What is the thematic or pragmatic impact of any prominent OT textual element (word, phrase, idea, etc.) on the present text of Revelation? In my opinion, Beale provides a credible answer (1999:96-97): Perhaps one reason for the high degree of OT influence in the Apocalypse is that the author could think of no better way to describe some of his visions than with language used by the OT prophets to describe similar visions. … [T]he place of the OT in the formation of thought in the Apocalypse is that of both a servant and a guide: for John the Christ-event is the key to understanding the OT, and yet reflection on the OT context leads the way to further comprehension of this event and provides the redemptive-historical background against which the apocalyptic visions are better understood; the New Testament interprets the Old and the Old interprets the New.

Beale has made a detailed study of Rev. 4-5 in relation to the influence of possible

204

Ernst Wendland

OT intertextual pre-texts and concludes that the most consistent and comprehensive background is that which is supplied by Daniel 7. His list of likely correspondences is indeed impressive (1999:314-315; cf. Pattemore 2003:107, 205-208): • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

introductory vision phraseology (Dan. 7:9 [cf. 7:2, 6-7]; Rev. 4:1) a throne(s) set in heaven (Dan. 7:9a; Rev. 4:2a [cf. 4:4a]) God sitting on a throne (Dan. 7:9b; Rev. 4:2b) God’s appearance on the throne (Dan. 7:9c; Rev. 4:3a) fire before the throne (Dan. 7:9d-10a; Rev. 4:5) heavenly servants surrounding the throne (Dan. 7:10b; Rev. 4:4b, 6b-10; 5:8, 11, 14) book(s) before the throne (Dan. 7:10c; Rev. 5:1ff.) the book(s) opened (Dan. 7:10d; Rev. 5:2-5, 9) a divine (messianic) figure approaching God’s throne to receive authority to reign forever over a kingdom (Dan. 7:13-14a; Rev. 5:5b-7, 9a, 12-13) the kingdom’s scope: “all peoples, nations, and tongues” (Dan. 7:14a [MT]; Rev. 5:9b) the seer’s emotional distress on account of the vision (Dan. 7:16; Rev. 5:5a) the seer’s reception of heavenly counsel concerning the vision from one of the heavenly throne servants (Dan. 7:16; Rev. 5:5a) the saints given divine authority to reign over a kingdom (Dan. 7:18, 22, 27a; Rev. 5:10) concluding mention of God’s eternal reign (Dan. 7:27b; Rev. 5:13-14)

EXERCISE-21  Check out a selection of the correspondences between Daniel 7 and Revelation 4-5 that have been proposed above: How strong or credible does the intertextual resonance seem for you? Point out any weak or doubtful cases.  If you agree with Beale’s proposal, how much actual “meaning” is contributed by Daniel 7 (its text and context) to Revelation 4-5? Must the semantic and associative significance of the pre-text be “translated” along with the rest of the present text? If so, how can this best be done? What does this intertextual relationship tell us about the structural integrity of the pericope of Rev. 4-5 as a thematic unit?  Ezekiel 1-2 is also a possible source for the OT prophetic-eschatological voice in Rev. 4-5. Examine these two chapters to see if you can find some likely intertextual pre-texts. In you opinion, are these weaker or stronger than the ones that have been specified from Dan.7? What are your criteria for determining this?  Do hermeneutical conclusions such as the following contradict, disprove, modify, or augment Beale’s thesis regarding intertextual influence in Rev. 4-5? (Explain your answer.) John’s depictions of these figures [i.e., the ones mentioned in 4:4-9] are apparently meant to be multivalent, allusive, and elusive. The description of the four living beings

Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne room

205

near the throne of God is a conflated vision drawn from the throne scenes in Ezek. 1:4-21 and Isaiah 6. (Saunders 2003:144)

EXERCISE-22 Evaluate the following conclusion concerning the implications of the paratactic compositional style of Revelation in relation to its manifold intertextuality: All interpretation is a matter of probabilities and possibilities, and this was no less true with John’s use of the OT. The juxtaposition of texts or ideas that are seemingly incompatible interpretively is likely to be viewed as part of John’s overall Semitic style: it is an expression of Semitic paratactic thinking, which allowed him to set in close proximity two different, and sometimes seemingly contradictory, ideas of a word, without the discomfort experienced by twentieth-century readers; the broader context usually resolved the tension when parataxis was used in the OT. (Beale 1999:99)

 Perhaps the mental process of “resolving the tension” referred to above might be elaborated on by relevance theorists from the perspective of “shared cognitive contexts” and the “principle of relevance,” while cognitive linguists might add some insights based on “mental space theory” and the hypothesis of conceptual “blends.” A challenging textual case study to test such theories would be an exposition of prominent aspects of the throne room scene of Rev. 4 in relation to possible correspondents in the visions of Isaiah (6) and Ezekiel (1-2). Which of the latter two seem uppermost in John’s mind as he looks past that open door into the heavenly scenario that is revealed to him (4:1)?  What are the most salient implications of such intertextual studies for Bible translators? Give an example of how some of this information might be included in a translation that you are working with. EXERCISE-23 Comment on the hermeneutical significance of the substantial use of intertextual allusion in Rev. 4 as a “frame of reference” that guides listeners towards an understanding of the relevance of what is being described in the heavenly throne room vision. Evaluate the following perspective on this issue as you consider it in relation to Rev. 4 and suggest a way of conveying such essential background information to the receptors of audio and visual presentations of the biblical text: In Revelation 4, with its obvious indebtedness to Ezekiel and Isaiah, the ancient scriptures provide the medium whereby John enters the door of perception to see, hear, and communicate the divine mysteries. … Revelation is not an exegesis, a conscious attempt by the sophisticated scholar to offer a precise interpretation of the biblical text. It is an interpretation – but it comes through the use of Scripture as the medium of fresh apocalyptic insight. This is evident in every line of Revelation, where words and images of Scripture are subtly transformed, elements from earlier texts are dropped, and others are emphasized. … Revelation licenses imagination and insight and the use of Scripture as the vehicle of new insight. (Rowland 1998:595)

206

Ernst Wendland

 What “new insight” did you gain from the preceding study of Rev. 4 – with special reference to the translation and communication of this passage in your language and cultural setting? Compare the different responses to this question in a group discussion.  On the other hand, is there some other subject that came up during your study that has not been considered in sufficient detail – or questions that arose that have not been answered? Bring all such matters up in a final class discussion concerning the results of your joint text-analysis of Revelation 4.

9. Sharpening John’s vision for contemporary Chewa text auditors Having completed a discourse analysis (albeit rather cursory) of the context, the cotext, the intertext, and the biblical text itself, we are ready to communicate Revelation 4 to a new, contemporary audience, one that is very different from the people who shared the same language, religious perspective, historical setting, and wider conceptual frame of reference as did the original author. In short, the question now is: How clearly does the Seer’s vision appear (sound) for see-ers (hearers) today? The emphasis is on listeners rather than readers because that is how most text consumers appropriate the Scriptures throughout the world today, especially in regions where the level of functional literacy is low, as in south-central Africa.

The current communication setting of the text In reply to the question above, one could justifiably ask: How intelligible was the Apocalypse then to those whom “John” had in mind as he penned this text on behalf of the Lord? While this query cannot be answered with any certainty, one can take for granted that readers and hearers of Revelation 4 around 100 AD had considerably more background information (“encyclopedic knowledge”) to assist them in the task of interpretation. Thus, not only were they familiar with the common koine Greek language, but presumably they also grasped the significance of much, if not most, of the scenery and imagery that comprises such a large portion of the discourse – a royal throne room, to begin with, and all that surrounded it in the heavenly scenario so fleetingly depicted: a loud “trumpet,” “the appearance of jasper and carnelian,” “24 (the specific number) elders,” the “crowns of gold on their heads,” “7 (the specific number) lamps,” perhaps even “the sea of glass.” Other aspects of the vision might be more problematic for them – like “the four living creatures…covered with eyes…[with] six wings,” and the wings too “covered with eyes all around.” Early audiences would have also been in touch with many of the intertextual threads that comprise the fabric of this discourse, especially the keynoting choruses of verses 8 and 11. All this cognitive and emotive information was most likely a prominent part of the religious tapestry and literary-liturgical tradition that was alive and well – hence most relevant – when Revelation was first composed and circulated in oral (primarily) and written form. However, this dense conceptual reservoir of “meaning” in terms of primary textual explicatures (expressible as logical propositions) and context-generated implicatures is not immediately available or accessible to many contemporary audience groups. Weber provides a clear discussion of the difference between grammatical-semantic explicatures and inference-driven pragmatic implicatures from the perspective of Relevance Theory (2005:1516), including the following pair of formulas: 

EXPLICATURE: FORM + CONTENT  grammar+semantics+enrichment (e.g., disambiguation, referent identification)  EXPLICATURE IMPLICATURE: EXPLICATURE + CONTEXT = inference  INTERPRETATION

208

Ernst Wendland

The situation thus presents Bible translators with a formidable communication barrier, or intelligibility gap, one that must be bridged in some way for the book of Revelation, chapters 4-5 in particular, to convey a corresponding measure of significance – including sense, interest, impact, appeal, and application – today. Every translation project is somehow unique of course, and the different cognitive, sociocultural, organizational, situational, and textual frames of contextual reference must be carefully considered by planners as they endeavor to develop a functionally relevant job commission (Brief) for a particular target audience. This includes the primary communicative goal (Skopos) that the version under study is intended to achieve within the community (i.e., a Functionalist perspective; cf. Wilt 2003:43-80), for example, as a primarily liturgical, common-language, literary, audio, or visual version. In this opening section, we will consider a little translation “case study” that is based on a modern version of the Bible in the Chewa language (technically referred to as Chichewa in Malawi, but as Cinyanja in Zambia). How do mother-tongue speakers presently hear and read this text in comparison with the other major translation that is available – and is there room yet for a third rendition? What needs to be done to create a more adequate frame of conceptual reference in order to facilitate understanding and application (Scripture “life-engagement”)? The following is a partial overview of the situational setting for this most recent translation: Chichewa Buku Loyera (BY – “Holy Book,” published 1997) Sociocultural frames: Producers: A periodically changing cast of mother-tongue Malawian translators comprised the three-man translation team (2 Presbyterian pastors and a Roman Catholic priest) during the course of its three decades of production (mid 1960s to mid 1990s). They were advised by a succession of UBS translation consultants over the years along with a number of individual reviewers and review committees, consisting of both clergy and also lay members, Africans as well as expatriates (but only a few women), representing most of the major church bodies in Malawi and Zambia, the main-line Protestant denominations in particular. Chichewa is the national language of Malawi (spoken by over 75% of the population, ca. 9 million) and one of seven “official” Bantu languages of Zambia (“Cinyanja” is used as a first or second language by some 40% of the population, particularly in the capital city and the region bordering Malawi, ca. 2.5 million). It is also spoken by perhaps 20% of the people living in westcentral Mozambique and northeastern Zimbabwe, again largely in border areas (ca. 1 million). In both Malawi and Zambia, English is the language of government, general commerce, big business, the major media, and most educational institutions (all except the lower primary grades). The Chewa people are traditionally a matrilineal and matrilocal – but patriarchal – African society, who in pre-Independence years (prior to 1964) were primarily rural subsistence agriculturalists, supplementing their income through small livestock management, hunting, and/or fishing. Since Independence there

Sharpening John’s vision for contemporary Chewa text auditors has been rapid urbanization and the development of small businesses and local industries, though Malawi, and to a lesser extent also Zambia, remain by UN standards one of the poorest nations in the world. Literacy levels are relatively low (ca. 60%--Malawi, 70%--Zambia), but the overt profession of Christianity is correspondingly high (ca. 60%--Malawi [30% Islam], 70%--Zambia [5% Islam]). Sad to say, the HIV infection rate is also seriously high, ranging from 20-30% of the general population – more in urban, less in the rural areas of both countries. Consumers: The principal audience target group may be broadly described as young-adult (i.e., 20-35 years of age), mother-tongue speakers of Chichewa who have had an average grade seven level of education and at least a year of basic Christian instruction. In addition, the special comprehension needs of mature women, second-language speakers, speakers of various dialects of Chichewa, and non-Christians were also taken into consideration by the translation team. Organizational frames: Churches: Two old “missionary versions” were in widespread use at the time of the new translation, the Buku Lopatulika (BL – “Sacred Book”, 1923) for Protestants and the Malembo Oyera (MO – “Holy Writings”, 1966) for Catholics. Both versions are of the formal correspondence variety, the MO somewhat less so, and they “read” with a heavy foreign, sometimes archaic, accent. However, many older theologically conservative Protestant denominations were/are not convinced of the need for a modern translation (BY) and therefore do not support it. Newer, “evangelical” churches are much more positive in their attitude towards the BY. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has stopped reprinting the MO and have adopted the Deuterocanonical edition of the BY completely for all purposes, formal (public worship) as well as informal (personal devotions). The fact of having two widely used, ecclesiastically “mutually exclusive,” Bibles in existence at the start of the BY project meant that a compromise had to be reached with regard to the usage of all key theological terms. This was necessary so that the new version would not be perceived as favoring either the Catholic or the Protestant constituency in its wording; at times a completely new term or expression had to be found that would be acceptable to both groups, e.g., “grace,” “Yahweh,” “believe,” “temple.” Bible Societies: Enthusiasm and support for a new Chichewa translation in the Bible Society of Malawi (BSM) tended to vary in accordance with the convictions and ecclesiastical experience of the Protestant (Presbyterian) General Secretary who happened to be at the helm. The long-serving GS of recent years was very committed to the project and actively participated in most translational, review, and organizational meetings. All UBS TC supervisors have strongly promoted a “popular-language” method of translating the BY, and for the last decade this included an emphasis on utilizing more local idioms and Chichewa literary features in the text.

209

210

Ernst Wendland The Bible Society of Malawi tried to get all Christians involved in the new popular-language translation project. Several conservative church bodies, however, were not happy with the more idiomatic style of version that was being prepared so they quietly appealed to the Protestant-based International Bible Society (Africa) for support in producing their own, more literal rendition. The IBS agreed and organized a parallel project that published the New Testament (Chipangano Chatsopano) in 2002. Work continues on the Old Testament (but not the Deuterocanonical books). Initial text-comparative studies have shown that this new IBS Chewa version is simply revising the old BSM copyrighted translation (BL) in the light of the New International Version (NIV), which is the widely popular English translation produced by the IBS (cf. Ex. 5 of Ch. 6). Textual frames: Primary goal: The aim of the Buku Loyera is to convey the essential sense and significance of the biblical text in a manner that is as meaningful as possible for the majority of the Chichewa-speaking population, that is, in a functionally equivalent manner. Thus the text of the translation must sound dynamic and natural, in keeping with the primary genre at hand, as well as clear and understandable, in accordance with the author’s intended meaning, while it is being publicly read aloud in the hearing of all segments of its large and diverse envisaged receptor group. The officially-recognized or standard form of Chichewa in Malawi is, generallyspeaking, the model to be emulated with regard to vocabulary, grammar and spelling (orthography). This would be the style of language that is taught in schools and used in government publications as well as in mass media productions (e.g., radio broadcasts). Basic unit of translation: The basic unit of text for analysis and transfer is not the individual verse. It is rather the larger segments of compositional meaning, paragraphs in particular (strophes in poetry), that comprise a given pericope. The discourse, conceived primarily in its oral/aural form of presentation, must be considered as a whole composed of meaningfully interrelated parts. Style: This is fairly uniform throughout the translation. It generally reflects the idiomatic speech and writing style of the chief translator, a Catholic priest and recognized expert in Chichewa. More final-draft shaping and stylistic shading might have been done in this respect, both to reflect the variety of styles in the original texts and also to exploit the diversity of discourse types in Chichewa verbal art. Unfortunately, this was not possible in later years due to the poor health of the main translator, who died of leukemia shortly before the BY finally appeared in print. Translation method: Since the translators were not able to translate directly from or even refer to the original Hebrew and Greek texts (though several

Sharpening John’s vision for contemporary Chewa text auditors expatriate reviewers could do so), they followed the base-models method of translation. This is essentially a comparative procedure whereby a relatively literal English version (in this case, the Revised Standard version, RSV) is employed as the “source” to give translators at least some idea of the actual form of the biblical text. This is then compared with a selected number of freer English and other idiomatic Bantu language model translations which illustrate how the literal base version may be modified in various ways in order to more clearly express the intended meaning of the biblical message in a more natural style. The normal translation process followed a basic four-step method (analyze, transfer, restructure, compare) that is ultimately circular in its final outcome, but within which one usually shifts back and forth between the different steps in their specific application. It is a standard procedure in popular-language Bible translation to change the lexical and grammatical forms of the message in the SL whenever necessary to preserve its intended significance, including pragmatic implications, in the TL. That was the positive goal of this operation, and meaning here was viewed as comprising not only semantic content, but also the specific speech intent, or communicative function(s), of the original text. Stated negatively, the procedure of textual restructuring was applied, more or less, whenever a literal translation of the biblical text would have turned out to be meaningless, misleading, or simply too difficult for average receptors to understand when heard. Production management and quality control: A rigorous check-and-balance system within the 3-man team was employed in the production of every draft. A four-stage “translate-and-test” method was consistently followed, as outlined below: (a) a first draft translation is prepared, usually by the chief composer, and then carefully checked and revised as necessary by the entire translation team; (b) a revised draft is prepared by the team as a whole on the basis of comments received from all key reviewers as well as a number of specialist respondents (e.g., Hebrew and Greek as well as Chewa experts); (c) a joint, second revised draft is prepared on the basis of a selective checking workshop conducted by a UBS translation consultant; (d) a final draft is prepared on the basis of comments received from a complete manuscript examination carried out at the Lusaka UBS Translation Centre.

Evaluation: More widespread popular critical feedback in relation to the new translation was gained through the publication of a series of small portions (John, 1 Peter, Psalms) as well as the entire New Testament (Chipangano Chatsopano – 1979). The Catholic Church made use of pre-final drafts in their annually circulated liturgical readings. Other project promotional activities were also attempted, such as: radio interviews, secular and religious newspaper reports, and talks at various church-organized meetings. Approval of the finalfinal text submitted by the translation team was given by the current United

211

212

Ernst Wendland Bible Societies Translation Consultant in conjunction with the General Secretary of the Bible Society of Malawi. A number of comments regarding this translation have been received since it was published, and a revision is currently being carried out in conjunction with the preparation of a more heavily annotated “study Bible” edition (from 2001 to date).

EXERCISE-1  Consider the Chewa BY project outline above. It is only a partial sample of what a full translation “job commission” (Brief) should consist of. What additional information would you like to see included in such an essential contextualized, contextualizing document – or, which aspects of the preceding report require a fuller explanation, and why do you think so?  Prepare a similar project summary of a translation project that you are either currently working with (or know about), or have assisted in the past, or are planning to participate in at some future date. Try to do this, as above, in terms of the pertinent frames of reference – the sociocultural, organizational, and textual. Include the most relevant information that relates to the type of translation that is being considered. Perhaps, in the case of an already completed project, you might comment on how well the translation has satisfied the goals that its organizers and sponsors originally set out to achieve. If these were not satisfactorily accomplished, offer some suggestions as to why – or what might have been done to improve the final result.

Textual techniques: Contextualizing the translation from within One possible way to create greater understanding and a fuller appreciation of the Scriptures on the part of a particular (listening!) audience is through the translated text itself – namely, via a more TL-oriented rendition (i.e., “bringing the original text to the readers”). There is a limit of course to what can be done by this means, unless one is attempting at the outset to produce a “free translation,” paraphrase, or adaptation. This was not an option in the recent Chewa setting outlined above: The local constituency wanted their translation to be a “faithful” as well as a “meaningful” version that would serve all the Christian churches in the country (i.e., an interconfessional, popular-language version). In the sections that follow, I will first present a little comparative study to illustrate how comprehension is affected by the chosen style of a translation and then add a more dynamic rendering to the mix – namely, an “oratorical” version that seeks to better reflect the poetic sound qualities of the original text for an actual listening audience.

A comparison of versions, old and new (Rev. 4:6b-11) The two most widely-used Chewa translations, Buku Lopatulika (BL) and Buku Loyera (BY) are reproduced below, as originally formatted but with a larger typeface,

Sharpening John’s vision for contemporary Chewa text auditors

213

along with a fairly literal English back-translation. The latter indirectly suggests some of the difficulties that present-day readers and hearers experience with the former version and gives a rough indication of how the modern rendition attempts to both clarify the text and also give it more of an impact in the vernacular. In the interest of space, I have restricted this comparison to the climactic second half of the Rev. 4 pericope (vv. 6b-11) since this portion literally cries out for a more dynamic, vocally dramatic, manner of reproducing the original text – in any TL. First the BL version is given, and then the BY:

Buku Lopatulika (BL) …ndipo pakati pa mpandowo, ndi pozinga mpandowo, zamoyo zinai zodzala ndi maso kutsogolo ndi kumbuyo. 7 Ndipo camoyo coyamba cinafanana nao mkango, ndipo camoyo caciwiri cinafanana ndi mwana wa ng’ombe, ndi camoyo cacitatu cinali nayo nkhope yace ngati ya munthu, ndi camoyo cacinai cinafanana ndi ciombankhanga cakuuluka. 8 Ndipo zamoyozo zinai, conse pa cokha cinali nao mapiko asanu ndi limodzi; ndipo zinadzala ndi maso pozinga ponse ndi m’katimo; ndipo sizipumula usana ndi usiku, ndi kunena, Woyera, woyera, woyera, Ambuye Mulungu Wamphamvuyonse, amene anali, amene ali, ndi amene alinkudza. 9 Ndipo pamene zamoyozo zipereka ulemerero ndi ulemu ndi uyamiko kwa Iye wakukhala pa mpando wacifumu, kwa Iye wakukhala ndi moyo kufikira nthawi za nthawi, 10 akulu makumi awiri mphambu anai amagwa pansi pamaso pa Iye wakukhala pa mpando wacifumu, namlambira Iye amene akhala ndi moyo kufikira nthawi za nthawi, ndipo aponya pansi akorona ao ku mpando wacifumu, ndi kunena, 11 Muyenera inu, Ambuye wathu, ndi Mulungu wathu, kulandira ulemerero ndi ulemu ndi mphamvu; cifukwa mudalenga zonse, ndipo mwa cifuniro canu zinakhala, nizinalengedwa.

6 [no break in the sentence]...and in the middle of that chair, and circumscribing that chair, four living things filled with eyes in front and behind. 7 And the first living thing was like unto (sic) a lion, and the second living thing was like the child of a cow, and the third living thing had its face as of a human being, and the fourth living thing was like an eagle going flying. 8 And those four living things, every one by itself had six wings; and they were filled with eyes all around everywhere and inside; and they do not rest daytime or nighttime, and say, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was [doing something], and is [doing something], and who is on the way. 9 And when those living things offer glory and honor and praiseworthiness to Him who is sitting on the throne, to Him who has life unto time after time, 10 the big ones four and twenty fall down on their faces toward Him who is sitting on the throne, and are revering Him who has life unto time after time, and they throw down their crowns toward the throne, and say, 11 You really ought, our Lord, and our God, to receive glory and honor, and power; because you created everything, and in your will they became, and were created.

214

Ernst Wendland

Buku Loyera (BY) Pakatimpakati, pozungulira mpando wachifumu uja, panali Zamoyo zinai, zokhala ndi maso ponseponse, kutsogolo ndi kumbuyo komwe. 7 Chamoyo choyamba chinkaoneka ngati mkango, chachiŵiri ngati ng’ombe, chachitatu chinali ndi nkhope ya munthu, ndipo chachinai chinkaoneka ngati chiwombankhanga chouluka. 8 Chamoyo chilichonse chinali ndi mapiko asanu ndi limodzi, ndipo zinali ndi maso ponseponse ndi m’kati momwe. Usana ndi usiku zimaimba mosalekeza kuti, “Ngoyera, ngoyera, ngoyera Ambuye, Mulungu Mphambe, amene analipo, amene alipo, amene alikudza.” 9 Zamoyozo zimapereka ulemerero, ulemu ndi mayamiko kwa uja wokhala pa mpando wachifumuyu, amene ali ndi moyo wamuyaya. 10 Pamene zikuchitika zimenezi, Akuluakulu 24 aja amadzigwetsa pamaso pa wokhala pa mpando wachifumuyo, ndi kumpembedza wokhala ndi moyo wamuyayayo. Ndipo amaponya pansi zisoti zao zaufumu patsogolo pa mpando wachifumuwo ndi kunena kuti, 11 “Inu Ambuye athu ndi Mulungu wathu, ndinu oyenera kulandira ulemerero, ulemu ndi mphamvu, pakuti ndinu mudalenga zinthu zonse. Mudafuna kuti zonsezo zikhalepo, ndipo zidalengedwa.”

In the midst of everything, around the throne [already mentioned], there were four Living things with eyes everywhere, in front and in back as well. 7 The first living thing looked like a lion, the second like a cow, the third had the face of a human being, and the fourth looked like an eagle flying about. 8 Every living thing had six wings, and they had eyes were everywhere even on the inside. Day and night they would sing without ceasing, “He’s holy, he’s holy, he’s holy the Lord, God the Almighty One, who was there, who is here, who is coming.” 9 The living things offer glory, honor and praise unto the one sitting on the throne, who has life everlasting. 10 Whenever they do these things, those 24 Elders throw themselves face down at the one sitting on the throne, and they worship that one who has life everlasting. And they cast down their crons in front of the throand say, 11 “You our Lord and our God, it is you who are worthy to receive glory, honor and power, for it is you who created all things. You willed that all things would be there, and they were created.”

A comparison of these two texts, even by way of back-translation, reveals a number problem areas and major differences in translation technique. Some of the most important of these from a communication perspective are listed below:

Sharpening John’s vision for contemporary Chewa text auditors

215

• The traditional, narrow double column, justified format presents a more difficult text to read in both versions. Meaningful words are broken up, often in awkward places, and the eye is forced to jump from the end of one line to the beginning of the one below to complete the sense. But at least the BY text makes use of quote marks and indented paragraphs to distinguish the incorporated hymn segments. • The BL reproduces all the original Greek kai-s with a single correspondent conjunction (i.e., ndipo); not surprisingly, this results in a very unnatural Chewa discourse style (no matter what the genre). • Verse 6b begins an important new aspect of the heavenly court scene as the four angelic creatures are introduced as a prelude to the praise choruses that further spotlight ‘the one seated upon the throne’. The break here is idiomatically introduced in BY (‘In the midst of everything, around the throne...’), whereas BL does not begin a new paragraph and presents an apparently contradictory setting (‘...and in the middle of that [throne], and circumscribing that [throne]...’). • The sentences in BL are far too long to be easily comprehended. Use of the semicolon, perhaps in imitation of the AV or RSV, greatly distorts the structure of the translation (and all other Bantu language versions that have blindly followed this mechanical procedure!). • Many unnatural lexical formations, selections, and collocations reveal that the BL translation was composed by a non-mother-tongue speaker of Chewa – for example, when the four heavenly creatures are introduced, they are described as being ‘filled up [like a container!] with eyes’ (v. 6b). BY, on the other hand, exhibits a corresponding number of idiomatic usages, e.g., these creatures are said to ‘have eyes everywhere [on them]’. BL tells us that each creature ‘was like’ some familiar earthly animal (human), while BY narrows the scope of the comparison by saying that each creature ‘looked like’ (= resembled in appearance) its counterpart. The heavenly creatures in BL ‘praise’ God by telling him in effect that ‘you ought [to do something – implied]’, while in BY they utter a more overt word of commendation: ‘you are worthy to receive...’ • On several occasions the BL either poorly or wrongly renders the sense of the original text; for example, the ‘four and twenty’ (old-fashioned enumeration) ‘big ones’ (akulu – ‘big’ in what respect?) are said to throw their ‘rosaries’ (akorona – an old loanword that has shifted meaning) down before the throne (v.10). BY employs the now familiar Arabic numeral (‘24’) and has the ‘Elders’ (Akuluakulu) casting down their ‘crowns’ (zisoti zao zaufumu – lit., ‘royal hats’). In BL the second living creature is likened to a ‘calf’ (lit., ‘the child of a cow’), which is a possible gloss for the Greek μόσχος; the BY’s ‘cow’ is nearer the mark (i.e., the ‘ox’ of modern commentators, e.g., Aune 1997:298), but the image could have been strengthened in Chewa by reference to a ‘bull’ (ng’ombe ya mphongo). • In some places the text of the BL is simply unintelligible as it stands, e.g., at the beginning of v.8: ‘And those four living things, every one by itself had six wings...’ – or quite alien-sounding, e.g., ‘has life unto time after time’ for ‘lives

216

Ernst Wendland forever’ in vv. 9-10 (cp. BY: ‘life everlasting’, an idiomatic expression based on an ideophone). • Finally, it is important to note the lexical creativity demonstrated in the BY on a number of occasions, for example, the song of v. 8 features use of the traditional Chewa divine praise name for ‘Almighty’ (Mphambe), which is preceded by a dynamic predication ‘He’s holy (ngoyera)...’ and followed by a much more accurate circumlocution for the divine name Yahweh: ‘‘who was there (= present/existent), who is here, who is coming!’

On the basis of a close comparative examination of this nature, one would have to conclude that the BY provides the majority of Chewa receptors with a much more meaningful textual frame of reference for interpreting Rev. 4 (as well as the Bible as a whole). It is not preferable for every purpose, however; for example, if one’s goal is to prepare a concordance-based word study, or to employ the translation as a scholarly window to reveal the language forms of the original text, then the BL version is what is needed. But where a communicative rendering is desirable and clarity and intelligibility are paramount, then there is little doubt as to the superiority of the BY. In view of their respective pros and cons then, we might conclude that the practice of individual or joint Bible study in Chewa can be profitably carried out with reference to both translations. Such a differential comparative procedure enables one version to complement another and also serves to highlight those areas in the biblical text that probably need to be more carefully investigated so as to draw out more aspects of the meaning of the original in the light of its contemporary setting of use.

A literary rendition for oratorical equivalence An auxiliary translation, assuming that it is well done, can serve to augment or enrich the textual frame of reference for a given target constituency (or a portion of one), giving them a fresh, thought-provoking perspective on the ancient text of Scripture. Such a version in Chewa is given below for the purpose of comparison with the preceding BL and BY translations. The specific Skopos (communicative goal) for this rendition may be summarized as follows: It is a literary functional equivalence (LiFE) translation that has been composed in a more vivid, dynamic, and idiomatic vernacular style (Wendland 2004:83-97; 2005a). This version is intended primarily (though not exclusively) for oratorical (oral-aural) enunciation to the members of a target audience who desire an accurate semantic as well as pragmatic representation of a particular passage of the Bible, yet who also appreciate a version that accomplishes this goal while more fully utilizing the artistic and rhetorical resources of their mother tongue. It is hoped that such a rhythmic vernacular style, coupled with a more legible discourse-formatting procedure in print, will also allow the text to be more easily and vigorously read aloud in public. Such a version can also be more readily adapted for presentation in music (song) or as a drama.

Sharpening John’s vision for contemporary Chewa text auditors

Pakatimpakati, zonsezi zikuchitikako, pozungulira mpando wachifumu uja panali zamoyo zakumwamba zinai, zokhala ndi maso paliponse m’thupi, inde, kutsogolo ndi kumbuyo komwe. 7 Choyamba chinkaoneka ngati mkango, chachiŵiri ngati ng’ombe ya mphongo, chachitatu chinali ndi nkhope ya munthu, chinai chinafanana ndi chiwombankhanga. 8 Chamoyo chilichonse chinali ndi mapiko, mapiko asanu ndi limodzi – pamodzi siikisi, maso naonso ponseponse ndi mkati momwe. Usana ndi usiku zimaimba mosalekeza kuti, “Ngoyera, ngoyera, ngoyera – Ambuyetu, Mulungu Mphambe! Iye amene analipo, amene alipo, ndipo alikudza, Mulungu ndithu!” 9 Zamoyozo zinali kuyimba nyimbo yao, kupereka ulemerero, ulemu ndi uyamiko kwa uja wokhala pa mpando wachifumuyu, iye yekha amene ali ndi moyo wamuyaya. 10 Nthawi ili yonse zamoyo zikachita izi, onse akuluakulu 24 amadzigwetsa pansi pamaso pa wokhala pa mpando wachifumuyo, nkupembedza wokhala m’moyo wamuyayayo. Iwowa amaponyanso pansi zisoti zao zaufumu patsogolo pa mpando wachifumuwo ndi kuti, 11 “Inu Ambuye ndi Mulungu wathu, ndinu woyenera kulandira kwa ife ulemu wolemekeza mphamvu yanu, pakuti ndinu mudalenga zinthu zonse. Inde, mudafuna kuti zonsezo zikhalepo, ndipo za pansi pano zidalengedwa nde!”

217

In the middle of it all, while everything is taking place there, / around that royal throne there were four heavenly creatures, having eyes everywhere on [their] body, yes indeed, in its front as well as in back. 7 The first one looked like a lion, the second like an ox (‘a male cow’), the third had the face of a human, the fourth resembled an eagle. 8 Each living creature had wings, five plus one wings – together six, eyes again everywhere, even on the inside. Day and night they sing without ceasing, “He’s holy, he’s holy, he’s holy – Lord indeed, God the Almighty One! he who was present, who is present, and he is coming, God most surely!” 9 Those living creatures were singing their song offering glory, honor, and praise to this one who is seated on the royal throne, he alone who has life everlasting. 10 Now every time the living creatures do this, all those 24 elders cast themselves down in front of the one seated on that royal throne, and worship that one who has everlasting life. They also throw down their royal crowns in front of the royal throne and say, 11 “You O Lord and our God, you are worthy to receive from us honor in praise of your power, for it was you who created all things. Yes, you willed that all things be there, and everything on earth was created fully!”

Some redundancy has obviously been built into this translation in order to craft a more poetic-sounding manner of composition in Chewa. The text has also been enhanced stylistically by means of balanced lineation along with a more idiomatic use of deictic particles, word order variations, lexical condensation, intensifiers, some artistic euphony, and focused vocabulary choice, including a climactic ideophone (nde!) at the close. There is a novel interpretation too in that final chorus, namely, the third line, which clarifies the fact that the elders are not offering their “power” to God (as implied by both BL and BY), but are rather praising him for the might that he manifested in creation (referred to in the next line). This is not necessarily a “better”

218

Ernst Wendland

rendition than the standard Chewa versions described earlier, for such an evaluation can be made only in the light of the specific target group for whom the translation is being prepared – and what their needs, wishes, and preferences are (as determined in advance by comprehensive audience sampling techniques and independent research surveys – see below). EXERCISE-2  What do you think about the possibility of composing a more dynamic literaryoratorical (artistic-rhetorical) version of the biblical text in YL?  Would there be a special audience, setting, or purpose that such a translation might better serve than a more literal, standard rendition? If so, how would you go about composing such a vernacular text – which particular TL features would you want to capitalize on in this type of translation?  If you are ready to give it a try, prepare a literary version of Rev. 4:6b-11 in YL and provide a back-translation into English so that you can better share with others what you (or your team) have done.  Note that with this sort of a rendering (cf. Wendland 2004:289-317) you are creating in the TL an expressive-affective (esthetic-emotive) context, or psychological framework, for perceiving and responding to the original text – a dimension of meaning that is normally ignored when translating. The importance of this factor varies, of course, with the genre of discourse involved, but certainly it is an issue that needs to be considered when poetic and strongly rhetorically-toned texts are being dealt with (e.g., prophets/epistles). What is your opinion on this matter?  As a follow-up to the preceding question, consider the following thoughts on the translation of poetry, made by a distinguished literary critic and professor of comparative literature at a secular state (USA) university (citations from Barnstone 1993, page numbers in parentheses). Do these sentiments have any relevance to your concept of Bible translation and/or to your practice of translation as you are currently applying it in a particular project? Summarize your opinion on the various issues raised by these appeals for a more “literary” approach when translating the diverse literature of the Scriptures. These could also form the basis for a group discussion with reference to a particular translation or project-in-progress. (229) In reality, although the notion that a literal translation proposes that content can be translated indifferent to form works with regard to information transfer, it becomes an act of aestheticide with regard to art. (229-230) But the translator has no quarrel with the original content in free translation. And no desire to change it per se. It is rather to transpose it with some degree of honesty one must also transpose its aesthetic / connotative coloring as well. (234) Rigidly literal translation that omits connotative meaning may doggedly assume equivalence, but equivalence is not there.

Sharpening John’s vision for contemporary Chewa text auditors

219

(256) “Thus no case for literalness can be based on a desire to retain the meaning” (citing Benjamin 1969:77). (259) The Italian maxim traduttore, traditore (translator, traitor) is in the end correct. … When a translation passes as original, it is profound betrayal. … So betray we must, otherwise the work is truly an impoverished counterfeit. (260) Now we know the meaning of traduttore, traditore. The translator must be a traitor to the letter in order to be loyal to the meaning, art, and spirit of the source text. (261) [T]here remains one enduring ethical principle in literary translation: the true ethical task of the translator is to be a good writer, to produce a work that is clear and beautiful, however close or distant the inspiring voice. (265) Translation is the ART of revelation. It makes the unknown known. (266) A translation dwells in imperfection, using equivalents and shunning mechanical replicas – which is the dream of literalists who believe in truth. (266) A translation dwells in EXILE. It cannot return. … The translated poem should be read as a poem written in the language of the adopted literature, even if it differs because of its origin from any poem ever written in its new tongue. (269) An artist translator is a MASTER potter. The potter transforms the spirit of an old pot, the recollection of its shape, into a new pot. MASTERY lies in the MANIPULATION of the clay. She pours content into a form of her own creation in her own language. (271) A translation is an X-RAY, not a XEROX. A poet translator is a XENOPHILIAC. … Good translation of poetry is essential to a hungry reader in a decent book store and to a global village of letters.

EXERCISE-3  Compare the two English translations of Rev. 4:6b-11 below – the GNT and the CEV. Two similar versions have been selected for this exercise in order to reduce the number of differences. Select 5 major differences in wording and/or translation technique and assess these in terms of their relative quality with respect to three important criteria that you may select – perhaps also with reference to some of the sentiments expressed by Barnstone above.  Which rendition do you prefer – for which particular audience and purpose? Give reasons. Finally, select what you consider to be the most important verse of this passage and try to re-express it in a more dynamic, “oratorical” or dramatic manner (in English).

220

Ernst Wendland GNT

CEV

Surrounding the throne on each of its sides, were four living creatures covered with eyes in front and behind. 7 The first one looked like a lion; the second looked like a bull; the third had a face like a human face; and the fourth looked like an eagle in flight. 8 * Each one of the four living creatures had six wings, and they were covered with eyes, inside and out. Day and night they never stop singing:

Around the throne in the center were four living creatures covered front and back with eyes. 7 The first creature was like a lion, the second one was like a bull, the third one had the face of a human, and the fourth was like a flying eagle. 8 * Each of the four living creatures had six wings, and their bodies were covered with eyes. Day and night they never stopped singing,

“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was, who is, and who is to come.”

“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord, the all-powerful God, who was and is and is coming!”

The four living creatures sing songs of glory and honor and thanks to the one who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever. When they do so, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before the one who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives forever and ever. They throw their crowns down in front of the throne and say, 11 “Our Lord and God! You are worthy to receive glory, honor, and power. For you created all things, and by your will they were given existence and life.”

9

9

The living creatures kept praising, honoring, and thanking the one who sits on the throne and who lives forever and ever. 10 At the same time the twenty-four elders knelt down before the one sitting on the throne. And as they worshiped the one who lives forever, they placed their crowns in front of the throne and said, 11 “Our Lord and God, you are worthy to receive glory, honor, and power. You created all things, and by your decision they are and were created.”

EXERCISE-4 From major genres and texts to minor ones, from New Testament to Old Testament, the same literary principle applies. Dr. Cynthia Miller offers the following insights concerning the challenge of translating proverbs in African languages (2005:142-144; this entire article is highly recommended): Translating biblical proverbs into African languages is both challenging and exciting. Because language at its very nature is an indivisible composite of form and meaning, it is impossible to translate meaning without also using linguistic forms. There is, after all, no meaning and no translation without words and words have forms. We cannot escape the question of how to balance competing concerns about accurate meaning and appropriate form. … A third kind of translation technique would produce our final versions of the proverb that “sound like” proverbs in English and could be used as proverbs to influence behavior. In this third way of translation, the translator must balance competing concerns

Sharpening John’s vision for contemporary Chewa text auditors

221

of form and meaning in order to accurately convey the meaning using a proverbial form. As we saw, African translators use a variety of techniques to achieve this goal. They will attempt to make the proverb as succinct and pithy as possible. They may use vivid imagery to translate metaphorical expressions. They may use phraseology borrowed from traditional proverbs. They will be alert to instances where they must make adjustments for ways in which their cultures differ from that of ancient Israel. … If the goal of translating the book of Proverbs into African languages is academic or purely informational, the translators need not consider whether the shapes that biblical proverbs take within African languages sound like proverbs within that culture. But if the goal of translating Proverbs is that the biblical proverbs should be meaningful, powerful, compelling observations about life, which transform those who hear them, then the translated proverbs must have a proverbial shape. In African cultures, which are permeated with proverbial sayings, a translation of Proverbs will be successful to the extent that the biblical proverbs are assimilated into the language and become part of the cultural fabric of the society.

The following is an example that illustrate this transformative literary technique (ibid:141): Prov 25.26 (NIV) Like a muddied spring or a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked. … Prov 25.26 (Luwo) A righteous person who accepts the words of an evil person is the same as a pond where gourds are soaked. In this African culture, people soak gourds in pond in order to remove the husks. The gourds make the water bitter and undrinkable. In the same way, a righteous person who does not oppose, but rather accepts, the words of an evil person is utterly corrupted.

 Evaluate the preceding argument and the example cited as an illustration: Is this convincing enough for you? Give reasons for your answer.  Do you have a similar example to offer in support of this literary principle of translation equivalence (whether in relation to a proverb, or some other short biblical (sub-)genre)? Prepare a little case-study to present and illustrate your choice.  Finally, how would you translate the following pair of apparently contradictory proverbs (Prov. 26:4-5, NIV)? Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. 4

Does it help to adopt a different situational “frame of reference” for each verse? This is what was done in the following Chewa poetic rendition of this proverbial pair. Evaluate the pros and cons of this translation – then revise, if necessary, your own rendering given above.

222

Ernst Wendland Kodi n’kwabwino kuyankha chitsiru? Iyai kapena inde – yankho lili pawiri.

Say, is it expedient to answer a fool? No or yes – the answer is twofold.

Chitsiru usamachiyanka potsata ucitsiru wakewo, kuwopa kuti nawenso ungafanefane nachotu; ichi sichingakome konse.

Do not answer a fool by following his own folly, fearing that you yourself might readily resemble him; that would be not be good at all.

Komanso mwina mwake, uzichiyankha chitsiru inde, potsutsa wake uchitsirutu, kuwopa kuti icho nachonso chingamadziyese chanzeru!

However at certain times, you must answer a fool, yes indeed, by rebuking that folly of his, fearing that he for his part might consider himself wise!

Paratextual and extratextual tools for enriching one’s frame of reference The paratext refers to all those standard supplementary features that serve to “contextualize,” that is, cognitively frame, the text of a translation, thus shedding light on certain selected key aspects of it. This manifold paratextual strategy would include devices such as section headings, associated sectional introductions, foot- (or marginal) notes, cross references, glossary entries, a condensed concordance, illustrations, graphs, tables, maps, and a topical index. These different aids, especially the descriptive-explanatory annotations, assume their most developed form in a study Bible, which is specially designed to promote and facilitate a more in-depth investigation of the Scriptures in terms of its text (translation) and context (cf. Pritz 2006). Such illuminating “frames of reference” for the Bible (cf. Wilt 2003:43-58) can also be created through the use of various accompanying publications (including video productions, e.g., vander Jagt and Pritz 2004) that explain, describe, illustrate, cross-reference, or situate different aspects of the overall setting of the Scriptures within a local perspective, for example: crucial events of Bible history, a parallel sketch of world history during Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) times, the flora and fauna of Palestine, geography and climate of Israel, Jewish or Greco-Roman culture and customs, key concepts and topics of the Bible (e.g., the kings of Israel, prophets, parables, miracles of Christ), and so forth. These ancillary extratextual products (i.e., “out-of-text solutions,” Hill 2004:10), whether presented in print or an audio or video format, must be carefully geared to the educational-interpretive competency of the primary target audience of the version that they are intended to accompany (normally, the formal stylistic level of the translation itself). Of course, such subsidiary tools can do little, if any good if people do not know how to make use of them – or use Some samples will be given in chapter 11. Ralph Hill refers to these devices as “in-the-text solutions” – i.e., for solving the problem of an inadequate cognitive contextual background for interpreting a particular text of Scripture (Hill 2004:9). 

Sharpening John’s vision for contemporary Chewa text auditors

223

them properly. These are practical educational matters pertaining to a translation’s wider setting of usage (the organizational frame) that also need attention on the part of an administrative (management) committee, as specified in the project’s job commission (cf. ch. 12). In terms of general context management, one cannot overemphasize the importance and potentially great value of paratextual and extratextual techniques for increasing the overall communicative quality of a given Bible translation. A few decades ago, less so in many regions of the world, such text supplements were often viewed with suspicion and hence appeared as very much the exception and not the rule. Most Scripture translations, at least in UBS circles, were presented in the main “without editorial note or comment.” Nowadays, however, most of us cannot get along without such “contextual adjustment strategies” (Hill 2004) aimed at creating a broader, more accurate conceptual framework for interpreting the Scriptures in translation. Such a reservoir of background information enables one not only to understand, but also to see the relevance of and hence to personally apply the biblical text at hand. But it is also important to point out the need for an adequate amount of prior localized, situation-sensitive research and testing so that our efforts at “communicating context” (Hill 2003) are actually going to serve the purpose for which they are intended in relation to a specific target audience and primary setting of use, whether these be relatively broad or narrow in scope. A thorough evaluation of the different types of extratextual supplementation needed for the book of Revelation lies beyond the scope of my study. In short, this would require a considerable amount of setting-specific audience surveying and directed research that is carried out in conjunction with local church bodies which are committed to providing their members with such hermeneutical helps for the Scriptures. Some possible topics of special interest and importance with regard to Rev. 4 would include the following: • Notes on key aspects of the varied liturgical worship of ancient Israel as well as the Jews in NT times, including alternating speakers/chanters/singers, such as we find manifested in the incorporated psalm-like segments of verses 8 and 11. • A detailed biography of the Apostle John, as derived from the Bible as well as early Christian sources. • A NT historical survey and time-line to show the proposed ANE temporal setting of the book of Revelation in relation to the other canonical books and secular events of importance that occurred during the first century AD. • A parallel biographical survey of the different Roman emperors who lived during this period along with their main achievements or infamous activities, including persecutions carried out against Jews and Christians. • A geographical, historical, economic, and ethnographic survey of the seven cities of Asia Minor that are mentioned in the “letters” of chs. 2-3. • An illustrated overview of the typical stylistic features of the apocalyptic literature of the Bible and of extrabiblical, especially Jewish sources, and with special reference to corresponding examples found in the book of Revelation. • A structural-thematic study of the book of Revelation – one that is specifically

224

Ernst Wendland related whenever possible to the sociocultural and religious setting of the primary target group. • A context-sensitive topical survey of the principal intertextual prophetic “sources” (pre-texts) that appear in Revelation – i.e., Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. • An exemplified examination of the nature and purpose of figurative language and symbolism in the NT, including the use of significant numbers: 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 144,000. • An illustrated reference work that defines and explains the significance of the main examples of ANE flora and fauna that are referred to in the NT, Revelation in particular.

The preceding discussion has focused on providing an orientating frame of reference for printed presentations of the biblical text in translation. Corresponding methods for contextualizing the verbal text of audio, video, and electronic Scripture products are also essential. Considering just the medium of sound, for example, we might ask: how are paratextual tools (e.g., explanatory notes, section titles, cross references, illustration substitutes, etc.) most effectively presented via an aural medium of communication (alone) – that is, to clearly distinguish these different auxiliary devices from each other and from the text of Scripture itself? Various possibilities are available, but these must first be audience-tested for viability, e.g., the use of different voices, a musical interlude, a standard signal (bell, gong, buzzer, etc.). These are challenges that need to be carefully investigated and resolved from the specific perspective (needs, preferences, abilities, etc.) of the wider TL community, using the available human and other resources that can be also contributed by local Bible consumers and communicators (e.g., drum or some other traditional instrument for public “announcements,” local music or graphic art forms). EXERCISE-5  Consider Revelation 4 in the light of the sociocultural and religious setting in which you work and identify five points in the text that would be likely to cause problems of understanding for average Bible readers. Then formulate appropriate explanatory notes that would succinctly clarify these issues. If you compose these notes in YL, give an English back-translation alongside.  Take two standard study Bibles that you have available (e.g., the NIV and GNB) and evaluate the various study notes that have been included for Revelation 4. Pick out two problems with these notes in each of these study Bibles – that is, considered from the perspective of your own primary target group. Explain the nature of these difficulties and propose solutions that would be helpful in your translation context. Finally, evaluate which set of study notes you prefer and give reasons – again, from the viewpoint of possibly using these as a model in your overall situational setting and considering the average level of biblical literacy of Christians living there.  Do you have any suggestions to add to the listing of possible “extratextual supplements” for Rev. 4 above? If so, give these with your reasons.

Sharpening John’s vision for contemporary Chewa text auditors

225

 Are you currently engaged in the production of some type of “non-print” (audio, visual, electronic) version of the Scriptures? If so, summarize some of the main challenges that you are facing along with some of the key strategies that you have adopted for dealing with these – especially with a view towards sharpening the eyes and ears of your target audience with respect to the biblical text and its situational context. What controls have you put into place so that you do not deny or overly distort the Bible’s particular frame of reference?  What type of “paratextual” tools are you using to supplement the text and create a fuller cognitive environment for consumers to interpret it more accurately? Explain one of these methods in more detail.  Consider the following advice concerning “imaging the metaphors” of Peter’s First Epistle (Thomas and Thomas 2006:130). Would this visualization strategy with regard to preparing the illustrations for a specific biblical text be helpful in your translation setting? Is it a plan that you would like to try out? Why or why not? The author of 1 Peter has created a constellation of metaphors that convey particular meaning. They produce a larger whole than any one of its parts. Tracing the components of such metaphors requires study. [Local] artists might be given opportunity for conversation with translators and biblical scholars about the metaphorical material. They will need to hear about its significance in the original context. They can then begin asking what might convey this significance to a particular audience today. The role of the translator in this process should be one of providing insights into the text itself.

Here are some questions for further consideration (ibid:131): • • • • •

Will there be any testing of the visualization of your translation with members of the potential audience? Have images from the metaphors of the original text been used? Has the artist been able to portray the metaphors in a way that will be understood metaphorically or have images been used in a way that will freeze the metaphors into literal interpretations? Is this acceptable? What suggestions do you have for conveying the sense and significance of these biblical metaphors more effectively in your particular setting, including medium, of communication?

10. Evaluating the overall quality of communication via translation A consideration of the diverse facets of “context” is also relevant for a Bible translation while it is being tested with respect to its primary target constituency, either during the draft stages of production or after it has been published. Such audience assessment procedures are an essential part of the various quality control measures which a project’s administrative and/or management committee will want to have included in the formal job commission (Brief) that is documented for the translation. The various dimensions of “quality” that may be investigated during this experimental operation are in effect also significant aspects of contextual concern that involve the entire complex communication process as it develops with reference to the source text/setting and progresses to a textual representation in the particular consumer setting of use.

Applying a multiple framework for qualitative assessment The diagram of Figure 16 (from Wendland 2005b) is intended to suggest a possible model that may be used – whether as is, or perhaps in some modified form – when judging the relative acceptability of a certain draft or published translation in relation to a given audience. It reflects an attempt to integrate a number of the key factors that may affect the translation’s appraisal from the perspective of different aspects of the SL text and the TL version of it. This evaluative frame of reference is presented simply to illustrate some of the chief contextual concerns that may be incorporated into the testing process:

Focus 

Source Text

Target Text

 accuracy

Content

intent

3. FIDELItY < reliability

5. INtELLIGIBILItY< content

+

+ microstructure

Form

4. PRoXIMItY< macrostructure 6. IDIoMAtIcItY< oral-aural 

 form

Function

written

processing cost

1. AUtHENtIcItY< meaning 2. RELEvANcY< cognitive gain

Figure 16: Variables that interact to determine the ACCEPTABILITY of a translation

Figure 16: Variables that interact to determine the ACCEPTABILITY of a translation

Evaluating the overall quality of communication via translation

227

The primary focus of each of these variables is briefly explored in the box below by means of a series of critical investigative questions that are intended to elucidate the wider contextual setting of reception for a given translation project (for several applications of this method of testing, see Wendland 2004:337-347, 2005b:12-24). In this case, the six qualities are to be evaluated primarily from the standpoint of diverse representatives of the primary target audience (e.g., clergy/laity, new/old Christians, well-educated/non-schooled, literate/non-literate, younger/older generation, male/female, etc.). In other words, trained members of the target community carry out the actual testing process, evaluate the results, and formulate their conclusions on that basis. A corresponding assessment made by an outside investigator or analyst might well produce a different overall conclusion or specific recommendations, which though clearly secondary, may still be useful in highlighting certain blind-spots in the indigenous perspective. Furthermore, it is obvious that a given translation program cannot satisfy, achieve, or emphasize all six factors at once. Rather, a set of priorities will have to be established – one that is determined on the basis of various local considerations, e.g., the designated audience group, setting of use, history of Bible translation and past usage in the community, available resources, including overall staff competence and commitment, and so forth. FIDELITY: How accurate is the translation in terms of representing the prime essence of the semantic content of the biblical text (including all explicatures and principal implicatures), and how reliably does the text verbally express this conceptual inventory in the TL? PROXIMITY: How closely, relatively speaking, does the translation reflect the structural and stylistic forms of the Hebrew or Greek text, that is, with respect to the original document’s macro- as well as micro-level of compositional organization? AUTHENTICITY: How “authentic” do TL speakers perceive the translation to be in relation to its form (proximity) and/or meaning (fidelity); in other The following quote defines the key terms in parentheses: “Thus, in the process of inferring meaning, the audience combines the set of utterances from the communicator and the explicatures they yield with additional contextual assumptions serving as premises, and draws conclusions, which are called contextual implications. Both the premises (contextual assumptions) and the conclusions (contextual implications) are referred to as implicatures” (Hill 2004:5). An effective way of testing different aspects of audience comprehension in terms of their culturally-based “cognitive context” is described and illustrated in Harriet Hill (2003; see also below). The “semantic content of the biblical text,” as near as we can come to the intended propositional meaning (an inevitably partial, yet ultimately a sufficient understanding), is ascertained by means of a careful discourse analysis of the original and a study of reliable scholarly commentaries on the passage at hand. However, the full “communicative significance” of that same text cannot be fully perceived or explicated without reference to the original extralinguistic context, or situational setting, in which the text was conceived of, composed, transmitted, and received. The related figures of irony and sarcasm often operate on the basis of implicature. For example, when Job tells his three friends, “How you have helped the powerless!” (26:2a) the normal implication that Job is expressing gratitude for their support is contradicted by the setting of their ongoing discourse. Thus, instead of praising them, the implicatures is that he is bitterly criticizing them for their lack of sympathy for his present condition. 

228

Ernst Wendland

words, how trustworthy o credible do they regard their translation in terms of re-presenting the “complete” or “true” Word of God in their mother-tongue? INTELLIGIBILITY: How clear and understandable is the TL text with respect to both content and also intent – the latter embracing the principal functional aims and associated connotative aspects of the original as expressed in the vernacular translation? IDIOMACITY: How natural is the translation stylistically in terms of literary artistry and rhetoric with respect to its various major and minor genres, both in writing (print) and also when heard, as the vernacular text is being audibly articulated (spoken, recited, chanted, or sung)? RELEVANCY: How difficult is the translated test to handle conceptually (i.e., “processing cost,” or mental effort) in relation to the beneficial cognitive, emotive, and volitional effects (“psychological gains”) that a majority of the target audience derive from this hermeneutical activity as applied to their current life setting? Of course, any rather general and approximate model of this nature reveals some pertinent aspects of the problem or phenomenon being investigated and overlooks or ignores others that may be equally important in the setting concerned. The proposed heuristic framework also adopts a particular theoretical or experimental viewpoint and probes the information at hand to a limited degree in relation to all the available data or variables that might possibly be examined. Furthermore, the actual testing process from beginning to end – its rationale, method of questioning, general format, and assessment procedures – needs to be stipulated in detail with reference to a specific audience, time frame, group of investigators, and so forth (cf. Wendland 2004:347363, 395-418). In short, the evaluative model itself needs to be fully contextualized and then carefully appraised and adapted (as necessary) with respect to its intended goals and achieved results in mind. EXERCISE-1  Critically evaluate the preceding plan for testing a translation from your perspective, that is, from the viewpoint of an actual Bible translation project that you know about or have participated in. Which contextual factors have not been given sufficient consideration? How would you remedy this?  What alternative model for translation assessment can you suggest, if you are not satisfied with the one that has been described above? Be as specific as possible in terms of principles and procedures with regard to the sociocultural setting that you are (or will be) working in.  If you have actually participated in testing the different stages of a translation, describe the methods that you used and the results that you obtained.

Evaluating the overall quality of communication via translation

229

EXERCISE-2  Make an adaptation (if necessary) and application of the following general “revision parameters” (Mossop 2001:99), which have professional secular translators in mind, to the process of quality control in Bible translation. Do you have any additional parameters or queries to suggest? Revision parameters are the things a reviser checks for – the types of error. … [I]n order to think about and discuss revision, it is convenient to have a reasonably short list of error types. … Group A – Problems of meaning transfer (Transfer) 1. Does the translation reflect the message of the source text? (Accuracy) 2. Have any elements of the message been left out? (Completeness) Group B – Problems of content (Content) 3. Does the sequence of ideas make sense: is there any nonsense or contradiction? (Logic) 4. Are there any factual, conceptual or mathematical errors? (Facts) Group C – Problems of language and style (Language) 5. Does the text flow: are the connections between sentences clear? Are the relationships among the parts of each sentence clear? Are there any awkward, her-t-read sentences? (Smoothness) 6. Is the language suited to the users of the translation and the use they will make of it? (Tailoring) 7. Is the style suited to the genre? Has the correct terminology been used? Does the phraseology match that used in original target-language texts on the same subject? (Sub-language) 8. Are all the word combinations idiomatic? Does the translation observe the rhetorical preferences of the target language? (Idiom) 9. Have the rules of grammar, spelling, punctuation, house style and correct usage been observed? (Mechanics) Group D – Problems of physical presentation (Presentation) 10. Are there any problems in the way the text is arranges on the page: spacing, indentation, margins, etc.? (Layout) 11. Are there any problems of text formatting: bolding, underlining, font type, font size, etc.? (Typography) 12. Are there any problems in the way the document as a whole is organized: page numbering, headers, footnotes, table of contents, etc.? (Organization) EXERCISE-3  Now evaluate Mossop’s more specific and directive translation “revision principles” (2001:149) in relation to the preceding “parameters.” Which do you find more helpful or pertinent to your work – and why? Do you have any additional principles to suggest, based on your own translation experience? Do you find any of these principles

230

Ernst Wendland

problematic or in need of some modification? Consider your individual conclusions during a group discussion in class. 1. If you find a very large number of mistakes as you begin revising a translation, consider whether the text should be retranslated rather than revised. 2. If you cannot understand the translation without reading it twice, or without consulting the source text, then a correction is definitely necessary. 3. Do not ask whether a sentence can be improved but whether it needs to be improved. Make the fewest possible changes, given the users of the translation and the use they will make of it. 4. Make small changes to a sentence rather than rewriting it. 5. Minimize introduction of error by not making changes if in doubt whether to do so. 6. Minimize revision time through unilingual re-reading unless the longer comparative procedure is dictated by the likelihood of mistranslation or omission (difficult text, untried translator, etc.) and by the consequences of such errors. 7. When you make a linguistic correction or stylistic improvement, make sure that you have not introduced a mistranslation. 8. When you make a change, check whether this necessitates a change elsewhere in the sentence or a neighboring sentence. 9. Do not let you attention to micro-level features of the text prevent you from seeing macro-level errors, and vice-versa. 10. Do not let your attention to the flow of linguistic forms prevent you from seeing errors in meaning (nonsense, contradiction, etc.), and vice-versa. 11. Check numbers as well as words: they are part of the message. 12. Adopt a procedure which maximizes your opportunity to see the text from the point of view of the first-time reader. 13. Adopt a procedure which allows you to strike a suitable balance between the degree of accuracy of the translation and the degree of readability. 14. In the final analysis, give preference to the reader’s needs over the client’s demands. 15. Avoid creating an immediate bad impression: make sure there are no spelling or typographical errors on the front page of the translation. 16. Do not make changes you cannot justify of revising the work of others. 17. Do not impose your own approach to translating on others. 18. Do not impose your own linguistic idiosyncrasies on others. 19. Make sure that client and reader receive full benefit from revision work: ensure that all handwritten changes are properly input and that all changes are saved before the text is sent to the client. 20. If you have failed to solve a problem, admit it to the client. EXERCISE-4  Study the following pieces of advice regarding “translation criticism” by Katarina Reiss (2000; separate pages are listed below in parentheses). Propose modifications where needed as you apply these suggestions to the activity of checking a draft

Evaluating the overall quality of communication via translation

231

translation for general acceptability for a specific target constituency. Answer the interposed queries as you proceed: (T)ranslation criticism is possible only by persons who are familiar with both the target and source languages, and is accordingly in a position to compare the translation directly with its original. (2-3)

 Is such a strict criterion for criticism (reviewing) possible in your translation setting? If not, what are the main limiting factors, and what might be done to come closer to satisfying this ideal? What is meant by objective translation criticism? In the present context objectivity means to be verifiable as in contrast to arbitrary and inadequate. This means that every criticism of a translation, whether positive or negative, must be defined explicitly and be verified by examples. … In a negative criticism the critic should try to ascertain what lead the translator to make the (alleged) error. … But then this also raises the challenge of matching any negative criticism with a suggestion for improvement. … [W]hen translations are criticized there should always be a proposed remedy. (4-5).

 According to the principle set forth above, how “objective” is the process of translation (draft) criticism in your setting? How might ordinary and experienced “reviewers” be encouraged and equipped to be more objective in their work, for the benefit of the entire review process? Certainly the final “challenge” can be accomplished, at least to a certain degree – how, or by what methods? [T]he translator of a form-focused text should also be creative in deviating from the norms of the target language, especially when such “erosions” have an aesthetic purpose. … The most thorough justification of this practice is the statement by W. E. Sueskind…: “The original author wrote with full command of his own language, and he can therefore demand exploitation of the full range of subtle implications peculiar to expressions which our language, and our language alone, can offer.” (36-37)

 What do you think of this argument – how valid or applicable is it when translating the literature of Scripture? Have you thought about this issue before – or better, applied it in your translation practice? If so, give an example to illustrate the point. So the evaluation of a translation should not focus on some particular aspect or section of it, as is so often done, but it should begin rather with a definition of its text type. Once this has been done and the appropriate translation method has been identified, then the degree to which the translator has met the relevant criteria can be assessed. In other words, in a content-focused text, it is whether primary concern has been shown for accuracy of data; in a form-focused text, whether special attention beyond the general concern for accuracy of information has been paid so that rhetorical structures will achieve a comparable esthetic effect; in an appeal-focused text, whether it achieves the purpose intended by the original; in an audio-medial text, whether the relevant media have been accommodated and their contributions duly incorporated. (47)

 Have you ever thought about Bible translation, specifically translation criticism, in these terms? Do you think that this is a valid concern – and more, is it a realizable goal to try to achieve? If you have already translated or evaluated a certain text of

232

Ernst Wendland

Scripture according to a functional methodology, describe what you did, how you did it, and what the effect was on your target audience. If you have never considered Bible translation from a functionalist perspective before, do you think that this approach is worth considering? Explain why (or why not). The critic must examine the translation with regard to each of these linguistic elements: the semantic elements for equivalence, the lexical elements for adequacy, the grammatical elements for correctness, and the stylistic elements for correspondence. Attention must be paid to how each of these elements relate not only to each other, but also to the demands of the text type. On the one hand these elements are not independent entities; on the other hand their value differs in each of the various text types. In content-focused texts verbal semantics (the lexical element) and syntactical semantics (the grammatical element) assume priority, while in form- and appeal-focused texts the phonetic, syntactic and lexical elements are especially important. (66)

 Have you ever evaluated, or critiqued, a translation in terms of the categories that Reiss sets out above – more or less? Explain. Are the different “linguistic” distinctions and associated criteria that she makes clearly differentiated for you? If so, give an example of each of the four categories; if not, propose a modification of her system. [I]n order to evaluate a translation objectively – “it is not enough to learn the language. One must study its culture, not just as an interested visitor, but from the ground up, and…systematically.” (George Mounin). (78)

 How does one go about studying a culture “systematically”? Is it necessary for a mother-tongue speaker of the language to do this? Why (or why not)? Give an example of the importance of this principle as applied in Bible translation. The critic should test whether these implications (i.e., affective values) are appropriately echoed in the target language. He should notice whether the linguistic means for expressing humor or irony, scorn or sarcasm, excitement or emphasis in the original have been recognized by the translator and rendered appropriately in the target language. Frequently the linguistic elements of the original alone do not call sufficient attention to particular affective aspects, so that these must be detected in other ways. Naturally in appeal-focused texts these determinants call for the greatest attention. (83)

 Which biblical texts would seem to be especially “appeal-focused’ in nature? Give an example or two of “humor or irony, scorn or sarcasm, excitement or emphasis,” for example from John 9. Point out the “determinants” of such affective values in the original Greek – and correspondingly, how these sentiments have been rendered in YL. EXERCISE-5 Scripture products in non-print media also need to be carefully researched and then tested both during and after production. The following excerpt of a case study carried out in India on audio recordings of the Bible illustrates some of the aspects and considerations involved in such testing (Sundersingh 2003:2,5,8).

Evaluating the overall quality of communication via translation

233

 Compare this study with any testing that you may have carried out on audio (cassette, CD, MP3) texts: What are the similarities and differences?  Which other dimensions of an audio text need to be considered during such testing and why?  Are audio Scripture texts an important means of communication in your cultural setting? Tell why or why not. If so, describe the various types of products that are being prepared and the popular response to them. If apparent, also mention some of the difficulties that have developed during the course of these audio productions – as well as any satisfactory solutions, if found. I selected Zondervan’s NIV Audio Bible, Visual Bible’s Mathew video and Hosanna’s Dramatized NT as three products for testing, since all three used the New International Version, followed a reading from Mathew’s gospel, and stuck pretty close to the biblical text in reading. In this research, therefore, I am making a deliberate attempt to study the issue of density and how it affects users’ perceptions. Consequently, I bring a two-fold enquiry into this research: 1) to compare the dramatized reading style with straight reading 2) to compare the dramatized style of Hosanna which is quite compact with the dramatized style of Visual Bible that is quite elaborate and leisurely paced. The Visual Bible seems to be leisurely paced giving the listener enough time to chew the material. The number of words is the same and it is spread over that much more time. Music, sound effects like the splashing of waves, screaming of disciples, etc, help reduce the density of material presented. The listener is not bombarded with so much of information. Zondervan and Hosanna would have probably covered three or four stories in the same duration taken by the Visual Bible. The preliminary findings of this research seem to confirm my hypothesis that Visual Bible’s dramatization is the most preferred option of listeners in Bangalore and the primary reason for this choice appears to have a direct bearing on the density of presentation. It came as a real surprise to the respondents when I revealed to them, after the research was over, that the second reading I played for them was an audio track of a video program. All my respondents affirmed that the audio track of the Visual Bible was complete in itself and was worthy of being compared with other audio products. The Visual Bible is leisurely paced giving the listeners more time to engage with the material. This kind of an approach reduces the density of content presented via audio media and thereby contributes to better communication, comprehension and retention of the message. In my presentation of this paper in TTW, I will also display the wave formations of these recordings on screen and demonstrate density concerns. Zondervan and Hosanna try to cover the whole New Testament within a certain number of audio cassettes or audio CDs and thereby they automatically increase the message density. The higher the density, the more the strain in listening, comprehension and retention. The higher the density, the less attention span the program is likely to hold.

 What are the implications of this particular testing program with regard to the production of audio (only) materials?

234

Ernst Wendland

 What additional extra-textual aspects of performance would need to be considered in the case of an audio-visual (video) production? List what you consider to be the two most critical factors.  Suggest some ways in which such a testing program might be carried out in your setting.

Assessing a specific conceptual context of text reception The short passage of Revelation 4 includes quite a number of important concepts that are either alien to, or not fully compatible with, a south-central African cognitive model of existence (world-view) – the people’s religious reality in particular. The following are some examples: John hears a mysterious voice sounding “like a trumpet” (v. 1) which directs him to someone sitting on a rainbow-encircled throne (v. 3), one that emits lightning with thunder (v. 5) and is preceded by a vestibule consisting of a “sea of glass, clear as crystal” (v. 6a), a royal throne that is also surrounded by six-winged “living creatures” covered with eyes (vv. 6b, 8). In addition, there are certain structural and stylistic features of the original text that will certainly be missed in any bare translation, English or Chewa, no matter how idiomatic, unless they are elucidated through some paratextual or extratextual devices. Appropriate contextual adjustment strategies are needed, therefore, in order to promote a greater degree of comprehension (or, quality of communicability) with regard to most, if not all, biblical texts. These auxiliary techniques too need to be evaluated in terms of their relative quality just like the translated text itself. From a cognitive perspective then, the issue is as follows (Brown 2003:53; italics added): The key technique for assessing and improving communicativeness is to test the translated text and associated contextual helps with the receptors to assess the cognitive effects, and then to revise the text and contextual helps in the light of the deficiencies that are discovered. Again, testers need to give more weight to intended conclusions than to premises, and much less weight to incidental implicatures that arise from the original communication situation but were not part of authorial intent.

I am not in a position in the present study to develop the practical implications that would be associated with a full testing program of this kind – one that must be applied to both the translated text and the accompanying paratext. I can simply call attention to several important aspects of such an exercise that will need to be more fully explored in future research – research that some Bible translation investigators are already vigorously pursuing. For example, Harriet Hill has suggested that the various problems of comprehension which arise in intercultural communication may be classified into several different types, as exemplified in quadrants 2-4 of Table 6 displaying four possible conceptual relationships (adapted from Hill 2003:2).

Evaluating the overall quality of communication via translation

235

A key biblical concept from the perspective of TL audience  and the original text 

Hearer thinks it is shared

Does not think it is shared

Actually shared

1. Intended Context, e.g., an open door (v. 1), lion (v. 7)

3. Unrecognized Context, e.g., beasts covered with eyes (v. 6b)

Not actually shared

2. Unintended Context, e.g. royal throne which emits lightning and thunder (v. 5)

4. Missing Context, e.g., a person with the appearance of jasper and carnelian stones (v. 3)

Table 6: Cognitive contextual possibilities

We may start from the shared concepts that largely overlap with respect to both denotation (referential meaning) and also connotation (associative meaning), hence causing little problem for a specific target group, e.g., quadrant 1: most African Christians of course are well aware of the awesome characteristics associated with a “lion,” and many will also understand the invitational symbolism of “an open door.” However, various difficulties of comprehension and/or communication are presented by other important concepts found in Rev. 4 (and elsewhere in the Apocalypse), for example, those that people recognize but do not fully or even partially share with the actual biblical cognitive domain (quadrant 2) – such as, the “lighting and thunder” that appear to emanate from the royal chair of the chief (“king”). In Africa such a phenomenon would undoubtedly be associated with the practice of sorcery and the use of protective magical charms. Even more problematic are concepts that people have in their world of experience but do not realize the implicit correspondence that there is with the biblical notion (quadrant 3). We note, for example, the strange winged beasts covered with eyes which people naturally have had no personal contact with – but which are certainly not unfamiliar to or uncommon in their (Chewa) oral narrative (nthano) tradition. Most difficult of all are those concepts that are foreign to the target culture and are not even recognized as such (quadrant 4), for instance, the precious stones of “jasper” and carnelian.” These seem to be mentioned not in terms of their value as items indicative of wealth and status, but simply with reference to the brilliant colors that they reflected to illuminate or to spotlight the unidentified person sitting at the center of the heavenly throne room scene. In any case, they are completely opaque in transliterated vernacular form. What then can be done about such communicative contextual gaps? Harriet Hill makes the following suggestion (2003:3): To enlarge the mutual cognitive environment so that it replicates the one the first receptors shared with the biblical author, the contextual assumptions of Quadrants 2–4 need to move into Quadrant 1. Then the secondary receptor can process the text in the same way that the first receptor did. This enlargement can take place in two directions: 1) receptors can access more of their cognitive environment by recognizing similarities that are actually present, and 2) they can learn new assumptions from the first receptors’ environment. Both processes are necessary to enlarge the mutual cognitive environment. The

236

Ernst Wendland first allows the biblical message to permeate more of the receptor’s cognitive environment. The second serves to expand their cognitive environment.

Whether different “cognitive environments” can ever be made to fully coincide (made “mutual”) in all respects is doubtful, but that does not render the various attempts to do so any less worthwhile, or indeed necessary as part of the process of communicating a more complete “package” of Scripture. A more reasonable aim would thus be to achieve as large or precise a correspondence as possible in the most situationally relevant respects, using all the means available, in view of the target audience concerned. What would be the paratextual potential in relation to Revelation 4 (cf. Chapter 9)? The following is a selection of possible examples that would be helpful in a Chewa contextual setting: • Section headings (e.g., for ch. 4 as a whole: Praise be to the Lord God Almighty who rules all creation from his heavenly throne!) • Glossary entries (e.g., “throne” (4:2): a specially made chair for the king or chief, which symbolizes his presence, rule, authority, and power. This earthly image of royalty is often used in the Bible to represent the universal authority (sovereignty) of the Lord God who rules in heaven over all things in his creation. It is a place where angels and other heavenly creatures are gathered to offer ceaseless honor and worship to God in praise of his great goodness and glory. God’s throne also represents the place where he makes judgment upon all human wickedness [see Rev. 6:1-8,16; 8:3-6; 16:17] and also the source of eternal blessings for all redeemed saints in the new, heavenly “Jerusalem” [Rev. 21:2-7].) • Cross references (e.g., for “living creatures” – the four wonderful beings in charge of worship activities around God’s heavenly throne, whose description in Rev. 4:6-9 reminds us of similar awesome creatures, the cherubim, reported in Ezekiel 1:5-21 and 10:12-15, 20-22; see also Isa. 6:2-3 and Rev. 5:6, 8, 11, 14; 6:1, 3, 5-7; 7:11; 14:3; 15:7; 19:4.) • Illustrations (e.g., of the three animals referred to in v. 7: a lion, an ox/bull, and an eagle in flight – Comment: Though one or another of these animals are known to many Chewa people, they are not all known by everyone, and so, to more fully set the scene, it would be helpful to illustrate each one. To add further detail, however, such as bodies covered with eyes and six wings, would probably only result in confusion and might even be frightening, an emotion which these creatures are most likely not intended to evoke.) • Introductory notes (e.g., under the section heading noted above: In this chapter John receives a new vision, but one which seems also to continue the initial scene of ch. 1:12-16. The door into heaven is opened to reveal God’s wondrous glory and great power, which is praised by heavenly beings. The worshipful activities pictured for us in this chapter prepare the way for an introduction in ch. 5 to the book’s chief character, Jesus, the Lamb of God, who was sacrificed to save us.) • Explanatory notes (e.g., v. 5: “flashes of lightning and roaring and crashes R. Hill distinguishes between an “explanatory” note, which reveals certain important contextual implications along with contextual assumptions, and a “descriptive” note which deals only with the latter type of background information (2004:20-21). 

Evaluating the overall quality of communication via translation

237

of thunders” – Such awesome activities in nature are symbolic of the supreme majesty and power of God and recall their initial occurrence when the LORD revealed himself to the people of Israel at Mt. Sinai [Exo. 19:16; cf. Ezek. 1:4, 13]. This type of imagery often accompanies OT accounts of God’s mighty interventions in history to deliver his people and to defeat their earthly enemies [e.g., 1 Sm. 7:10, 12:18; Job. 38:1, 40:6; Ps. 18:12-15, 77:18; Isa. 29:6; Hab. 3:3-7]. In Revelation this expression is repeated at the conclusion of each major cycle of seven divine judgments [8:5, 11:19, 16:18]. These symbolic manifestations of omnipotence therefore assure believers of every age that God is in control and will not forget those who persecute his people [e.g., Rev. 19:20, 20:9-10, 21:18]. )

These different paratextual features would, in turn, have to be evaluated contextually in terms of their relative quality with respect to the primary consumer group: How well do they pass the tests of intelligibility, idiomacity, relevancy, and fidelity in particular? Other important issues could be assessed at the same time: First of all, do readers really want such helps? Do they even realize that they may actually need them in order to better understand the biblical text? Have they been sufficiently instructed as to how to properly use these aids to enrich their study of the Scriptures? Is there any other type of background information that they would like to have included with their translation? A (mini-)concordance (listing of key words with references) is often requested, but this would probably add considerably to the cost of any version that included one. The visual quality of the printed format should probably be tested too, several times in fact, based on some prior education of readers as to the available options and their typographical significance. Project administrators must obtain reliable answers to such immediate contextual questions that concern the quality of text-processing before a complete Bible or Testament is published. Once the translation is fixed in print (or some other mode of transmission), the text producers will be limited to extratextual solutions until the next opportunity arises to carry out a revision of the published version. EXERCISE-6  Evaluate the preceding paratextual aids from the perspective of the language / cultural setting that you are working in: Which are the three most important supplementary helps and why?  Now create some actual examples of your own with reference to the items cited from Revelation 4. Assume that all these devices would be allowed in the Bible that you are working on, or one that you know of. If you give examples in an actual TL, which is the ideal, then in order to permit comparison and a discussion of them, you will need to provide English back-translations.  What is one obvious problem with illustrations in the case of the book of Revelation – the “seas of glass” for example (4:6)? On the other hand, would some illustrations help in the case of Rev. 4:7 in your own cultural setting? Explain why or why not.

238

Ernst Wendland

How about the illustration of Figure 17: would this be helpful to create an interpretive frame of reference for Rev. 4:5? Explain why or why not:

Figure 17: Lampstand

EXERCISE-7 How the would you respond to the following suggestions regarding the practice of contextualized cognitive conditioning (from H. Hill 2005; for further details, see H. Hill 2006)? Whether you agree or disagree with these points, give reasons to support your own position and practice regarding such matters: Given the lack of one-to-one correspondence between biblical and receptor conceptual categories, translators have two basic choices: 1) they can create new expressions in the language to refer to biblical concepts (the non-local solution), or 2) they can use existing conceptual categories (the local solution). … Developments in our understanding of communication show that meaning is inferred from the dynamic interaction of the text with information (contextual assumptions) the text evokes in the audience’s mind. Meaning is not in the text alone. Providing the text of Scripture in the local language does not ensure comprehension if the audience does not also have access to the intended contextual assumptions. One constraint on the search for the intended context is that hearers only consider assumptions they think they share with the speaker or author. When communication is direct, hearers often identify the intended context, but in secondary communication such as Scripture, when a message designed for one audience is given to another, contextual mismatches are frequent. Rather than accessing the intended context, hearers may access an unintended context, or may not have the intended context, or may have the intended context but not access it because they don’t recognize it as the intended context. When translators use a non-local solution, they create new expressions in a language by borrowing from another language or by making up new combinations of existing Used by permission: Illustration by Horace Knowles © The British & Foreign Bible Society 1954, 1967, 1972; Additions & Amendments by Louise Bass © The British & Foreign Bible Society 1994. 

Evaluating the overall quality of communication via translation

239

words in the language. Although the words are in the mother-tongue, the conceptual categories are new. This strategy is often used with the intent of communicating the message accurately, without the distortion the available local categories might introduce. Often, the more translators understand the local categories, the more they become aware of differences between them and biblical ones, the less likely they are to use local conceptual categories. … The other option translators have is to use existing local conceptual categories. Local terms evoke a context for the audience, so they are able to infer meaning. The risk is that the meaning may not be the intended one. Translators who opt for this solution prefer that the audience infer some meaning rather than no meaning, and trust that the biblical context will reshape the local conceptual category so that it resembles the biblical concept more and more over time. The long-term effect is worldview transformation as the category is contradicted, strengthened, or added to repeatedly. John Beekman wrote: “When a referent occurs in, say, twenty or more contexts, experience has shown that what is said about that referent shapes and may correct the reader’s understanding. This procedure depends upon the frequent use of a word in different contexts to ultimately result in an adequate understanding of the Scriptural concept. . . . The successful use of vernacular terms, even if some may need to depend on the corrective influence of context, makes a translation more relevant from the very first” (1980:39).

EXERCISE-8 Discuss the following quotation (from Baker 2006:335) with special reference to its relevance to the important process of translation assessment. Also consider the distinction that is made between static “context” and dynamic “contextualization.” How does such a perspective affect or influence your perspective on the practice of Bible translating (versus “translation”!) in your particular setting? The past decade or so has witnessed a general shift in scholarly discourse away from static concepts such as that of context and towards active processes of engagement, implied in notions such as contextualization, which underline the fluidity of interaction and the fact that it is socially and jointly constructed, partly in advance but also to a great extent at the point of interaction itself. Similar shifts have been taking place in translation studies, for example away from static concepts of equivalence and norms and towards recognition of the fact that the process of translation does not consist of passive responses to cultural, social and aesthetic conventions but of active negotiation among participants with shifting agendas and unequal levels of control over the interaction.

EXERCISE-9 Consider the following “case study” in contextualizing a Bible translation (adapted from Wendland and Hachibamba 2000a). It arises from some of the lexical and semantic (conceptual) problems that the Tonga translators in Zambia experienced when trying to render certain key terms relating to “the powers” from Paul’s letter to the 

Beekman is using the term “context” to refer to what we would now refer to as co-text (H. Hill ibid).

240

Ernst Wendland

Ephesians. Evaluate the different problems that are pointed out in this excerpt and the various solutions that are offered from the perspective of the language and cultural setting that you are currently translating the Bible in. What would you do differently and why with respect to the several key Pauline expressions and key terms that are discussed below?

Problems with “the powers”: A case-study of recontextualization Some significant translation difficulties are encountered with regard to the novel expressions that appear in two crucial passages: First of all, “the names that are named” in Ephesians 1:21 could easily be mistaken to refer either to a specific type of sorcery (where one’s opponent’s name is mentioned in the malicious occultic rite), or to traditional prayers for intercession (where the ancestral spirits are called upon for some type of major assistance). Again in 6:12, with reference to “evil spiritual forces in the heavenly [realms],” a difficulty arises due to the literal non-equivalence of the concepts concerned, e.g., in the old Tonga version: “evil breezes [or breaths] in the regions up above,” which might possibly be (mis)construed as an allusion to the familiar “spirits of possession” (basangu) which are believed to send such air-borne messages (e.g., in the form of a sudden warm-air pocket) as a notice to people of their presence and a warning not to get too close. In short then, the problems presented by the several “spiritual power” passages in Ephesians stem largely from the fact that ordinary readers/hearers do not correctly understand to whom the various technical terms and expressions actually refer. Therefore, if the sense and significance of the original text is not properly grasped, it is not surprising that its translation into Tonga will have comparatively little impact or relevance to the faith-life of Christians. A “recontextualization” of this biblical text is urgently needed. The term recontextualization refers to the various techniques whereby skilled translators attempt to replace or compensate for the loss and “leakage” of meaning that inevitably occurs in the case of any translation, no matter what kind it is. They thus seek to provide a translated text that is the closest “functional equivalent” of the original document in terms of both form and content (de Waard and Nida 1986:36). This can be done both textually by means of a meaning-based rendering and paratextually through various supplementary aids which serve to enlighten receptors with regard to crucial aspects of the relevant biblical setting. These are efforts aimed at providing readers and hearers with a more complete and accurate cognitive framework for interpretation with which they might approach the original text and determine the author’s primary communicative intentions. I will give several examples of this recontextualizing process as they concern the principal Ephesian passages under consideration. I would like to think that my use of the term “recontextualization” here anticipates its more recent usage by Juliane House where it is defined as ‘‘taking a text out of its original frame and context and placing it within a new set of relationships and culturally-conditioned expectations” (cited in Baker 2006:318). 

Evaluating the overall quality of communication via translation

241

An idiomatic translation of the biblical text What is envisioned here is a rendering that is meaning-oriented in terms of adequately conveying the intended theological-ethical sense and functional significance of the biblical text by means of a semantically and pragmatically equivalent text in the receptor language. The aim of this type of translation is to utilize the full linguistic and literary features of the TL in a popular, readily understandable style in an effort to accurately and naturally recreate the essential message (not necessarily all aspects of referential significance) of the source language document, that is, in terms of content, intent, impact, and appeal. Such an idiomatically “faithful” version is not intended to replace an older, more literal, often venerated (“missionary”) translation of the Bible (should one already exist), but rather to complement it. The principle here is that, when used intelligently, in a comparative manner, two versions of the Bible are better than one (assuming of course that each has been done well with respect to its own terms of reference). The preceding policy would seem to be an ideal one to follow when dealing with the translation of the various spiritual powers that are referred to in the Ephesian epistle. Several difficulties remain, however, and it turns out that there is no easy translational solution in this instance. This fact has been pointed out by a number of commentators and biblical scholars. In their “semantic-domain” dictionary of the Greek New Testament, for example, Louw and Nida observe that “in many languages it is simply not possible to speak of such supernatural powers without in some way identifying them with various kinds of spirits” (1988:147). However, if this implicit recommendation were carried out in Tonga (and many other Bantu languages), it would produce a definite anthropomorphic understanding of all these demonic spirits, i.e., they would turn out to be ultimately of “ancestral” origin, whether favorable or harmful. Now this is an excellent way to contextualize Paul’s message; the problem is that it also “transculturizes” his intended meaning and in effect transfers it from a biblical to a Bantu sociocultural setting. In other words, we are not dealing with human-derived spiritual forces in these passages, but demonic ones that are under the control of Satan, the evil one (cf. 6:11, 16). Surely the malignant, frequently fatal potency of evil (ancestral) spirits, magic, and sorcery is very real in a Tonga cultural setting, but people must be shown that their traditional predicament is even worse than they realized or could even imagine because, as Paul says (if I might paraphrase him): “We are not grappling with powers and principalities (etc.) that were once human (‘flesh and blood’) in nature, but with the diabolical forces of the Devil himself” (6:12). In a similar way, however, the resources at our disposal for defense and ultimate victory are infinitely greater, for these too are not of human origin (i.e., mystical bwaanga magic as dispensed and delivered by diviners and medicine men), but they are providentially supplied by God the omnipotent Father Creator, guaranteed by Jesus Christ his Son, and distributed by the Supreme divine Spirit (1:17, 19; 3:14-19; 6:10). If the substitution of classificatory names for local spirits and magical forces does not seem to be a satisfactory solution when translating these passages into Chitonga, what else might be done? Pattemore makes the following suggestion: “Translations

242

Ernst Wendland

should aim to cover this area of meaning [i.e., pertaining to the spiritual powers], whether by telescoping, using a generic term qualified in different ways, or using an indigenous set of terms. To attempt a consistent, one-to-one match of source and target words is unnecessary, and often unlikely to succeed” (1994:128). The use of a modified generic expression in one form or another is commonly turned to in a meaning-based version in an effort to convey as much as possible of the intended sense or purpose of some foreign or unfamiliar biblical concept. But here we again encounter a conceptual difficulty that is presented by the obligatory noun-class prefixal reference system of Bantu languages. If the powers (at least some of them) are conceived of as animate beings (which appears to be the case in Paul’s usage), then a personal prefix needs to be used (i.e., mu- sg, ba- pl). However, as was noted, this humanizes (hence also subordinates) them all, making them much less of a potential danger or threat to the ultimate spiritual well-being of believers. The only option is to put all these powers into the nominal class of ‘things’ (isg, zi- pl), which also fortunately incorporates many animals and other creatures so that it is not a completely inanimate category. Thus the pertinent terms of 6:12, for example, are rendered as follows: njakulwana azyeezyo zijisi nguzu, bwami, abweendelezi bwa mumudima waansi ano, alimwi azipati zili muluuwo lubi lwatumbizyi – literally, ‘[we] are fighting with those things/creatures that have power, rule, and leadership of the darkness of here below, and also with the big/bad ones in the wicked wind of whirlwinds (“dust-devils”)’. The last expression represents a double Tonga contextualization (i.e., for the complex Greek ta pneumatika tês ponêrias en tois epouraniois), namely, with metonymic reference to the indefinite negative force behind an “ill wind” plus the evil powers thought to stir up the appearance of destructive whirlwinds (tumbizyi). The preceding are several proposed changes in the light of our present study of Ephesians. They will have to be carefully tested and honestly evaluated by typical receptors to determine what, if any, meaning is conveyed by these new renderings in the light of the context supplied by the biblical text.

The provision of a situation-specific conceptual context In addition to a translation that at least points members of the target group in the right direction of interpretation, it will probably be necessary to add some concisely worded footnotes in order to clarify those expressions in the text that refer to entities and events that lie outside their traditional frame of reference and everyday experience. These contextualized explanations are intended to help readers (and, via a more enlightened elocution, also hearers) to bridge the great conceptual gap that lies between the biblical setting and a contemporary Tonga perspective on such important matters as the diverse evil forces that wage war against the Christian (community) in this life. Such situation-specific supplementary comments make it possible for More helpful than the incorporation of a larger number of individual footnotes attached to the passages found in a conventional Scripture text is an integrated, full-scale study Bible. This format would permit the inclusion of more detailed explanatory and descriptive (but still “user-friendly”) comments of a contextualized nature, that is, applicable to the local life-setting. Such an extended annotated Bible is currently being produced in Tonga. 

Evaluating the overall quality of communication via translation

243

perceptive readers to enter further into the setting of the biblical text, and conversely also to apply the religious and ethical significance of the biblical text to the familiar world that most Batonga live in today. To what extent does Paul’s instruction or exhortation, if clearly understood, assist modern Christians to deal with the traditionally-conceived, hostile powers and malevolent forces that continue to hound and harass them on a daily basis? Footnotes, especially those designed for basic readers, cannot explain everything that is needed or desired of course; a selective choice will have to be made and supplemented as always by the in-depth teaching ministry of the church. But at the very minimum, succinct notes of this nature can serve to suggest to readers that the meaning of these passages goes beyond their usual frame of reference and thus additional, more detailed study or assistance is required to more fully understand the intended biblical message. Another obvious problem with footnotes is that inexperienced readers must first learn how to use them correctly, for example, to realize that they are not to be read as part of the text of Scripture, but are provided as a means of shedding light on what the text is saying. In addition, an efficient, unobtrusive way of conveying this supplementary information to listeners must also be devised (e.g., via vernacular cassette recordings). The following is a sample of such a contextualized footnote that is intended to enlighten hearers about what Paul is getting at with the list of powers that he mentions first in 1:21: In this passage Paul is referring to any type of power, rule, or authority that Satan uses to attack and oppress believers on earth. This would include all those good or evil forces that are either trusted or feared by people today, such as, ancestral spirits, sorcery, witchcraft, magic (‘medicine’), and various sorts of protective charms. Even though demons may be able to give a certain degree of power to such persons and things, Paul assures Christians that they are all completely under the control and authority of the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Indeed, God raised Christ from the dead and exalted him in heaven to manifest his complete victory and supreme rule over the entire world (vv 20-23) – both the one in which we are now living and also the next (2 Pet 3:12-13). Therefore we need fear and should put our trust in no one or nothing else but our all-powerful Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. His surpassing strength, which enables one to stand fast against all the attacks of Satan and his evil angels, is immediately available to every Christian by faith (1 Pet 5:8-9). Christ alone provides us with a sure hope of ‘salvation’ in this present life and, more important, in the age to come (see 1:13-14,18; 4:30).

In explanatory comments like this, however, it is important not to overstate the case – that is, to attribute more power and influence to the devil than he really deserves from a biblical perspective. This is particularly important in an African context where such a spiritual viewpoint has already been greatly distorted due to the strong influence from a prevailing cognitive environment that is saturated, as it were, with traditional religious beliefs and practices. Such an indigenous perspective tends to give a great priority in terms of interest, attention, concern, and commitment to the subordinate

244

Ernst Wendland

spirit “world” rather than to the almighty Creator God, which is just the opposite of the biblical position as clearly expressed in both testaments. Finally, it should be pointed out that such descriptive and expository notes are only part of a wider strategy of providing paratextual supplementary helps for Bible readers, which includes such diverse features as: illustrations, section headings, cross references, glossary entries, time-lines, and suggestive or elucidating typographical techniques involving the page format and type style. These are all intended and specifically designed to give consumers a more complete and accurate picture of the original historical and cultural setting in which a given text of Scripture needs to be conceptually situated (or creatively imagined) in order for them to correctly understand the author’s intended meaning. They will then be able to make a more effective and relevant application of that same message in the present-day context of their immediate life world and belief system.

The need for a relevant contextualization A prominent emphasis in contemporary biblical hermeneutics, especially in nonWestern settings, is upon “reception (receptor-oriented) theory.” The importance of this particular focus cannot be denied if appropriate communication is going to be the result, that is, with regard to the two main conditions of obtaining what has been termed “optimal relevance,” namely, the relative ease of “processing effort” coupled with the stimulation of an adequate measure of conceptually-based “contextual effects” (Gutt, 2000:30). Ten years ago, a special volume of Semeia (no. 73, West and Dube, eds.) was devoted to an exploration of this issue as it concerns the communication and interpretation of the text of Scriptures in various settings of reception that featured groups of ‘ordinary’ African readers/hearers, namely, those who tend “to read [and hear] the Bible pre-critically” (West and Dube 1996:7). These studies, in the light of our own examination of Ephesians, helped clarify for us a set of seven basic qualities that should (ideally) characterize the process of contextualization, or “familiarization,” as it is carried out in many, if not most, contexts of significant Scripture use among the Tonga (and no doubt most other Zambian peoples as well). It is not possible to elaborate on these procedures here. However, they are summarized below for reference and possible future follow-up. A significantly “relevant contextualization” of the biblical message (the book of Ephesians, for example) is more likely to take place under these conditions: “Reader response criticism, or reception hermeneutics, has introduced biblical scholars to a reader [or hearer] who is no longer perceived as a passive receiver of authorial or textual meaning, but who is now recognized as an active creator of meaning .... The practice of ‘reading with’ invites scholarly readers, and their allied ‘implied’ readers and other surrogates ... , to read the Bible with actual readers from poor and marginalized communities [but not necessarily limited to such groups], even when many of these readers are only ‘readers’ in a metaphorical sense” (West 1996:27).  In the case of literary texts, instead of “optimal,” we should seek “maximum relevance,” which “involves getting the greatest possible effects from what is heard or read” (Boase-Beier 2006:42). Thus, “certain points in a text, and especially a poem, serve as focal points for converging stylistic patterns; difficulty in processing at such points “holds up”…the reader. The result of this is that the reader searches for significance” (ibid:42-43; cf. exercise 16 of ch. 7). 

Evaluating the overall quality of communication via translation •

•

•

•

•

•

•

245

The communication leader/initiator/guide/facilitator (whether in the case of a sermon, Bible study, instruction class, etc.), especially if a cultural “outsider,” must clearly realize that she or he is “reading [listening] with” a pre-critical, non-academic group of receptors. She or he should therefore make every effort to promote a free expression of their distinctive individual and common hermeneutical perspectives, input, and feedback. An interactive, dialogic, participatory, communal method of instruction ought to be encouraged, that is, to the extent possible in keeping with the specific type of religious setting and purpose concerned. The primary aim is to work towards a general consensus (not necessarily a complete compromise) with regard to the main issue(s) of a particular text and, in addition, to facilitate understanding and the opportunity for each participant to make his or her individual contribution to the overall, group “communication event.” This interpersonal “dialogue” with the Scriptures in relation to a particular sociocultural setting should normally be conducted in the principal vernacular language that is represented so that key biblical notions and terms may be isolated, conceptualized, and verbalized (discussed) immediately, directly, and contextually, without any linguistic-semantic “interference” from another, especially a Western, language. The discussion leader must ensure that a sufficient amount of background material pertaining to the biblical text under consideration is provided, whether all at once as an introduction or, better perhaps, periodically as the need arises, e.g., culturally appropriate visual aids and a careful selection of descriptiveexplanatory comments pertaining to hermeneutically relevant items and issues found either explicitly or implicitly in the passage concerned, particularly those of an important sociocultural, ethical, and religious nature. Any significant oral-aural features of the biblical text need to be pointed out and discussed critically and comparatively in relation to both the receptor language and literary tradition as well as the contemporary setting of communication, such as: the original genres (e.g., poetry vs prose), structural organization (e.g., parallelism), stylistic features (notably patterned repetition), rhetorical shading (e.g., lexical connotation), typical music (as an evocative background), etc. In keeping with this particular aspect of message transmission, an appropriate mode of verbal instruction ought to predominate in the current setting, that is, orally interactive as opposed to (but not necessarily eliminating entirely) the practice of silent reading and writing. All teaching in Africa should be effected primarily by means of a traditional, inductive, non-analytical, dialogic method, one that features the integrated and holistic use of familiar indigenous modes and popular artistic models of oral teaching like proverbs, maxims, folk narratives, riddles, praise poetry, initiation precepts, songs (of various types), and so forth, including plenty of pertinent examples and life-related illustrations. A multicultural type of presentation should be encouraged if possible, namely,

Surprisingly, this crucial point received almost no mention by contributors to the Semeia volume. It was either overlooked or, more likely, simply taken for granted. However, as our examination of Ephesians in the light of Chitonga has shown, this should not be done because one’s interpretation of the biblical text is greatly affected by the type of translation that one is working with, whether more or less literal/meaning-oriented. 

246



Ernst Wendland where participants from diverse ethnic groups happen to be present (including the discussion leader). Such a differential and comparative approach, keeping the biblical setting continually in mind, can encourage a clearer critical perception of one’s own cultural and linguistic idiosyncrasies and can also serve to promote beneficial inter-group awareness and cooperation in religious and other affairs.

In closing, I wish to emphasize the point that during any contextualizing exercise aimed at “domesticating” the biblical message, the original text and context cannot be ignored or allowed to recede too far into the background of the process as a whole. In other words, the presumed authorial intention, as determined on the basis of a careful analysis of his selection of theological and ethical content as well as his rhetorical shaping of the structure and style of his discourse, should always be used as a guide for disclosing what he selected to be the main themes, objectives, and emphases of his message to the saints. These in turn ought to be accorded due consideration today when the particular passage is studied and applied in any sort of religious communication, whether formal or informal.10 This principle is important for preserving a “faithful” (factually accurate) testimony to the inspired text and context of Scripture as well as preventing a subjective, over-contextualization of its message.11 In the Tonga situation, for example, it is important to convey to contemporary Bible readers/hearers the crucial difference between the type of spiritual “powers” that Paul had in mind (i.e., demonic) as distinct from those that populate the typical Tongan world-view and world of experience (i.e., demotic). Furthermore, it is necessary to stress in greater measure the surpassingly “power”-ful attributes of the God of the Bible and their accessibility by faith in Christ, for these are infinitely superior to any malevolent energy that is supposedly wielded by the evil spirits and/or their human agents in this world. However, all our efforts at contextualizing the biblical message should also be convincing (rhetorically compelling and esthetically pleasing) in the sense that they do a good job of it. That is to say, there may be better or worse instances of this compositional-communicative process from a purely technical or compositional standpoint. Thus it is important that Bible translations (the primary source) and other forms of Christian communication are able to stand as artistically excellent instances of reproducing the original text in the TL, including the use of possibly a more appropriate media of transmission, e.g., the audio cassette, and a more dynamic style of translation, for The method of introducing such source-oriented “scholarly” material into an informal TL setting, as well as the amount of such information needed, will of course vary according to the situation and occasion. The ideal source would be a gifted, previously instructed, fellow member of the particular group concerned, one who knows their specific life-setting, needs, aspirations, limitations, gifts, etc. 11 The purpose of a “valid’ (informed) contextualization is not to blur or “fuse” the two so-called “horizons” of interpretation (Thistleton 1980:xix) – the Scriptural/canonical and the contemporary – thus “transculturizing” the original message. Rather, the point is to distinguish the principal correspondences and distinctive contrasts in relation to the two contexts based on a thorough understanding of this religious communication event within its biblical setting. In this way then receptors today are drawn “closer” in their understanding of the text of Scripture, on the one hand, while the latter is enabled in turn to “speak” more directly and relevantly to the former within the framework of their actual life and thought-world. 10

Evaluating the overall quality of communication via translation

247

example, an “oratorical” rendition, created especially for the artistically sensitive and appreciative ear. This high standard of quality should be reflected too, as suggested earlier, in the task of providing descriptive/explanatory notes that get at the heart of contextual problems which relate to both understanding the intended message (SL focus) and also adapting it with respect to the sociocultural and religious setting of the target group. This is not an easy assignment, hence not one for Scripture novices and/or culturally naive enthusiasts. There is an obvious need first of all for competent and creative national-led “contextualization teams”, supplemented (if necessary) by sympathetic and experienced foreign (especially fellow African) assistants to help out in particular areas of hermeneutical or technological deficiency (e.g., biblical languages, contextual [Ancient Near Eastern] background, oral poetics, multi-media expertise, publication typography, research and testing).12 Our ultimate communicative objective is to follow Paul’s example and to persuasively (2 Cor. 5:11) “recontextualize,” as it were, his powerful, Christocentric message to the Ephesians concerning spiritual powers, both good and evil, so that it is more clearly understood, precisely examined, and pervasively applied to a contemporary Tonga environment, religious as well as secular. Strictly speaking, a re-contextualization is involved because Paul has already provided the original pattern and an excellent model for us to follow in terms of form (a dynamic, captivating literary style), content (focused upon the strength to be found in union with Christ and one’s fellow-Christians), function (featuring integrated instruction, admonition, encouragement, appeal), and method (supremely need-related and relevant to everyday life) when dealing with the various critical issues that can arise when biblical text and teaching confront a vigorous local context and culture. EXERCISE-10  The following are several examples of how non-traditional media are being used nowadays to convey the Scriptures in different parts of the world – from Azerbaijan to Zimbabwe. Try to put yourself in the place of the developers of these new methods of Bible communication: In each case, tell what “control measures” you would put into effect in order to help ensure the quality of Scripture production in the first place I might posit the following scheme of hermeneutical types/aspects pertaining to possible Scripturebased “contextualization” procedures, as presented above: a) Intuitive (unacceptable) i- skewed: influenced entirely by the resident hermeneutical framework provided by African traditional religion and individualized or localized personal experience influenced unsystematically by isolated elements in the cotext of the ii- selective: individual passages concerned, especially if taken from a formally and semantically more difficult, literal translation b) Informed (desirable) i- textual: effected within the actual text of an idiomatic, meaning-based vernacular Bible translation ii- paratextual: supplied through perceptive supplementary notes that are conditioned to the principal setting of reception, including the people’s world-view and way of life (including theirreligious beliefs, value system, customs, traditions, social institutions, felt needs, etc.) 12

248

Ernst Wendland

– and then to assess the quality of the message transmission process thereafter. Even if you have not been involved in such novel projects in the past, give some thought to the critical issues that they raise for Bible translators and transmitters today: In our country [Azerbaijan], putting on a Christian concert is probably one of the most effective ways to share the Bible with large groups of people. … The Azeri are a people who love music, poetry, and dance, so whenever there is an opportunity to go to an event that offers these things, they go. … Vahid wrote most of the songs that are performed at the concerts, and they vary from prayers (one is simply the Lord’s Prayer, performed as a rap), to passages of Scripture. Very often the singers sing straight out of the book of Psalms. … [T]hey are hoping to mount a full-scale ballet based on the story of Jesus’ life as told in the four Gospels. Ballet and opera are very popular in Azerbaijan, and people flock to Baku’s theatres to watch ballets from both the local and international repertoire. A ballet about the life of Christ will attract a great deal of attention. The text is already written, and we have a very well-known composer working on writing the score, which will take at least a year… (Smeno and Rhodes 2007:3-4). “My son never read a book uninterrupted – until he got hold of the Graphic Bible!” This is typical of the reaction of parents who have bought copies of the Lion Graphic Bible from the Bible Society of Zimbabwe. Sub-titles ‘The Whole Story from Genesis to Revelation’, the book is a retelling of Bible stories in strip-cartoon format for children ranging from 10-year-olds to teenagers. … Mr. Mutema [the Bible Society’s General Secretary] says that the highly illustrated and reader-friendly presentation of the large-format paperback makes it ideal for young people. … “Our challenge is to make it available in the two other major languages, Shona and Ndebele…in order to ensure wide readership.” … The daily newspaper The Guardian said, “Jeff Anderson’s stunning pictures literally cover every page with glorious images, while Mike Maddox’s text successfully preserves the epic tone.” When the book was first published, Mr. Maddox was asked…what he thought about turning the Bible into “a cartoon with bubbles coming out of people’s mouths.” “I think comic can handle serious subjects quite easily,” he replied. “There’s no problem getting across an adult or serious thing in a comic… The medium itself doesn’t necessarily lend itself only to children’s stories… You can use a comic to tell a more adult story quite well. We’ve made an effort to be as accurate as we can to the historical facts.” (Matthewson 2007:19)

 Do you think that either of the media described above (songs – cartoons) would be appropriate for communicating the Apostle Paul’s message concerning “the powers” in Ephesians in your sociocultural and religious setting? Explain why or why not in each case. EXERCISE-11 I conclude this chapter on translation assessment with an extended, actually a multiple, case study – one that pertains to several Dutch Bible translations (from de Vries 2003, used by permission). These involve some rather specific problems and possible solutions which need to be evaluated in terms of their respective religious and sociocultural settings as well as Skopos (purpose) specifications.

Evaluating the overall quality of communication via translation

249

 Read through this comparative study from the perspective of the different qualitative categories that were proposed at the beginning of the chapter: fidelity, proximity, authenticity, intelligibility, idiomacity, and relevancy, and point out areas in the discussion where such considerations seem to apply or were taken into consideration in the situation at hand. Make a note of the particular aspects of these translation situations that are similar to those which you have experienced or know about. Was the case handled differently in your setting with regard to translation approach or communication strategy? Explain, using a specific example or two. The case I selected is that of Ruth as found in the Hebrew Bible. I focus on the way translators have handled conceptions of personhood as reflected in the Hebrew text of Ruth and I try to show how specific religious functions or skopoi, the things religious communities want to do with the Bible, determine translation decisions in this area of linguistic practices that reflect cultural practices of personhood. Local conceptions of personhood have been studied in cultural anthropology in terms of egocentric and sociocentric ideologies. In sociocentric communities persons are largely understood to be their social positions, the person is a summation of the network of social roles and relations. Two misunderstandings should be cleared away immediately. First, there are crucial differences between the various sociocentric communities and these lead to different articulations of sociocentric understanding and ideology. Second, sociocentric conceptions of personhood may co-occur with well-developed awareness of one’s individuality. The Korowai and other egalitarian communities of New Guinea for example combine an emphasis on the physical and oratorical strength of individuals as crucial for achieving authority with a sociocentric conception of personhood (Van Enk and de Vries 1997). Geertz (1983:59) defines the egocentric conception of the person along these lines: “The Western conception of the person as a bounded, unique, more or less integrated motivational cognitive universe, a dynamic center of awareness, emotion, judgement, and action organized into a distinctive whole and set contrastively both against other such wholes and against its social and natural background…” In Dutch society it considered essential to distinguish an individual sharply from his or her position in society. To ‘reduce’ a person to a cluster of roles and positions would go against the fundamental value of the individual, autonomous person. People exchange personal names as soon as possible and these, rather than positional or relational terms, are then used to address and refer to people. The Old Testament is a collection of writings originating in strongly sociocentric communities where a person is primarily seen from the perspective of social roles and relations, and of the prerogatives and obligations that go with these roles and relations. Since kinship and descent is a crucial factor in determining a person’s social role and position, there is constant mentioning of the lineage, family, tribe or nation in which a person is born. Besides genealogy, place of birth, profession or occupation, political affiliation or other things directly relevant to a person’s social position may be mentioned. In the little book of Ruth, participants like Boaz, Ruth and Naomi are good examples of persons that are referred to in sociocentric terms: there is a constant mentioning of their kinship relations, ethnic origin and the social obligations and prerogatives that go with their social position. Take the dialogue between Naomi and Ruth when Ruth returns from the field of Boaz (2:19-23). At that point in the story the readers know very well that Naomi and Ruth relate to each other as mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. Yet the Hebrew text refers to Naomi and Ruth in 2:19 to 2:23 five times in five verses in terms of their affinal kinship relation, combining these kinship references with proper name references.

250

Ernst Wendland Let us see how three major Dutch translations of the Bible deal with the sociocentric aspect of the text. I will concentrate on the translation of the expression: “[…]” ‘Ruth, the Moabitess’ and of the terms “[…]” ‘daughter-in-law’ and “[…]” ‘mother-in-law’. The three translations are the Statenvertaling (1637), the Goed Nieuws Bijbel (1996) and the Nieuwe Vertaling (2004). Let me start with the Statenvertaling (1637). I will first describe the specific religious function or skopos of that translation in Dutch Calvinistic communities in the first half of the 17th century. The Statenvertaling is the best known and most influential translation of the Bible into Dutch. It was commissioned by the Staten-Generaal, the highest authority in the young Republic, and translated according to the decisions of the Synod of Dordrecht (1618-1619) of the Reformed Churches. This Calvinistic Reformed Church was the community for which the Statenvertaling was intended to function, but the Statenvertaling was also to function in the national context as the Bible of the young Republic. The Statenvertaling was intended to replace the Deux-Aes Bible that had been the major Dutch Bible for Reformed people in the Low Countries since 1561. The Deux-Aes Bible was inconsistent because its Old Testament was a Dutch adaptation of Luther’s relatively free German translation whereas its New Testament was a much more literal translation clearly showing the influence of the so-called Bible of Calvin. The fact that this Deux-Aes Bible was an adaptation from a German version clashed with the growing national consciousness and its too ‘free’ Old Testament clashed with the Dutch Reformed spirituality that took the Word of God to be inspired by the Holy Spirit in such a way that only a very literal translation was appropriate. According to de Bruin and Broeyer (1993:271), Reformed notions of inspiration made the Dutch translators perceive the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek source texts as the language of the Holy Spirit and in this inspiration theology the Spirit became so tightly connected to the Word that the Word almost completely ‘absorbed’ the Spirit. Noticing that the Hebrew word moreh occurs twice in Joel 2:23 the translators of the Statenvertaling remarked, ‘Dit kan den H. Geest alsoo belieft hebben, om de beteeckeninge van ‘t eerste Moreh t’ onderscheyden van ‘t tweede.’ (‘The Holy Spirit may have wanted it this way to distinguish the significance of the first Moreh from the second.’) The example is from de Bruin and Broeyer (1993:271). God is not just speaking through the Bible (divine inspiration), He speaks clearly in his Word (perspicuitas), God’s Word contains an essentially clear proclamation of salvation for His chosen ones, even when the Scriptures contained duystere plaatsen (parts that were not clear). The klaarheid der waarheid, the clarity of the (scriptural) truth, a favourite Dutch Reformed expression for the perspicuity of the Scriptures, should be understood in the context of the importance attached in Reformed theology to the unmediated, direct access of every believer, guided by the Holy Spirit and applying the hermeneutics of schrift met schrift vergelijken (comparing Scripture with Scripture), to the knowledge of salvation in the Holy Scriptures, without mediation by clergy or tradition (sola scriptura). Lay theology was essential in this context and the translation of Scriptures should be as clear as possible to serve the community of lay theologians. Both the motives of the perspicuitas of the Scriptures and of the divine inspiration determined the religious skopos of the Statenvertaling. Two translators, Baudartius and Bogerman, explicitly formulated the link between their inspiration views and their translation skopos when they wrote that they had wanted to remain as close as possible to ‘de oorspronkelijke woorden Godts, die in den Hebreuschen ende Chaldeuschen text staen..’ (‘The original words of God that are in the Hebrew and Aramaic text.’) It is important to see both motives, of the sacred aspect of the biblical texts, of God speaking through that Word, and of the perspicuitas, in the intended skopos of the Statenvertaling. The translation of the Bible had to reflect both the sacred inspiration

Evaluating the overall quality of communication via translation and the perspicuitas. The inspiration notions led to a selection of certain form aspects of the source text as the key aspect to be retained in the translation, nouns stayed nouns, verbs verbs and Hebrew and Greek syntax were followed as much as possible. The translators and the commisioners of the Statenvertaling were aware of the fact that giving preference to this form aspect would do damage to conveying the meaning and message of the Scriptures and would create tensions with the idea of the perspicuitas. De Brune, secretary of the Staten van Zeeland, a Calvinist with a good knowledge of the Hebrew text remarks in 1644 that ‘de Nieuwe Over-zetters den Hebreeuwsen text zoo gantsch nauw end’ nae hebben uytghedruckt, dat zy oock veeltijdts de ordre end’ stellinghe der woorden hebben naeghevolght…waerdeur de zin niet zoo klaer end’ onbekommert wert uytghedruckt’ (‘the new translators have expressed the Hebrew text so precise and close that they also often followed the order and position of the words... because of which the sense was not expressed all that clear and fluent’; de Bruin and Broeyer 1993: 308). To solve this dilemma the Synod of Dordrecht decided that the translators should combine paratext and text in such a way that both key elements in the religious function of the text, the divine inspiration and the perspicuitas, could be done justice. When a literal translation would lead to obscure Dutch, the translators could opt for a more free translation but should then give the literal translation in a marginal note as in the note to the translation with sijnen heyligen arm (with his holy arm) of Isa 52:10 which says: ‘Hebr. den arm sijner heyligheyt. D (=Dat is) sijne Goddelicke almachtigheyt, die hy in het verlossen sijnes volcx bewesen heeft.’ (‘Hebr(ew). The arm of his holiness. That is his divine omnipotence which he proved in the saving of his people’ (example quoted in de Bruin and Broeyer 1993:273). Alternatively, the translators could give the more difficult, literal translation in the main text and give the clearer, more free version in a marginal note. In most cases the translators used the latter option (de Bruin and Broeyer 1993:274). It is clear that the nota marginalia were crucial to balance the perspicuitas and the inspiration motives and that text and paratext together ensured that this translation could perform the religious functions the Reformed leaders and communities in the Netherlands demanded. Now given this religious function of the text, all sociocentric aspects of the text of Ruth were translated literally because the translators wanted to remain as close as possible to ‘de oorspronkelijke woorden Godts, die in den Hebreuschen ende Chaldeuschen text staen..’ (‘The original words of God which are in the Hebrew and Aramaic texts’). Since translating sociocentric expressions literally did not create major perspicuity problems, translating literally satisfied both the inspiration and perspicuitas elements in the skopos of this translation. Because of the enormous impact of the Statenvertaling on Dutch society, literature and language, a variety of Dutch came into being that is called Tale Kanaans, ‘the language of Canaan’, a sociolect of Dutch still used in sermons, meetings and written materials of certain Dutch denominations. In the Tale Kanaans patterns of Hebrew as reflected in the Statenvertaling, including patterns belonging to the ethnography of speaking such as sociocentrism, are followed in Dutch. This formed the basis for what I call mimetic traditions of the Dutch language community. Mimetic traditions make it possible in one language to switch from the default patterns of language use to secondary mimetic patterns that are recognized by addressees as a kind of representation of other, foreign ethnographies of speaking. This Tale Kanaans is just one example of the porousness of ‘cultures’ and of intercultural spaces of overlap created by contact between communities. The translation of the Statenvertaling of Ruth 2:19-22 is as follows. I have placed sociocentric terms in italics:

251

252

Ernst Wendland “Toen zeide haar schoonmoeder tot haar: Waar hebt gij heden opgelezen en waar hebt gij gewrocht? Gezegend zij, die u gekend heeft. En zij verhaalde haar schoonmoeder, bij wien zij gewrocht had, en zeide: De naam des mans, bij welken ik heden gewrocht heb, is Boaz. 20 Toen zeide Naomi tot haar schoondochter: Gezegend zij hij den HEERE, Die Zijn weldadigheid niet heeft nagelaten aan de levenden en aan de doden. Voorts zeide Naomi tot haar: Die man is ons nabestaande; hij is een van onze lossers. 21 En Ruth, de Moabitische, zeide: Ook omdat hij to mij gezegd heeft: Gij zult u houden bij de jongens die ik heb totdat zij den gansen oogst dien ik heb, zullen hebben voleindigd. 22 En Naomi zeide tot haar schoondochter Ruth: Het is goed, mijn dochter, dat gij met zijn maagden uitgaat, opdat zij u niet tegenvallen in een ander veld.” Since the King James is a translation of comparable type, I quote the King James in Ruth 2:19-22: 19 “And her mother in law said unto her, Where hast thou gleaned to day? and where wroughtest thou? blessed be he that did take notice of thee. And she shewed her mother in law with who she had wrought and said, The man’s name with whom I wrought to day is Boaz. 20 And Naomi said unto her daughter in law, Blessed be he of the LORD, who hath not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead. And Naomi said unto her, The man is near of kin unto us, one of our next kinsmen. 21 And Ruth, the Moabitess, said, He said unto me also. Thou shalt keep fast by my young men, until they have ended all my harvest. 22. And Naomi said unto Ruth, her daughter in law, It is good, my daughter, that thou go out with his maidens, that they meet thee not in any other field.” Notice that kin terms for mother-in-law and daughter-in-law occur four times in these four verses, just as in the Hebrew text, and that Ruth is referred to as Ruth, the Moabitess in 21. In the Goed Nieuws version of 1996 these sociocentric aspects are changed into egocentric participant references:  `Waar heb je vandaag aren geraapt?’ vroeg Noömi. `Bij wie heb je gewerkt? God zal de man zegenen die naar je heeft omgekeken.’ Toen vertelde Ruth dat ze die dag gewerkt had bij een zekere Boaz. 20 `Moge de Heer, die trouw blijft aan de levenden en aan de doden, hem zegenen,’ zei Noömi. `Die man is nauw aan ons verwant, hij is een van degenen die als familielid verplicht zijn voor ons te zorgen.’ 21 `Hij heeft me ook nog gezegd dat ik bij zijn arbeiders mag blijven werken tot ze helemaal klaar zijn met de oogst,’ zei Ruth. 22 `Het is inderdaad maar het beste, kind, dat je optrekt met de vrouwen die bij hem in dienst zijn,’ zei Noömi. `Op het land van een ander zouden ze je wel eens lastig kunnen vallen.’ 19

The Common English Version (CEV) has a comparable skopos and I quote the CEV in Ruth 2.19-22: 19 Naomi said, Where did you work today? Whose field was it? God bless the man who treated you so well! Then Ruth told her that she had worked in the field of a man named Boaz. 20 The LORD bless Boaz! Naomi replied. He has shown that he is still loyal to the living and to the dead. Boaz is a close relative, one of those who is supposed to look after us. 21 Ruth told her, Boaz even said I could stay in the field with his workers until they had finished gathering all his grain. 22 Naomi replied, My daughter, it’s good that you can pick up grain alongside the women who work in his field. Who knows what might happen to you in someone else’s field!

Evaluating the overall quality of communication via translation In the whole book of Ruth the Common English Version removed 8 out of the 10 ‘mothers in law’. The constant sociocentric mentioning of a person’s tribe, clan, family relationship and so on, is highly redundant and ‘unnatural’ from the point of view of the ethnography of speaking of Dutch and accordingly the Goed Nieuws Bijbel (1996) eliminates the four references to the affinal kinship relation of Naomi and Ruth in 2:19-2:22 while retaining them in 2:18 and 2:23. Also, the Moabite origin of Ruth, mentioned in the Hebrew text of verse 21, is left out. The result is a text conforming to the egocentric ethnography of speaking of most Dutch speakers of the late 20th century. Although the way the translators of the Goed Nieuws Bijbel carried out their intercultural, mediating role, is a total reverse of that of the Statenvertaling, their translation decisions in this regard are also based on a religious skopos. The Goed Nieuws Bijbel is a so called common language version, a translation of the Bible meant for those audiences that are not familiar with church languages like the Tale Kanaans, nor with Biblical cultural practices. Common language versions are message-oriented; the commissioners of such translations want to bring the message of the Bible to the hearts and minds of people. They have an external function: a tool in the hands of the churches to reach people outside the Churches with the message of the Bible. The Preface of the Goed Nieuws Bijbel (edition 1998, p.9) explicitly formulates this skopos: “Vooral voor hen die weinig of niet vertrouwd zijn met kerkelijke prediking en toerusting, blijkt de boodschap van de bijbel moeilijk toegankelijk in een traditionele vertaling. Voor de Goed Nieuws Bijbel is daarom gekozen voor een taalgebruik dat voor elke Nederlandsssprekende volwassene begrijpelijk en aanvaardbaar is.” (“Especially for those with little or no affinity with preaching and teaching of the Church, the message of the Bible turns out to be difficult to grasp in a traditional translation. Therefore for the Goed Nieuws Bijbel a form of language use has been chosen that every adult speaker of Dutch can understand and accept.”) The translator of both Statenvertaling and Goed Nieuws Bijbel tried to make a text that could perform specific religious functions in the target community and that skopos fully determines the way they mediated between the cultural and linguistic practices of source and target communities. Let us now turn to a third translation, the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling, to be published in 2004. In Ruth 2:19-22, the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling has this text: “Toen Noömi zag hoeveel ze verzameld had, en toen Ruth haar ook nog gaf wat ze van het middagmaal had overgehouden, 19 riep ze uit: ‘Waar heb jij vandaag aren gelezen, waar heb je gewerkt? Gezegend zij de man die jou zoveel aandacht heeft geschonken!’ Ruth vertelde haar schoonmoeder dat de man bij wie ze die dag gewerkt had Boaz heette. 20 Toen zei Noömi tegen haar schoondochter: ‘Moge de H E E R hem zegenen, want deze man heeft trouw bewezen aan de levenden en aan de doden.’ En ze vervolgde: ‘Hij is een naaste verwant van ons; hij kan de familieverplichtingen op zich nemen.’ 21 En Ruth, de Moabitische, zei: ‘Hij heeft ook nog tegen me gezegd dat ik bij zijn maaiers moest blijven totdat zijn hele oogst is binnengehaald.’ 22 ‘Het is goed dat je optrekt met de vrouwen op zijn land, mijn dochter,’ zei Noömi tegen Ruth, ‘want dan zal niemand je op een ander veld lastig kunnen vallen.’” In the dialogue between Naomi and Ruth (2:19-2.22) that we find in the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling from the four references to mother-in-law and daughter-in-law relations in the Hebrew two were removed. Also the qualification of Ruth as a person from Moab, is retained in the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling whereas the Goed Nieuws Bijbel has left ‘the Moabitess’ untranslated in this passage. In order to compare these versions more realistically, we should of course not restrict ourselves to the small passage

253

254

Ernst Wendland of Ruth 2:19-22. Table 1 gives the number of times the various versions of Ruth have retained sociocentric expressions for mother/daughter-in-law in the whole book: Statenvertaling Goed Nieuws Bijbel (1996) Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling

17 11 12

Table 1: Mother-in-law and daughter-in-law in Dutch Bibles The Goed Nieuws Bijbel and the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling have practically the same amount of deletion of mother-in-law/daughter-in-law terms, and do not differ in this aspect of the change from sociocentric to egocentric text but with the repeated sociocentric expression “[…]” ‘the Moabitess’ the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling and the Goed Nieuws Bijbel follow different strategies. The Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling retains the sociocentric expression of the source wherever it occurs: in 1:22/2:2/2:21/4:5/4:10, four times in appositional form (Ruth, de Moabitische) and once as ‘uit Moab’/’from Moab’ but the Goed Nieuws Bijbel leaves hÃCyibá’OGmah twice untranslated (in 2:2 and 2:21). We can understand the way the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling translators mediate this aspect of the text by studying the skopos. The Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling aims to be a broad ecumenical translation for all Christian and Jewish communities in the Netherlands and Flanders, in natural Dutch. Naturalness is an important purpose but this does not make the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling a common language version like the Goed Nieuws Bijbel; both Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling and the Goed Nieuws Bijbel want to be natural but the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling uses the whole range of lexical and stylistic choices available in the Dutch language whereas the Goed Nieuws Bijbel restricts itself to common Dutch. There is no avoidance of difficult words or long sentences as in the Goed Nieuws Bijbel. Another important purpose of the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling is to reflect the literary features of source texts, such as genres and styles. The Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling tries to produce a text that not only can function as a ecclesiastical text but also as text for audiences that read the Bible as literature. The two goals of naturalness and literary character explain why on the one hand a number of mother-in-law and daughter-in-law terms has been left untranslated in the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling and in the Goed Nieuws Bijbel (naturalness norm) and on the other hand the expression ‘Ruth, the Moabitess’ has been consistently retained in the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling (literary skopos) whereas the Goed Nieuws Bijbel removes two references to the Moabite origin of Ruth (no literary skopos, to conform to target redundancy norms). In a literary analysis of Ruth her Moabite origin turns out play a significant role in the structure of the narrative (the opposition Israel-Moab is a Leitmotif in the text) and because of the literary aspect, not because of the sociocentric aspect, ‘Ruth, the Moabitess’ has survived in the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling. The way the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling translators handled sociocentric aspects of the Ruth text cannot be said to be either ‘literal’ or ‘free’, either conforming to source linguistic and cultural practices, or to target practices. The goals of these translators, and the hierarchy of these goals, determined their translation choices and this leads in some cases to more literal renderings, as with ‘Ruth, the Moabitess’, reflecting literary translation goals, and in other cases to less literal renderings. The skopos of Bible translations is always complex, because of the complexity of the social and cultural and religious functions these texts have. Take the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling discussed above; this version not only wants to serve Protestant, Catholic and Jewish churches but also audiences with a literary interest in the Bible. But there are

Evaluating the overall quality of communication via translation more elements in its skopos, for example the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling aims at an inclusive translation, that is a text that includes women in contexts where generic, inclusive readings of source texts are possible in the eyes of the translators. This element arises from the functioning of the Bible text in communities who highly value the equality of men and women whereas biblical source texts emerged from communities with often patriarchical cultural and linguistic practices. Take the translation of the Greek term for ‘(fore)fathers’ in certain contexts like Luke 1.55 where Mary says:   The Revised Standard Version translates τοὺς πατέρας ἡμῶν  with ‘our fathers’: “…as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.” The inclusive Common English Version has: “The Lord made this promise to our ancestors, to Abraham and his family forever!” The Dutch Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling has: “zoals hij aan onze voorouders heeft beloofd: hij herinnert zich zijn barmhartigheid, jegens Abraham en zijn nageslacht, tot in eeuwigheid.” By translating with the inclusive terms our ancestors and onze voorouders these translations can function as religious base text in modern Christian communities with strong sensitivities in terms of the exclusion of women. It is clear that once again it is the function of the translation in the target culture that determines the way these inclusivist translators mediate between the patriarchal cultural practices reflected in biblical source texts and egalitarian practices of target communities. Inclusivism has religious roots and I do not know of the translation of any other text of Antiquity, say Homer or Herodotus, with an inclusivist skopos. In fact, an inclusive translation of Homer is unthinkable because most readers of Homer want the translation to reflect the cultural worlds from which these texts emerged.

Conclusions and discussion For Christiane Nord (1991:28), “Translation is the production of a functional target text maintaining a relationship with a given source text that is specified according to the intended or demanded function of the target text (translation skopos).” I have tried to apply this skopos insight to the way translators of three Dutch versions of Ruth carried out their intercultural role, by investigating how they represented the sociocentric ethnography of speaking of the Hebrew text of Ruth. The Statenvertaling of 1637 functioned in a religious community that saw the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek source texts as verbally inspired and therefore translated sociocentric expressions literally. Because of its authority and central role in the history of the Dutch community, this translation formed the basis for the development of a mimetic tradition called the Tale Kanaans, a variety of Dutch that reflects biblical Hebrew and Greek patterns. Such mimetic traditions allow translators to follow foreign ethnographies of speaking in the target language. The common language skopos of the Goed Nieuws Bijbel causes translation shifts from sociocentrism to egocentrism and the texts reflects Dutch rather than Hebrew linguistic and cultural practices related to personhood. The Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling has a skopos comprising both literary and naturalness goals and accordingly shows shifts away from sociocentric patterns (to serve naturalness) but retains sociocentric patterns when they also play a literary role in the narrative. Although I concentrated on sociocentric participant references, my claim is

255

256

Ernst Wendland that target functions determine all aspects of intercultural mediation, for example the inclusivist skopos of many modern Western translations determines how translators mediate between the patriarchal cultural practices reflected in the language use of biblical source texts and egalitarian practices of target communities. To understand the intercultural role of translators and the intercultural aspect of translation processes, it is of vital importance to get rid of false notions of ‘cultures’ as closed, unified, bounded and finite systems. For example, translation functions are indeed fully part of target cultures but not as parts of closed, bounded ‘systems’. In the area of Bible translations where theological and hermeneutical traditions of communities crucially determine translation functions, these skopoi emerge from global traditions, from the sacramental-ritual, celebratory perspective of the Orthodox to the message and mission perspective of evangelical Christians. Of course, such transnational traditions have local manifestations and each language community has its own range of Bible translations and local translation traditions in which new translations have to find their unique functional place. In this way these religious translation functions are an example of the interconnectedness and porousness of human communities and their cultural practices. Perhaps the most severe criticism against the notion that target cultures control translation has come from the side of postcolonialist translation studies (see Richard Jacquemond 1992). They point to colonial histories of imperial cultures like England or the Netherlands where source cultures fully controlled translation of the Bible and other texts into the languages of the colonies. Missionaries were sent to the colonies to learn the languages and translate the Bible. However, even when powerful source institutions initiate and control translation, they have to do their imperialist and hegemonic things with the text in the target community. In other words, even in such case of extreme power differentials the translation function or skopos is firmly positioned on the target side. Studies of the history of Bible translation in Indonesia confirm how the various things Dutch institutions wanted to do with translations in Indonesian target communities determined the nature of the resulting translations (de Vries 2002). For example, postwar missionary Bible translations meant to convert isolated minority communities deep in Indonesian jungles who had no clue about biblical cultures tended to go very far in adapting their texts to target ethnographies of speaking, target metaphorical language, filling the texts with target realia from string bags to cooking pits with hot stones, and so on in order to reach their missionary goals with the translation in the target community. Postcolonial criticism has sometimes accused hegemonic and imperial missionaries of reshaping target languages to fit source-linguistic norms (Rafael 1988/1993, Cheyfitz 1991, Niranjana 1992). The majority of missionary translations in Indonesia shows exactly the opposite: reshaping sources to fit target norms. It is true that Dutch Bible translators of the 17th century working in Indonesia had inspiration views which often forced them to translate very literally, imposing source linguistic norms on target languages, just like their own Dutch Bibles contained the Tale Kanaans, that is Dutch with heavy lexical and syntactic interference from biblical Hebrew and Greek. The reshaping of both Malay and Dutch norms to Hebrew and Greek norms points to the irrelevance of the political power differentials in this case. The Dutch let their Bibles, whether in Dutch or Malay, be dominated by Hebrew and Greek norms because of the same religious function of these texts in target communities, whether in Holland or Indonesia. Apart from inspiration elements in the skopos that left little room for transculturating translations, there is another factor that explains the nature of older Malay

Evaluating the overall quality of communication via translation Bible translations made by the Dutch: they simply did not have a missionary skopos in the 19th and 20th century sense. When we carefully study the goals of these Malay translations such as the Malay New Testament of Brouwer (1668), these Bibles turn out to be Church Bibles: they were intended for multi ethnic, mixed Dutch Reformed congregations of Dutch men with Malay wives, Moluccan Christians who had been converted by the Portuguese and others who used Malay as lingua franca. Criticism of the dominance of target-side factors did not only come from postcolonialist translation studies. Pym (1998) sees the emphasis on target cultures as “an overreaction to the days when all causality was invested in source-side factors.” To remedy this imbalance Pym (1998) introduces the notion of ‘intercultures’. Pym uses the term ‘interculture’ to refer to beliefs and practices found in intersections or overlaps of cultures, where people combine something of two or more cultures at once” and interculturality is for Pym “not to be confused with the fact that many cultures can be found within the one society or political unit (the term for which is ‘multiculturality’), nor with the fact that things can move from one culture to another (which should be referred to a ‘cross-cultural’ transfer).” Examples of intercultures given by Pym are the translating Jews and Mozarabs from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries in the Hispanic context, or the rabbis working on the island of Pharos to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek that mediated between the worlds of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek world of Hellenized Jews. Pym’s writings are meant to undermine assumptions that translators are part of the source culture and fidelity driven agents of that source culture or part of the target culture and determined by systems and goals of that target community. Instead of placing translators in either source or target cultures, Pym proposes the hypothesis that translators are part of the intercultural spaces, the overlaps between cultures. The assumption that translators are part of the target culture and carry out target culture agendas has indeed been the dominant assumption in most 20th century theorizing. Pym (1998) quotes Gideon Toury (1995:172) for whom “translators are members of a target culture, or tentatively assume that role.” But even though we would agree with Pym that there are ‘intercultures’ and that translators are not part of either target or source cultures but positioned in those intercultural spaces, the products of those translators, their translations, are firmly located in target communities. They are commodities in target communities where they have to be sold to people that see a use for them. Commissioners and audiences want to do specific things with translated texts in target environments. In the field of translations of the Bible it is without any doubt the function of the Bible in the target communities that dominates the translation process and no Bible translator can escape from these various theological and hermeneutical skopoi of religious target communities if he wants his translation to be accepted and used. But it is important to keep in mind that these target functions are local manifestations of Bible translation functions emerging from global religious traditions. In the end both ‘domesticating’ and ‘foreignizing’ representations of source cultures in translations follow from the functions of translations in target communities. For example, Calvinistic spirituality and notions of ‘Bible’ form the basis for the skopos of the ‘foreignizing’ Statenvertaling of 1637 and the very ‘domesticating’ Goed Nieuws Bijbel follows the agenda of communities that wanted to reach unchurched audiences with the message of the Bible. Even translations with the explicit skopos to counter ‘domestication’ by ‘foreignizing’ translation strategies cannot escape what Venuti (2000b:469) calls ‘domestic inscription’. In the words of Venuti (2000a:341) : “Fluency masks a domestication of the foreign text that is appropriative and potentially imperialistic, putting the foreign to domestic uses which, in British and American cultures, extend

257

258

Ernst Wendland the global hegemony of English. It can be countered by ‘foreignizing’ translation that registers the irreducible differences of the foreign text – yet only in domestic terms, by deviating from the values, beliefs, and representations that currently hold sway in the target language.” Another reason why neither ‘foreignizing’ nor ‘domesticating’ translations can escape from domestic inscription is the eternal problem of selectivity and ‘underdetermination’: source texts allow for various ways to ‘domesticate’ or ‘foreignize’ the linguistic and cultural practices of sources and it is the function of the translation on the target side that decides which way to domesticate or foreignize. There is no escape from domestic inscription!

References for the preceding Dutch Bible case study: de Bruin, C.C. and F.G.M. Broeyer.1993. De Statenbijbel en zijn voorgangers. Haarlem: Nederlands Bijbel Genootschap. Cheyfitz, E. 1991. The poetics of imperialism: Translation and colonization from the tempest toTarzan. New York: Oxford University Press. Geertz, C. 1983. Local knowledge. New York: Basic Books. Jacquemond, R. 1992. “Translation and cultural hegemony: the case of French-Arabic translation.” In L. Venuti (ed.), Rethinking translation. New York: Routledge. Niranja, T. 1992. Siting translation: history, post-structuralism, and the colonial context. Berkeley: University of California Press. Nord, C. 1991. Text analysis in translation: Theory, methodology, and didactic application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Pym, A. 1998. Method in translation history. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Rafael, V. L. 1988/1993. Contracting colonialism: translation and Christian conversion in Tagalog Society under early Spanish rule. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Toury, G. 1995. Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Venuti, L. 2000a. “1990s’.” In L. Venuti (ed.), The translation studies reader. London: Routledge. 333-342. Venuti, L. 2000b. “Translation, community, utopia.” In L.Venuti (ed.), The translation studies reader. London: Routledge. 468-488. de Vries, L.. 2002. “A survey of the history of Bible translation in Indonesia.” In H. ChambertLoir (ed.), Histoire de la traduction en Indonésie et Malaisie. Paris: CNRS.

11. Framing the text of Revelation 5 for its analysis and translation This section is intended as an additional practical exercise to allow those who wish to further explore John’s exciting throne room vision an opportunity to view it for themselves by extending the preceding investigation of Revelation 4 to the composite scene’s second and climactic half in chapter 5. For this assignment, one may either apply the methodology that was illustrated above or make use of some other set of procedures for conducting a frame-cognizant contextual study of the biblical text. A series of questions is presented along the way simply to stimulate the analysis and also to suggest various issues of interest and debate that arise in connection with an examination of this chapter in its original linguistic and extralinguistic setting. Hopefully the process of answering these queries will serve to enrich the analyst’s own cognitive context and hence promote a more complete understanding of this passage with a view towards communicating it more effectively in another language and cultural environment.

Identifying the cotext and context of Rev. 5 • What demarcates chapter 5:1-14 as an independent unit of discourse? List as many distinctive features as possible that highlight its respective points of beginning and ending. What is the significance of the initial expression “And I saw…” (Καὶ εἶδον – cf. 4:1, 6:1)? What then is the structural function of this same pair of words at the onset of vv. 2, 6, and 11? • Now mention some of the main linguistic and literary features that link chapters 4 and 5 into a major unit (a “scene”?) of dramatic discourse that incorporates both chapters. Try to give a priority rating to the various factors that you have discovered: which are more important for generating formal cohesion and conceptual coherence? Which important formal or semantic elements are found only in ch. 5? • Describe the gradually intensifying progression that develops as one moves from 4:1 to 5:14. Do you sense distinct special points of crisis, paradox, as well as climax in this movement as you proceed through ch. 5? If so, explain what creates or highlights these different impressions. • Which items of new information in ch. 5 need to be further investigated as to their contextual (extralinguistic) background in order to provide a more adequate frame of reference for interpreting the text’s overt and covert meaning? • In connection with the preceding question, you will again have to unravel the different threads of intertextuality that are manifested, whether strongly or weakly, in ch. 5. Make a listing of the most prominent pre-texts that seem to be operative in this passage, and summarize what their main relevance appears to be in the current text of the Apocalypse as this vision unfolds. • Evaluate the following pair of interpretations regarding the contextual setting of Rev. 5; then suggest whether or not this sort of background information

260

Ernst Wendland has any translational implications. The first selection is from Aune (1997:336, 338): [T]he text of Rev. 5 reflects features of commission scenes with many parallels in earlier biblical and extrabiblical literature. The argument that Rev. 5 should be construed as the investiture of the Lamb is based on the analysis of the text of Rev. 5 as an adaptation of Dan. 7 and Ezek. 1-2, and by analogy with the investiture features of other visions of the heavenly court, particularly 1 Kgs. 22 and Isa. 6. The term “investiture” is a more appropriate designation for the narrative in Rev. 5 than “enthronement,” since “investiture” refers to the act of establishing someone in office or the ratification of the office that someone already holds informally. … The author of Rev. 4-5 has taken the basic framework of Dan. 7:9-18 and freely adapted it for a new purpose. The presentation of the “one like a son of man” before the enthroned Ancient of Days in Dan. 7:13 results in his investiture. John has grounded that investiture on the sacrificial death of Christ, which now becomes the very basis for that investiture. The motif of the sealed scroll does not occur in Dan 7 (there is only reference to the books being opened; cf. Rev 20:12) but is imported from Ezek 2:9-10 to serve as a symbol of investiture.

The second proposal is more cosmic in scope (Malina and Pilch 2000:71, 73, 75, 88-89): The first object the visionary sees in the sky is a throne. In monarchic societies, the throne is the symbol of royal authority… In Revelation, the elders are celestial personages…of exalted rank…and power…forming a core group around the central throne. … The living creatures here, four constellations in animate shape, are common to both Revelation and Ezekiel… Constellations, of course, are constituted of stars, and in the Hellenistic period nearly all constellations were regarded as rational, animate beings, whether in the shape of human beings or animals. … The creatures marked out by the constellations are full of eyes, that is, full of stars in front and behind. … The best candidates for the four are the constellations now called Leo (lion), Taurus (bull), Scorpio (the human face), and Pegasus (the flying eagle)… In his vision, the seer locates a Lamb in the center of the cosmos by the polar opening of the throne of God, at the center of the four constellations on the horizon, and in the center of the twenty-four decans as well. This Lamb is “standing as though slaughtered.” How does a slaughtered lamb stand? This is not just any lamb, but the well-known celestial Lamb, the constellation Aries. … Only a being with a broken neck could have its head turned directly backwards as the celestial Aries does; and yet it remains standing in spite of a broken neck.

• The following is a list of some key lexical-semantic expressions in Rev. 5 that entail underlying contextual issues of interest and importance. Check at least two commentaries (including, if possible, non-standard context-oriented

Framing the text of Revelation 5 for its analysis and translation

261

works such as Keener (1993:777-779); Malina and Pilch (2000:87-91) and/or study Bibles in order to summarize the special significance of the references listed below, as evoked within their (co)textual setting (the translation is that of the NIV). o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

“the right hand” (v.1) “a scroll with writing on both sides” (1) “sealed with seven seals” (1) “a mighty angel” (2) “I wept and wept” (4) “the Lion of the tribe of Judah” (5) “the Root of David” (5) “looking as if it had been slain” (6) “standing in the center of the throne, encircled by…” (6) “seven horns and seven eyes” (6) “the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth” (6) “a harp” (8) “holding golden bowls full of incense” (8) “sang a new song” (9) “with your blood you purchased men for God” (9) “a kingdom and priests” (10) “and they will reign on earth” (10) “the voice of many angels” (11) “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain” (12) “every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea” (13) “Amen!” (14)

Analyzing the source language text We now turn to an analysis of the original Greek text, following the model outlined in Chapters 3-7 and applied to Revelation 4 in Chapters 8-9. This question-driven method has been broken down into a number of practical steps that seek to unfold different facets of the textual onion, as it were – that is, to unpack the main formal and semantic layers which constitute the discourse structure of Revelation 5. Our aim in this exercise is to reveal certain important elements of the text’s underlying artistry and rhetorical power which contribute an added dimension of meaning to the message that the Lord wished to convey to his troubled Church through his prophetic spokesman, John. Perhaps it will be possible then to reproduce or compensate for at least some of these dynamic aspects of significance in a functionally equivalent manner of translation that will be of special relevance to a particular target audience. Readers are of course free to modify any of the suggested analytical techniques or to substitute preferred procedures of their own. EXERCISE-1  The following is a reproduction of the unformatted Greek text of Revelation 5. Read the text (if possible, or consult an interlinear version) and draw single slash

262

Ernst Wendland

lines where you wish to propose individual line breaks – that is, in order to render the original text in a more readable/hearable display as “utterance units.” Next, make an initial attempt to identify some of the more salient or significant divisions of the discourse and indicate these with a line break (space) so as to partition the text into larger paragraph units.  Then compare your arrangement with that of the NIV given afterwards: Based on your study of the SL text, what revisions to the NIV format would you like to propose, if any – or vice-versa with respect to your own initial proposal? (Give reasons for your suggestions.)

Καὶ εἶδον ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιὰν τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου βιβλίον γεγραμμένον ἔσωθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν κατεσφραγισμένον σφραγῖσιν ἑπτά. 2 καὶ εἶδον ἄγγελον ἰσχυρὸν κηρύσσοντα ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ, Τίς ἄξιος ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον καὶ λῦσαι τὰς σφραγῖδας αὐτοῦ; 3 καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς οὐδὲ ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον οὔτε βλέπειν αὐτό. 4 καὶ ἔκλαιον πολὺ, ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἄξιος εὑρέθη ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον οὔτε βλέπειν αὐτό. 5 καὶ εἷς ἐκ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων λέγει μοι, Μὴ κλαῖε, ἰδοὺ ἐνίκησεν ὁ λέων ὁ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰούδα, ἡ ῥίζα Δαυίδ, ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον καὶ τὰς ἑπτὰ σφραγῖδας αὐτοῦ. 6 Καὶ εἶδον ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων καὶ ἐν μέσῳ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἀρνίον ἑστηκὸς ὡς ἐσφαγμένον ἔχων κέρατα ἑπτὰ καὶ ὀφθαλμοὺς ἑπτά οἵ εἰσιν τὰ [ἑπτὰ] πνεύματα τοῦ θεοῦ ἀπεσταλμένοι εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν. 7 καὶ ἦλθεν καὶ εἴληφεν ἐκ τῆς δεξιᾶς τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου. 8 καὶ ὅτε ἔλαβεν τὸ βιβλίον, τὰ τέσσαρα ζῷα καὶ οἱ εἴκοσι τέσσαρες πρεσβύτεροι ἔπεσαν ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἀρνίου ἔχοντες ἕκαστος κιθάραν καὶ φιάλας χρυσᾶς γεμούσας θυμιαμάτων, αἵ εἰσιν αἱ προσευχαὶ τῶν ἁγίων, 9 καὶ ᾄδουσιν ᾠδὴν καινὴν λέγοντες, Ἄξιος εἶ λαβεῖν τὸ βιβλίον καὶ ἀνοῖξαι τὰς σφραγῖδας αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐσφάγης καὶ ἠγόρασας τῷ θεῷ ἐν τῷ αἵματί σου ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους 10 καὶ ἐποίησας αὐτοὺς τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς, καὶ βασιλεύσουσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. 11 Καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἤκουσα φωνὴν ἀγγέλων πολλῶν κύκλῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ τῶν ζῴων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, καὶ ἦν ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν μυριάδες μυριάδων καὶ χιλιάδες χιλιάδων 12 λέγοντες φωνῇ μεγάλῃ, Ἄξιόν ἐστιν τὸ ἀρνίον τὸ ἐσφαγμένον λαβεῖν τὴν δύναμιν καὶ πλοῦτον καὶ σοφίαν καὶ ἰσχὺν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν καὶ εὐλογίαν. 13 καὶ πᾶν κτίσμα ὃ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς πάντα ἤκουσα λέγοντας, Τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ καὶ τῷ ἀρνίῳ ἡ εὐλογία καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. 14 καὶ τὰ τέσσαρα ζῷα ἔλεγον, Ἀμήν. καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ἔπεσαν καὶ προσεκύνησαν. 1

NIV The Scroll and the Lamb Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals. 2 And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” 3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it.

1

Framing the text of Revelation 5 for its analysis and translation

263

4 I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. 5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.” 6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spiritsi of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. 8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. 10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.” 11 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. 12 In a loud voice they sang: “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!” 13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!” 14 The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped. We recall the five aspects of discourse analysis that were illustrated earlier: categorization, articulation, disjunction, recursion, and accentuation. The following questions for consideration will explore these dimensions in somewhat greater detail as a starting point (but only a beginning!) for a more comprehensive and thorough investigation of this pivotal pericope in the book of Revelation: • How would you categorize the text of Rev. 5 as a whole in terms of genre or text-type, and what is your evidence for this conclusion – e.g., with regard to the principal stylistic characteristics of this particular text-type? How does your categorization of the genre in this case influence your perception and interpretation of this passage? • Are any sub-genres incorporated within the larger discourse of Rev. 5? If so, which are these and what is the apparent communicative function of each in relation to its immediate co-text?

264

Ernst Wendland • From whose perspective is the discourse of Rev. 5 recounted, and who is the focal personage in the text? By which stylistic means is the latter – the central participant – foregrounded on the stage of this text (as distinct from the scene set in ch. 4)? • Following up on the discussion of disjunction above, how would you demarcate the text of Rev. 5 into smaller paragraph units? Is there another major break (or two) in the discourse, such as we noted in 4:6b? If so, where does this (these?) occur, and what distinguishes this particular structural boundary from the others? • Where do the main instances of recursion occur in Rev. 5? Make a listing of these along with your interpretation of the specific rhetorical function that you see operating in each case? • Identify the double inclusio (unit with similar beginning and ending) that appears to divide ch. 5 into two major sections: 1-7 and 8-14. Underline the salient reiterated material. Then propose appropriate section headings for each of these sections which indicate their relationship to each other. Then point out how these units also relate in terms of content and function to ch. 6. • Identify the principal literary devices that you detect in Rev. 5 and suggest what sort of function they have in the discourse at their respective points of occurrence. • Mention any distinctive features of sound that you noticed when analyzing (and when uttering aloud) the Greek text of Rev. 5. Are these instances of pure artistic embellishment, or do they serve an additional communicative purpose in the text? What could you use to duplicate this phonic effect in your language (YL)? • Review all of the different artistic and rhetorical forms that you discovered during the preceding study of Rev. 5, and suggest how you will handle these when translating into your language. Which ones have relatively close functional “matches” in YL, and which others do not? How will you handle the latter group (give 3 specific examples)? • Do you notice anything unusual about the word order of v. 1 (the default sequence for verbal predications in Greek is V—S—O)? What does the particular syntactic constituent arrangement of call attention to (plus the added attribution)? Do word order variations work the same in YL, e.g., placing the locative phrase before the object phrase? If not, how would you foreground “the scroll”? How is the verbal spotlight kept on this scroll in vv. 2-5? What/whom does this same ordering device serve to introduce and to highlight in v. 6? What discourse function is performed by the front-shifting of the lengthy object phrase (bounded by the repeated lexical stem “all” – πάν) in v. 13? How could you duplicate this effect in YL? • Is the chapter’s central thematic contrast between the “Lion” and the “Lamb” (vv. 5-6) apparent in your vernacular text? How then can you bring out the irony of the fact that these are references to the same personage? • What about the significance of the Lamb’s enigmatic depiction as having been “slain”? Point out any problems of comprehension that are likely to occur for the average text consumers (readers / hearers) of YL, and suggest how these might be resolved in the most appropriate way. Would some sort of illustration or drawing help? Explain how – or why not.

Framing the text of Revelation 5 for its analysis and translation

265

• Where do you think that the climax of ch. 5 occurs – at vv. 9-10, 12, 13, or at some other point? Give reasons for your choice. How would you “mark,” or stylistically spotlight, this emotive climax in YL? Do you have any formal markers available for such a purpose? • How can you best represent the poetic style of vv. 9-10, 12, and 13 in YL? Mention some specific stylistic devices that are featured in the poetry of YL. What communicative functions does poetry perform in your oral, literary, musical, and dramatic tradition of verbal art forms? • In your cultural setting, what would it mean when people “fall to the ground” (prostrate themselves) before a single individual (vv. 8, 14)? Is there a basic equivalence involved with this culturally symbolic action or does it have a different significance and connotation? In the latter event, what would be the closest cultural equivalent – and could that be used in your Bible translation? If not, explain what you would do to communicate the intention of the original. • Note the OT intertextual background for the “new song” mentioned in v. 9a. Mention some of the salient passages in this regard. How can you best convey the resonant sense of this concept in YL? • What is the symbolic meaning of the number “ten thousand times ten thousand” (v. 11)? What would be the closest corresponding expression in YL? • Quite a diversity of speech acts are manifested in ch. 5 (many more than in ch. 4). Identify the different types that you find and tell how they are distinguished from each other. Point out any instance of a SA that would cause listerners some difficulty if rendered literally. Explain the problem involved and suggest how it might be resolved when translating into YL. • Point out five additional translation problems that arise from the perspective of YL in Rev. 5 and propose how you would deal with them in translation. Do these difficulties arise due to linguistic differences, a cultural (conceptual) clash, or both – for example: “a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals” (v. 1)? • Having carefully studied this chapter as a whole, what would you propose as an appropriate overall section heading? What is the problem with suggestions like “The sealed scroll” or “The Lamb appears in heaven” (UBS Translator’s Handbook on Revelation)? • Finally, skim through the content of the entire book of Revelation and then suggest why chs. 4-5 should be regarded as a pivotal unit of discourse within the apocalypse as a whole. On the other hand, you may disagree with this assessment. If so, give reasons, along with a counter-proposal.

Providing an appropriate and relevant paratext The possibility of using various paratextual tools as a means of creating a fuller, more appropriate (suitable for as well as accepted by the audience intended) and relevant (readily understood, conceptually salient) contextual frame of reference for interpreting the biblical text was discussed in Chapters 9 and 10. We now wish to apply this strategy by way of example with respect to Rev. 5 and your specific translation setting:

266

Ernst Wendland • Mention several of the items referred to in this chapter that could be visually explained to your primary target group by means of an illustration. If you had space for only one illustration, what would you reserve it for—the “scroll” (v.1), a typical “horn” (6), a “harp” (8), an “incense burner” (8), or something else? Defend your choice. (Any artists in the group may try their hand—and use this as a visual exercise for exploring the difficulties involved in preparing suitable, culturally-relevant illustrations for the Scriptures – whether a historical setting is involved or, as in this case, an apocalyptic, heavenly one.) • Evaluate the illustration of a scroll in Figure 18: How helpful would this be to your primary target audience? Point out any possible difficulties. Do you have any suggestions for making this illustration more meaningful to readers?

Figure 18: a scroll with seven seals



Figure 18: A scroll with seven seals

Figure 19 is a montage aimed at depicting the central thematic aspects of Rev. 5:1-7. Re-read this passage and evaluate the illustration. Then tell what meanings the picture would most likely convey to the people of your cultural and religious setting. In case of any potential problems suggest some possible solutions.

Figure 19: the Lamb of Rev. 5

Figure 19: The Lamb of Rev. 5 Used by permission: International Illustrations © SIL International 2001. From the website Christian symbols and their meanings (3rd ed.) by Doug Gray at http://www. christiansymbols.net/; used by permission.  

Framing the text of Revelation 5 for its analysis and translation • Would you use a glossary entry or a study note to describe or explain the items mentioned above that you cannot illustrate? Tell why in each case. • Compose a sample study note to clarify the relationship of the “seven seals” to the “scroll” mentioned in v. 1. Do this in YL and give a back-translation into English. Compose similar notes for two other references in this chapter that would require such background information in order to correctly understand the biblical text – or to prevent a misunderstanding of the passage concerned.

With regard to this issue, evaluate the following interpretation (Malina and Pilch 2000:88) in comparison with the commentaries or study notes that you have at hand: A sealed scroll written on the inside and the outside is no first-century anomaly. One would write the contents of the inside of a sealed scroll on the outside as sort of a summary of the contents of the scroll so one would know what the scroll is about without breaking the seals. However, for an authoritative and socially valid reading of the scroll’s contents, for the contents to take effect, the seals must be broken and the actual contents read. This required a being of the status of the cosmic Lamb to open the scroll and thus to set the events under way.



Which “events” are being referred to here, and where does this great opening (and “revelation”!) occur in the book?

• Compose an appropriate summary-introduction paragraph (no more than 100 words) that could be used at the head of this chapter in your translated version, just below the sectional heading. • There are several places in ch. 5 where a text-critical note might be needed in a scholarly translation. Perhaps the most important of these occurs in v. 9: should the pronoun “us” (ἡμᾶς) be inserted as an object of the verb “purchased” (ἠγόρασας) before (or after) “for God” (τῷ θεῷ) in the text? Which reading best accounts for the origin of the others (cf. Metzger 1994:666; Omanson 2006:531)? Would you require a note like this in your translation? Tell why or why not. • Again, with regard to the central “scroll” (5:1), consider the following text critical issue (from Omanson 2006:530) – a crucial placement of a mere comma! – and come up with your own decision on the matter, in the light of available commentaries (e.g., Beale 1999:342-348): If a break is made after ἔσωθεν (inside) and not after ὄπισθεν (on the back), the sense is “a scroll written on the inside, and sealed on the back with seven seals” (NRSV footnote). But if a break is made after ὄπισθεν and not after ἔσωθεν, then the sense is “a scroll written on the inside and on the back, sealed with seven seals” (NRSV). • Due to the great amount of intertextuality that permeates the text of Revelation, many cross references are needed to provide the OT setting that informs

267

268

Ernst Wendland or is transformed by John’s vision. Where is the best place to locate such cross references in your translation – as separate footnotes, all gathered together in a special section on the page, or in some other position? List the 5 most important (relevant) OT references that you can find for 4:1-6. How do you determine “importance” (or “relevance”) in such cases – what are the criteria that you use? • Is there some other type of paratextual tool that you know of which could be useful in creating a TL audience-oriented situational setting for Rev. 5? If so, describe this device and illustrate how it might be applied here in your vernacular translation.

Specifying, composing, and assessing the translation All the preparatory stages of an analysis of the text and setting of a Bible pericope come to fruition now as such essential background knowledge is applied in a translation into some modern language and cultural setting. The following questions suggest one way of carrying this out with reference to a translation project in your language (YL): • Formulate a suitable job commission (Brief) for the particular project (and type of version) that you have in mind (cf. ch. 4). This may be carried out to the degree of detail that you wish, but its primary communicative goal (Skopos) should be very clearly stated in terms of the primary target audience that you specify. • Review the various problematic exegetical and translational issues that arose from your study of the biblical text and its posited contextual setting (6:1-2). Do any of these matters require further research before you can begin your translation work? If so, explain what needs to be done and how you propose doing it. • In preparation for your own translation of Rev. 5:1-6, comparatively examine the two English versions given below (the NRSV and the GNT) and make a note of all the major differences between them (perhaps this can be done simply by underlining the corresponding expressions within the two texts). Evaluate these variations from an exegetical and a stylistic perspective in keeping with the job description that you have specified above for YL. Select which of these renderings would work better as a model for your translation – and point out the places where neither one is satisfactory, and hence a rewording is necessary in YL. • In the final Exercise of chapter 4 (#11) a version called the “essentially literal translation” was considered. This is being promoted as follows (Collins 2005:105-106; added italics):

A helpful tool for translators in this regard is Ott 2005; many more relevant issues are considered in this resource. 

Framing the text of Revelation 5 for its analysis and translation

269

NRSV

GNT

The Scroll and the Lamb 1 Then I saw in the right hand of the one seated on the throne a scroll written on the inside and on the back, sealed with seven seals; 2 and I saw a mighty angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?” 3 And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it. 4 And I began to weep bitterly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it. 5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep. See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”

The Scroll and the Lamb 1 I saw a scroll in the right hand of the one who sits on the throne; it was covered with writing on both sides and was sealed with seven seals. 2 And I saw a mighty angel, who announced in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” 3 But there was no one in heaven or on earth or in the world below who could open the scroll and look inside it. 4 I cried bitterly because no one could be found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside it. 5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Don’t cry. Look! The Lion from Judah’s tribe, the great descendant of David, has won the victory, and he can break the seven seals and open the scroll.” 6 Then I saw a Lamb standing in the centre of the throne, surrounded by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb appeared to have been killed. It had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God that have been sent throughout the whole earth.

Then I saw between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders a Lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 6

…the kind of translation that best suits the requirements for an ecclesiastical translation, and for family reading and study. This is because it allows the reader to listen in on the original act of communication, but refrains from ‘clarifying’ based on what we think we know of the shared world and the illocutionary force; it also aims to provide a translation that preserves the full exegetical potential of the original, especially as it conveys such things as text genre, style, and register, along with figurative language, interpretive ambiguities, and important repetitions. Of course this lays a heavier burden on the reader to learn about the shared world and its literary conventions… What does the reader want, and what can the translator provide? An opportunity to listen in on the original foreign language communication, without prejudging what to do with that communication. o First of all, evaluate the preceding claim in view of what you have learned and discussed thus far about contextual frames of reference in relation to Bible translation (note the italicized parts in particular). Is it a realistic goal, for example, to aim to prepare a version that can serve both as “an ecclesiastical translation” and also one that is suitable “for family reading and study”? Or in which testable respects can translators “preserve the full exegetical potential of the original”? Explain your position on such issues. o Consider the following translation of Rev. 5:6 as it reads in the English Standard Version (ESV), which claims to be an “essentially literal translation”: And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I

270

Ernst Wendland



saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. How intelligible is this text, even for mother-tongue speakers of English? What sort of a “burden” is being placed upon the readers (let alone hearers) of such a version? Discuss this passage (or if possible all of Revelation 5 in the ESV) as a group and come up with a joint assessment of this translation for a particular target group (which may encompass non-mother tongue speakers of English).

o Now read the preceding verse (Rev. 5:6) again as rendered by the ESV from the perspective of a second (or third) language speaker of English: How easily would such persons be able to answer these questions, and how correct do you think that their initial answers would be?

Where was the text’s speaker (“I”) when he “saw” the scene recorded? Does the translation suggest perhaps that he was in the near vicinity of “the throne and the four living creatures”? How could the Lamb be “standing, as though he had been slain”? Was he standing up or lying down (as if slain)? Explain. Does the text sound as if the Lamb had been slain “with [= by] seven horns”? If the answer to the preceding question is “yes,” then how do the “seven eyes” fit into this overall scenario? Verse 7 continues in the ESV: “And he went and took the scroll…” The question is: To whom does “he” refer in this context of v. 6 and how do you know this? Compare the ESV translation with that of the GNT given above: Which version do you prefer and why? (Give specific reasons for your opinion.) o An “essentially literal translation” presents some serious communication problems in many other languages as well. The following, for example, is an English back-translation of Rev. 5:5-6 in the recent (2002) Chewa rendition being touted as a “today’s language version” (cf. Exercise 11 of ch. 4):

Now one of those elders said to me, “Don’t cry! Look (at), the Lion of clan of Judah, a Root of David, he has overcome. He can open a book with its seven markers (signals).” Later I saw a Lamb looking like it was killed standing in the middle of the royal throne who/which was surrounded by those four living creatures and those elders. …

Pick out some of the potential problem points in this translation (at least as it reads in English). Any listener of this version would experience much greater difficulties, for example: Why should the addressee (“me”) not “cry” out for fear if he is “looking at a lion” – as an oral presentation would imply? On the other hand, at least one potential difficulty is avoided – namely, the reference to a “lamb that was killed.” Indeed, no lamb would last very long in the land of the living with a lion on the scene. But the amazing thing is that apparently this frail creature is still left there, “standing”!

o

“In the 1994 principles of translation…Wycliffe Bible Translators requires of a translator that the ‘otherness’ of ‘historical facts must be told without change’ (1998 and 1999 versions: ‘…expressed without distortion’); but that: ‘…in seeking to represent the original situation and background culture accurately, translators [must] keep in mind the very different situation and background culture of the new audience, and seek to translate in a way that will help the new audience to understand the original situation’ (italics added; the 1998 and 1999 versions express it as: ‘…may understand the message that the original author

Framing the text of Revelation 5 for its analysis and translation



was seeking to communicate to the original audience.’) We can describe this as giving access to ‘otherness’.” (Evans and Krajewska 2006:144) Do you regard the throne room vision of Rev. 4-5 to be an instance of “historical facts”? Does a prophetic vision actually express a different sort of “otherness” from a historical record? Explain your answers. Which of the two wordings of WBT “translation principles” given above do you prefer and why? What is your main consideration when you attempt to render a passage like Rev. 5:5-6 in YL? Formulate your chief guiding principle in this endeavor – that is, in the light of your language, sociocultural setting, primary target audience, and communication goal(s).

• Finally prepare a translation of Rev. 5:1-6 in YL according to your project’s specific Brief and Skopos statements. Give a literal back-translation into English so that your version can be compared with others in the class/workshop. Make a brief listing of any special features of your translation that you would like to call attention to, especially those that are needed to fulfill the particular goal(s) of this rendition. • Outline a proposal for thoroughly testing your translation among the primary target group that was specified in your project’s job commission (cf. ch. 10). Be as specific as you can with regard to how you plan to carry out this process of assessment in order to obtain the most relevant and reliable feedback possible. How then will this feedback be handled then in terms of applying it to an immediate or future revision of the translation? What sort of a review and evaluation process would work out best in your project’s present organizational setting?

271

12. Creating a contextualized framework for teaching and learning In this final lesson, I wish to give some further thought to the practice of teaching and learning together, a task that has already engaged us throughout this coursebook. Education is always a mutually effected, cooperative activity, for every teacher is, or should be, learning from the group that she or he happens to be instructing. On the other hand, serious, hard-working students always have something to teach their instructor and should be respected for this capability. The responsibility for creating a favorable atmosphere, or intellectual environment, for learning of course rests first of all with the teacher as “team leader,” but all class participants have a crucial role to play as well. If they are not prepared to contribute their best to what must be a joint enterprise, they will not be able to fully achieve their goals for the course, and the overall result will always be less than satisfactory. We would expect Bible translators and their trainers to be highly motivated people at the outset on account of the sacred object of their efforts, the Holy Scriptures. Thus, they ought to be willing to put forth extra effort to assist one another during any period of instruction, whether this is some formal course or a more informal time of learning on the job, as it were, when translating a certain biblical text. They do not compete on the job as individual translators; rather, they cooperate together as a communal-support team. In the following discussion, I will first consider the need for teachers to periodically assess their pedagogical style: Is there anything that they might do to improve or enhance their teaching technique? During this process of self-evaluation, instructors should feel free to call on their students to help them make this assessment by offering constructive criticism aimed at benefiting their joint working relationship. After this brief, but hopefully to-be-continued consideration of pedagogy, we will also explore some different ways of creating a wider context of cooperation with colleagues who are engaged in different aspects of Bible translation around the world. How can we establish more of a global “context” for our task? Is it possible to create a more effective “network” for informing, advising, critiquing, and encouraging one another in what is essentially a shared project of transforming the same text into a multitude of different settings – namely, the Word of God into a host of diverse human languages, cultures, and social situations across the globe?

Towards a more setting-sensitive pedagogy The seven guidelines below (adapted from Wendland 2006a) are simply starting points for what will hopefully develop into a more extended discussion of this crucial topic on the part of all translation trainers and trainees concerned. The various electronic tools available nowadays make it possible for widely separated persons to actually “dialogue” rather freely regarding issues of mutual interest and concern. The focus here is on Bible translating in Africa, but the various factors that have been noted might be comparatively considered without much difficulty in relation to other areas of the world:

Creating a contextualized framework for teaching and learning

273

Interactive Teaching and learning is facilitated when the course instructor and students are able to interact frequently with each other as a class is being taught. This is made possible by a question-and-answer driven, dialogic style that encourages students to respond either with answers, their own questions, or additional information that is of relevance and benefit to the group. Most people have become used to the formal lecture type of instruction from their school education, church indoctrination and sermons, and political speeches, but the interpersonal, participatory method is more natural and often much appreciated once students get used to it. As anyone who has tried this approach knows, however, this is a much more difficult mode of instruction to practice and perfect, because its outworking and outcome are not so planable or predictable. But an interactive procedure can be very beneficial in that it helps the teacher to tailor or adapt course content on the spot to better serve special student needs, whether the topic happens to be establishing an efficient orthography in the target language or analyzing the various source language genres of discourse. Furthermore, instruction is then carried out more fully from the perspective of the students – that is, where they “are at” in terms of their current knowledge, perception, values, and personal opinions relating to Bible translation as they have experienced it.

Inductive Closely related to an interactive style of teaching is the inductive method, which places great emphasis upon students discovering for themselves basic exegetical or translation guidelines and analysis procedures by actually working through a number of illustrative biblical texts and local cultural case-studies. They are thus trained to move from an engagement with a variety of Bible passages and situation-specific (“contextualized”) instances to arrive at workable conclusions or to identify and describe the underlying principles of interpretation and application, which are then further elaborated upon by means of additional pertinent, work-related examples. The inductive method also favors a more holistic, experiential, intuitive approach that moves from larger, complete texts to the various constituents that comprise them. Students thus learn detailed points of SL analysis and TL synthesis (composition) – for example, how to handle the complex genitive “of” construction – within the framework of meaningful text units, always proceeding, where possible, from the known to the unknown. This enables them to immediately apply what they have learned both to the Scripture passage at hand as well as to some aspect of the overall translation process. Some instructors may prefer to begin with a more deductive introduction that briefly outlines a particular principle, problem, or procedure, but this proceeds quickly then into concrete examples which students must analyze, classify, and evaluate for themselves. Student assessments, too, are better made on the basis of meaningful, goal-oriented exercises that interrelate a number of analytical or compositional skills, rather than by means of standardized exams that measure only one’s ability to recall and restate certain informational facts.

274

Ernst Wendland

Indigenized The inductive method just mentioned is made more effective when it is localized (e.g., “Africanized”) through the use of indigenous proverbs, riddles, stories, myths, ancient and modern songs, well-known royal or funeral poetry, and other genres (including the daily news) in order to illustrate or to practice translation principles and procedures. Students are able to grasp points of instruction much more quickly if the salient issues can be related in some way to their own sociocultural setting, oral or written tradition, and the contemporary communication situation. In this facet of the learning process, the students often become teachers as they educate their instructors (especially expatriates!) concerning the broad range of intellectual and artistic resources that are available in their language-culture and advise them with regard to the delicate nuances and intricate details that are necessary for proper usage. If suitable local-language materials are not immediately available for class use, then this need itself can be made the special focus of research for an entire workshop early on in the training schedule. Such indigenized, contextualized instruction is especially helpful when functional “matches” are being sought to represent either problematic SL concepts or the artistic and rhetorical features of the major biblical literary forms, e.g., the great narratives of Genesis, the law codes and ritual instructions of Leviticus, the wisdom poetry of Proverbs, the liturgical prayer-songs of Psalms, the divine prophecies of Isaiah, the gospel account of Luke, the church history of Acts, the epistles of Paul, and John’s Apocalypse. An indigenous manner of instruction also favors apprenticeship training whereby a student or disciple attaches him/herself to an expert or authority in the field who then educates the person on-the-job, so to speak, over a more extended period. This distinctly inductive teaching method can be made a part of contextualized translator training workshops (and if possible, also afterwards) by inviting recognized African authorities in the biblical languages or in the local vernaculars to introduce studenttranslators to their own professional procedures of text analysis and/or expression (in case of the TL). The relationships established during these formal sessions could easily be extended on an informal basis after the workshop. Translators would thus continue to learn from local communication experts and culture specialists, using them as valuable resource persons whenever they confront difficulties in relating the biblical text to their ancient world-view as well as their contemporary social setting.

Communal In Africa and other places where the concept of community is strong, team-based, collective learning is best, that is, when students are encouraged to work together as a cohesive, collaborative group that ideally approximates their experience in a normal translation project environment. This enables the team to identify and utilize the differing gifts of the individuals that comprise it – for example, one person acting as the source text “exegete” and technical resource person; another, the target text specialist, as an initial composer (“translator”) or stylist; and yet another as the computer text processor and/or translation draft tester. The individual members thus learn

Creating a contextualized framework for teaching and learning

275

to appreciate and complement each other while they jointly focus their intellectual energy on carrying out the various aspects of the complete translation process more effectively. In a workshop setting, the promotion of communal working procedures also stimulates inter-group interaction, where one team simultaneously learns from and instructs another. This “community” of colleagues in Scripture communication naturally includes the course instructor(s), who must always view themselves as being “learners” too. What can they discover from their students, whether directly or indirectly, with regard to the biblical subject at hand, as viewed from the perspective of the TL culture, or the theory and practice of Bible translation itself (students always bring up certain exegetical and related matters that their teachers never thought of!)? What can they learn about how to teach effectively in the cultural setting and social situation that they are all-together working in? A teacher who is not willing (or who does not see the need) to be taught in turn by students is probably engaged in the wrong profession.

Developmental By this I mean the development of cooperative, mutually respectful personal attitudes in the communal setting of project performance. The manifestation of any individualism, egotism, elitism, bias, or partiality (e.g., on the part of, or with respect to the resident Hebrew or Greek “expert,” or someone with a university graduate degree) within the framework of a team endeavor like this usually portends disaster, or at best delays during all stages of the translation process. Individual weaknesses among team members need to be dealt with as an essential part of their training experience, but this must be done in a constructive, non-confrontational, culturally appropriate manner (especially where “elders” are concerned, or minorities, e.g., women). Similarly, displays of excellence and hard work ought to be encouraged, but sometimes this is better communicated privately to avoid generating jealousy or suspicions, which may lead to accusations of “favoritism.” One of the most difficult attitudes and interpersonal skills to develop is that of taking – and giving – productive (as distinct from disparaging) criticism. But it has to be learned, practiced, and perfected. Closely related to this are attributes such as anger management, exercising patience with slower colleagues, endeavoring to bring out the best in each member of the team, and the practice of peace-making and problemsolving. It may be that the public expression of criticism is felt to be inappropriate behavior in the society concerned, but unless this can be somehow incorporated as part of a team’s working procedures, they will undoubtedly fail to accomplish their common objectives, to a greater or lesser degree. Perhaps it will be necessary at first to find a more confidential, informal, or indirect (maybe metaphorical!) way of doing this. In any case, honest performance evaluation and suggestions for improvement must include all the course instructors, technical advisers, and translation officers too, especially if they are new and unfamiliar with the culture in which they are serving. Such mutual assessments need to be carried on, annually at least, as part of an ongoing training program that goes beyond the scope of formal courses of instruction.

276

Ernst Wendland

Comparative If the translation or training course cannot be taught in a local or regional African language (which would be the ideal, where possible), then the instruction process should be continually illustrated by examples from languages (cultures) related to those of the projects represented. Perhaps it is possible to incorporate or adapt training materials that have been prepared for use in a national language of wider communication, for example, Swahili materials prepared in Tanzania but used also in Kenya or Uganda, where this major lingua franca is widely spoken. In any case, it is helpful to adopt a comparative-contrastive approach that regularly seeks to identify the main parallels as well as disparities between the SL (Hebrew or Greek) and the various TLs involved. This needs to be carried out, even on a very elementary level, with respect to linguistic forms and structures as well as literary (oral) genres and associated stylistic (artistic and rhetorical) characteristics. I have found that it helps to teach close text analysis (exegetical) skills, which do not often come easy, by referring students back through text comparison to their respective mother tongues and the familiar expressive features and artistic devices to be found there. The goal is to seek to capitalize on the similarities and to compensate for the differences between the two (or more) languages and versions that are being contrasted. For example, the highly differentiated past tense scheme of most Bantu languages must be related to the relatively unmarked aspectual system of Hebrew (“perfect,” suffix tense). On the other hand, many Bantu languages feature a “narrative tense” very much like the Hebrew waw-consecutive (wayyiktol) construction that is used to recount an extended sequence of past events.

Applied The slogan “each-one-teach-one” may be usefully applied as part of any African translator training program. Through this means translators consolidate what they have learned and grow in knowledge and confidence by preparing for and actually teaching others on various levels or in different settings. This procedure may be introduced at any point during a workshop, for example, when every team is assigned an exegetical, practical, or technical topic as a special exercise (e.g., to make a detailed text study of a given chapter of Scripture, to point out the potential translation problems in that same chapter, or to prepare a Paratext-tools check-analysis of the passage). They must first investigate or research their subject and then report their findings back to the entire class. Teams can also participate in a mock “open forum” where they present before the group a summary of and rationale for a particular type, or style, of translation (e.g., liturgical version, popular language edition, study Bible, children’s adaptation) and then overview the methodology that they have adopted for accomplishing the project’s principal goals. Such an activity would well prepare a team’s members for actually going out and making such informational, or indeed, persuasive presentations to review committees, supporting churches, influential seminaries and theological schools in the area, or to the governing administrative-management agency for the translation.

Creating a contextualized framework for teaching and learning

277

One of the weakest links that I have noted in different projects over the years is that essential person-to-person connection between translators and the primary target group, its laity as well as clergy, for whom a translation is being prepared. In most cases, much more community involvement is needed, and one way to arouse this is through various educative and public relations initiatives. It cannot be assumed, however, that the members of a translation team can automatically go out and promote such interaction. They must first be trained as communicators so that they can “sell” their project to their constituency and thus gain increased local understanding, support, and participation. EXERCISE-1  Consider the preceding seven suggestions in relation to the specific circumstances of your own translation project and cultural setting – whether you are an instructor or a student. Which proposals are most applicable to your setting in the sense that they might possibly/would probably improve the quality of the training process?  What modifications or additions would you like to make to this set of guidelines to make them more appropriate for your own local situation – in effect, contextualizing the manner of teaching in order to render it more effective and relevant to the training of Bible translators?  Evaluate the following quotation in relation to your particular teaching-learning setting (it comes from an article on literacy training, but the observations made are of general relevance): If cross-cultural trainers do not consider what their trainees believe to be effective learning strategies, an unconscious conflict between the trainer and trainee may well arise. … It is essential for us to know how people think and how they learn when we teach them to read. Whatever method is designed, it must make sense, and it is vital that it is culturally logical to the people with whom the designer tries to communicate and to teach. … It will be helpful for the literacy worker to know the similarities and differences between their own learning styles and those of another [culture] in order to design a method. (Nagai 1994:40, 46)

 Donald Kiraly proposes the encouragement of a translator’s “self-concept” coupled with a “social constructivist” approach to translator training. This methodology would involve the following components (as summarized in Kelly 2005:15): • • • •

Teaching should emphasize the acquisition of interlingual, intercultural, and intertextual associations. … Based on error analysis, teachers can provide guided practice to improve the acquisition of intuitive skills and then teach conscious strategies as methods for problem resolution and the production of translation alternatives. A major objective should be the fostering of a translator self-concept and a functioning translation monitor. As students advance, skills are less likely to be acquired by repeated practice; less likely to develop naturally without specific training and pedagogical

278

Ernst Wendland

•

intervention, and more likely to involve translation quality at levels beyond that of mere semantic and syntactic correctness. … “[L]earning is best accomplished through meaningful interaction with peers as well as full-fledged members of the community to which learners are seeking entry. […] Rather than attempting to build up students’ translation-related skills and knowledge atomistically in simulated exercises prior to translation practice, it would be much more constructive to start each pedagogical event with a highly realistic, and if possible genuine, translation project.” (Kiraly, 2000:60, cited in Kelly 2005:18)

 What do you think of these proposals? How do they relate to the seven training principles outlined above? Can you apply (or, if a student, recommend) anything mentioned here with respect to your own Bible translation training programme? If so, mention the relevant points with reasons for this selection. In a recent electronic forum publication (2007), Dr. Richard Starcher offers the following thoughts on planning more effective courses of instruction. Consider these in the light of your own teaching or learning experience in the field of Bible translation. Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, noted American experts on assessment and instructional design… propose [the following] approach. It involves a three-step process called “backward” design: 1) identify desired results, 2) determine acceptable evidence, and 3) plan learning experiences. It is backward “from the perspective of much of habit and tradition in our field. A major change from common practice occurs as designers must begin to think about assessment before deciding what and how they will teach” (Wiggins and McTighe 2005:19). … [When] “identifying desired results,” instructors ask themselves, “What should students know, understand, do and value at the end of the instructional unit” (be it a lesson, a course or an entire program of study)? Following Dick, Carey and Carey (2001), I prefer thinking in terms of four domains (instead of the classic three mentioned above), namely: 1) verbal information (i.e., recitation of facts), 2) intellectual skills (e.g., forming concepts, applying rules and solving problems), 3) psychomotor skills (generally coordinated mental and physical activity), and 4) attitudes (e.g., right choices or decisions). Of course, not every lesson will seek to achieve all four types of objectives, but it is worthwhile to consider the importance of all four in the planning process. …   Even at this stage of the instructional design process it is imperative to “think like an assessor” (Wiggins and McTighe 1998:12) because educational objectives must be measurable to be operational. However, let me quickly add that I’m not using the term “measurable” here in a strictly quantitative sense. Rather, I mean the instructor must have some way of knowing whether or not the objective has been achieved. For example, one educational objective in a course on homiletics might be, “Students will demonstrate the ability to utilize stories to illustrate a biblical or theological truth.” This is only a valid course objective if the instructor conceivably can know whether or not students have achieved it. …   When setting educational objectives and planning assessment activities it is helpful to establish curricular priorities. If we stop to think about it, we quickly realize

Creating a contextualized framework for teaching and learning

279

not everything we present in class is of equal importance. Wiggins and McTighe (2005:71) frame this distinction in terms of: 1) that which is “worth being familiar with,” 2) that which is “important to know and do,” and 3) “big ideas and core tasks.”

 If you are a Bible translator or translation student, are there any points in the preceding quotes that stand out for you – that you would like your instructors to implement? Try to be as specific as you can in your response and share your thoughts with your instructor or translation trainer.  If you are a translation teacher or trainer, what do you think of the notion of “backward design” when developing a course of instruction? If possible, give an example of how you have already implemented such a procedure or principle of teaching/learning.  Give examples of how you (as a teacher) make student assessments with regard to the four “domain” areas listed above. Give a specific example of a “measurable” objective that you have used (or that you would now plan to use) when teaching the principles and/or practice of Bible translation.  With reference to the work of Bible translation, how would you distinguish between what is “important to know and do” and the “big ideas and core tasks”? Can you give any examples to illustrate this distinction? Then discuss these notions in relation to the particular project that you are currently engaged in (or recently participated in – or plan on implementing in the near future).

The power of dialogue-based, student-centered education One of the prominent general teaching-learning methods that underlies or is integrally involved with each of the points listed in the preceding section is dialogue. This technique is features in the subtitle of Jane Vella’s (2002) helpful book entitled, “the power of dialogue in educating adults.” In this text the author proposes an alternative to what she describes as Newton’s hierarchical and mechanistic view of the world, which conceives of the universe as a vast cosmic machine of greater and lesser parts that operate on the basis of the principle of cause-and effect. She goes on to allege that this philosophy has dominated the classical Western approach to education in the past, with its preference for deductive reasoning, analysis (separation) over synthesis (combination), learning certain facts and objective cognitive tasks, plus clearly defines roles that distinguish honored teachers from subservient students. Instead, Vella proposes a new, metaphoric egalitarian perspective based on the science of quantum physics and the principle of energy release and exchange, which pays much more attention to inductive learning and a participatory, dialogic method of instruction that involves teachers and learners alike. Whether Vella’s figurative application of physics to pedagogy is valid or not, I am not qualified to judge, but her conclusions are interesting. She explains what she calls “dialogue education” in terms of a set of six fundamental concepts “that emerge from the world-view of quantum physics” (adapted from Vella 2002:30-31):

280

Ernst Wendland o o o o o

o

Relatedness: All that we do in design, teach, and learn should be inter-related. Holism: The whole is far more than the sum of its parts, for we teach and learn as a group. Duality: Make use of contrasts, both/and thinking, open questions to promote dialogue. Novelty: Learing is reinforced by continued application to new and challenging contexts. Participation: Encourage regular contributions from all present to benefit from their unique personal, social, and cultural perspectives on the problem, task, or issue at hand. Energy: Learning and teaching demand energy, but the active individual always gains more from the group intellectually and emotionally than what she or he puts into it.

These six concepts are made more concrete in the form of twelve principles that revolve around the process of dialogue. The basic assumption then is that willing learners come to an educational event with enough life experiences and personal reflections arising from these to be “in dialogue” with any teacher about any subject. Thus they both have a valid and necessary contribution to make to the learning experience in which they are engaged. Vella’s 12 principles are as follows (extracts from 2002:5-25): 1. Needs assessment: Listening to learners’ want and needs helps shape a program that has immediate usefulness to adults. The dialogue begins long before the course starts. 2. Safety: The principle of safety enables the teacher to create an inviting setting for adult learners. … One of the first learning tasks I do in any course is to invite learners to work in small groups to name their own expectations, hopes, or fears about a learning event or norms they want to see established in the large group. … Beginning with simple, clear, and relatively easy tasks before advancing to more complex and more difficult ones can give learners a sense of safety so they can take on the harder tasks with assurance. 3. Sound relationships: Sound relationships for learning involve respect, safety, open communication, listening, and humility. … [A] dialogue about the learners’ expectations is a way to confirm our perception of their needs or amend it. 4. Sequence and reinforcement: Sequence means the programming of knowledge, skills, and attitudes in an order that goes from simple to complex and from group-supported to solo efforts. … Reinforcement means the repetition of facts, skills, and attitudes in diverse, engaging, and interesting ways until they are learned. 5. Praxis: Praxis is doing [something] with built-in reflection. It is a beautiful dance of inductive and deductive forms of learning. … In a learning situation, we can use case studies inviting description, analysis, application, and implementation of new learning – that is, praxis. 6. Respect for learners as decision makers: Adults need to understand that they themselves decide what occurs for them in the learning event. … This approach makes the content an open system inviting critical analysis, editing, and additions by adult learners.

Creating a contextualized framework for teaching and learning

281

7. Ideas, feelings, actions: We know that learning involves more than cognitive material (ideas and concepts). It involves feeling something about the concepts (emotions) and doing something (actions). … Real change requires a fundamental shift at each of the three levels. This can be accomplished by designing learning tasks that have cognitive, affective, and psychomotor components. 8. Immediacy: Research recognizes that adult learners need to see the immediate usefulness of new learning: the skills, knowledge, or attitudes they are working to acquire. … A question that we can offer at the end of each learning session is, How can you use this new skill most effectively? 9. Clear roles: Another vital principle of adult learning is recognition of the impact of clear roles in the communication between learner and teacher. … [I]f the learner sees the teacher as “the professor” with whom there is no possibility of disagreement, no questioning, no challenge, the dialogue is dead in the water. … We wish to move adults to learn together in dialogue. Whatever impedes that dialogue must be courageously addressed and eradicated. 10. Teamwork: Teamwork is itself both a process and a principle. … The assurance of safety and shared responsibility available in teams has always proved welcome, no matter what the cultural setting. … In a team, learning is enhanced by peers. We know that peers hold significant authority with adults, even more authority than teachers. … I have seen significant mentoring go on in teams: peers helping one another, often with surprising clarity, tenderness, and skill. … Constructive competition is structured so that teams work together in the learning process, manifesting their learning with a certain pride in their achievement as a team.... 11. Engagement: Through learning tasks, we invited learners to engage themselves actively in the strategic issues of their organizations and of their community. … When learners are deeply engaged, working in small groups or teams, it is often difficult to extricate them from the delight of that learning. … There [are] no levels of participation; everyone [takes] part in the needs assessment and strategic planning. 12. Accountability: First, the design of learning events must be accountable to the learners. What was proposed to be taught was taught; what was meant to be learned must be learned; the skills intended to be gained must be visible in all the learners; the attitudes taught must be seen… Second, the learners in teams are accountable to their colleagues and to the teacher. They are accountable to themselves to recreate the content so it really is immediately useful in their context. Accountability is a synthesis principle – it is the result of using all the other principles.

Vella later illustrates how the preceding 12 principles may be used to develop a specific program of adult education, which entails an additional sequence of seven recommended steps for course design (2002:37-44): WHO (the course participants), WHY (the contextually determined or motivated desired outcome of the course), WHEN (the agreed-upon time frame), WHERE (the place of meeting), WHAT (the course content selected to teach the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to achieve the outcome), WHAT FOR (a plan of measured achievement-based objects designed to accomplish the eventual intended outcome), and HOW (the methods employed in order to carry out the learning tasks, skills practice, attitude development, and progress assessment). There is a lot of common sense included in Vella’s recommendations, and she

282

Ernst Wendland

manages to package them is a way that is easy to follow and invites one to try at least some of her proposals out in practice. To be sure, it will perhaps require teachers to put more energy into their instruction plans or planning for instruction, but we would expect that this additional effort would be repaid by a more energetic and enthusiastic student involvement in the lessons when presented, an experience that can only result in a re- energizing of the teacher her/himself. EXERCISE-2  Evaluate Vella’s teaching principles and pedagogical suggestions that have been summarized above. List three in particular that you find most helpful in your current role as a practicing student or teacher. Are there any recommendations that are not very clear, or that you are in doubt about? Do you have any other comments pertaining to the dialogue method: do you like to teach or learn in this manner? Give reasons for your answer. Then have a dialogue regarding these principles in a group learning session.  Principle 2 – regarding “safety” – is vital for stimulating and maintaining an effective learning environment. As educational psychologists Politano and Paquin point out: When the brain goes into survival mode, it tends to revert to instinct, becomes more automatic, is less able to take clues from the environment, and is less able to perceive relationships and patterns. When we feel overstressed and threatened, we are less able to solve problems. … For students, threat and distress can come from many sources: fear of physical harm from classmates, staff, family, or others; time pressures and lack of resources; cultural and social disrespect; intellectual intimidations; and emotional jeopardy. … Under stress, it is difficult for students to track a page of print or stay focused on a small area of print because the eyes become more attentive to peripheral areas, scanning for danger. … As teachers, we can be the source of stress or we can create a non-threatening environment.

With your primary translation setting in mind then, mention some of the major factors that might create a feeling of “threat and distress” for the translators that you work with in a typical training session. What are some things that you as an instructor can do to reduce this real or potential stress level in order to enhance the overall learning process?  “Research suggests that student-centred approaches are more likely to produce quality outcomes, that is, higher level learning and understanding” (Kelly 2005:56). The following is a listing of features that characterize such a “student-centred” methodology in contrast to a “teacher-centred” approach (adapted from Kelly 2005:57). These quotes are cited in an unpublished paper, “Teaching adults across cultures – Put love into the learning” by K. Cherney and M. Zarling (World Mission Seminary Conference, August 7-11, 2006, Mequon, Wisconsin).  Note to Bible translation teachers and trainers: There are a number of excellent secular coursebooks and workbooks available that include many possible applications to translating Scripture texts, for example (a brief selection): Baker (1992), Hatim and Munday (2004), Katan (2004), Kelley (2005), and Mossop (2001). 

Creating a contextualized framework for teaching and learning

283

Which of these attributes most characterize your teaching style (you may select from either pair of features)? Which techniques would you especially not agree with, or wish to modify? Tell why. If you are a student, pick out the five characteristics that you value most in your present instructor – or those that you would like to see your instructor exemplify. Give reasons. In what ways would a training programme for Bible translators modify either of these two approaches? TEACHER-CENTRED Most or all decisions regarding content and method should be made by teachers alone. Emphasis (including responsibility for assessment) should be on individual subjects or course units. The teacher is an expert who should transmit knowledge and make all student assessments from a personal perspective. The teacher transmits information. Student activity should be mostly individual. Students learn in the classroom or in programmed activities. Achieving good marks and praise from teachers is a major motivation. Class arrangements should be planned beforehand and not modified. The most important goal and outcome is for students to learn syllabus content. Student assessment should be summative and strictly syllabus governed. The whole class is expected to progress together at the same pace; some students will have an easier time of it than others. All students should learn the same things, as governed by the syllabus. Teachers work alone on their assign portion of the curriculum. Teachers and individual subject departments or academic units should have autonomy. The focus is on deductive pedagogical theory and practice.

STUDENT-CENTRED Choices regarding content and method should be made partly or mostly by students in consultation with their teachers. Emphasis (including responsibility for assessment) should be on the overall programme and its aims. The teacher should be an expert guide for students and facilitate their learning; she or he should somehow enlist students in the assessment process. The teacher asks questions to elicit information and to stimulate the search for information. Cooperative learning is more effective. Students can learn anywhere, anytime, but may need to be instructed how to do this. Intellectual curiosity and personal responsibility are major motivations. Class arrangements can, indeed should be modified as the course develops. The most important goal and outcome is for students to acquire learning and evaluation techniques. Student assessment should be formative and also involve a creative learning experience. Individual students should be allowed to progress at their own pace, but advanced students should be encouraged to assist slower colleagues. Individual students are allowed to learn different things, following their special interests or aptitudes. Team work is also an essential part of teaching in order to complement, or compensate for individual strengths and weaknesses. Teachers and academic units should consult and work together in close collaboration. The emphasis is on inductive pedagogical theory and practice.

284

Ernst Wendland

 Professional translators should possess the following set of job-related proficiencies (after Kelly 2005:64, 73-78): • •

• • • • •

communicative and textual, including genre-based, competence in at least two languages (i.e., SL and TL); cultural and intercultural competence, i.e., with respect to both SL and TL cultures; “Moreover, culture is a much broader concept than simple institutional, historical and geographical knowledge about different peoples and societies. For translators, it is essential to acquire competence (know-how) in their working cultures’ perceptions, myths, beliefs, values, stereotypes, and so on” (Kelly 2005:74). subject area competence (that is, with regard to the main thrust of the material being translated); professional and instrumental competence (including also translation technologies, such as research techniques, work-processing skills, editorial competence, etc.); attitudinal or psycho-physiological competence (e.g., student self-concept, confidence, social awareness, sense or responsibility, etc.); interpersonal competence (i.e., the ability to work as the cooperative member of a team); strategic competence (i.e., the ability to make valid assessments of completed translation tasks, accurate job completion projections, planning for the future, etc.).

 Which of the preceding competences are required also for Bible translators (and their trainers)? List the three most important in their order of priority, and give reasons for your selection and ordering. Is their any other proficiency that Bible translators should have? If so, explain which ones and why they are needed.  The last several “competences” as given on the list above may be specified more precisely as follows (from Gonzalez and Wagenaar 2003, cited in Kelly 2005:35). What do you think of this inventory? Make any modifications that you think are necessary from the perspective of your own translation setting, including the elimination of items that do not apply, or stating certain attributes even more specifically. Which is the most important item in each of the three major categories listed – and why do you say so? Blank space is available along the margins of each section so you that you can add any other characteristics that you feel are important. Instrumental competences Oral and written communication in the native language Knowledge of a second language Capacity for analysis and synthesis Capacity for organization and planning Basic general knowledge Grounding in basic knowledge of the profession Elementary computing skills

Creating a contextualized framework for teaching and learning

285

Information management skills (ability to retrieve and analyse information from different sources) Problem solving Decision making Interpersonal competences Critical and self-critical abilities Teamwork Interpersonal skills Ability to work in an interdisciplinary team Ability to communicate with experts in other fields Appreciation of diversity and multi-culturality Ability to work in an international context Ethical commitment Systemic (= psycho-social??) competences Capacity for applying knowledge in practice Research skills Capacity to learn Capacity to adapt to new situations Capacity for generating new ideas (creativity) Leadership Understanding of cultures and customs of other countries Ability to work autonomously Project design and management Initiative and entrepreneurial spirit Concern for quality Will to succeed  Another central consideration here is that of evaluation or testing the quality of the learning experience: How do course planners and managers actually determine the level of competence that a person manifests with respect to these different qualities? Organize a round-table discussion in the class on that particular subject, and write up your conclusions.  It is especially important in adult education situations to develop specific lesson objectives for their course of study, which are reinforced and practiced by collaborative learning tasks. “Objectives” are specific, measurable, and attainable (SAM) as distinct from more general or abstract, non-measurable “goals” for the project or enterprise in mind. Objectives are action-oriented and answer the question: “What do I want each student to know/do/feel when the session or course is over?” And how will they (or the instructor) know that they know when they’ve done it – that is, satisfactorily completed the stated objective(s)? Objectives are, for adults, often best accomplished by means of “collaborative learning tasks” which engage small groups of students in project-related “case studies” that are inductive (experience-based) in nature. Such The ideas in this paragraph have been developed from Cherney and Zarling’s study of “Teaching adults across cultures.” 

286

Ernst Wendland

corporate exercises invite learners to immediately relate and apply new content to their life and work. In the case of Bible translation, this would of course pertain to a team’s work on a particular text of Scripture in a specific sociocultural setting.  Evaluate the following objective and then make it more specific or pertinent to your translation situation. Next, compose another objective that you feel needs to be accomplished by your translation team today. OBJECTIVE: Review the various major exegetical problems that your team discussed yesterday and select one of these for further review. Summarize the various difficulties that you faced with this particular problem as well as the different options available for dealing with it. Why did you choose to handle this problem in the way that you did in terms of both interpreting the text and then translating it in YL? Are you still agreed on your final “solution” – or do you see now, a day later, that there are still some more issues to consider or difficulties to take care of in this case? After this re-evaluation exercise, come to a final conclusion and, if necessary, record this (with the date) in the team’s daily translation log.

 At this stage in the course, it would be helpful to assess the teaching technique that was applied in this particular coursebook: Take some time to make a note of any good points of this text, but especially the areas that need some improvement as far as you are concerned (e.g., too difficult, unclear, poorly ordered, etc.). Also list and corrections that you feel are necessary, plus any important additions that would complement the material that has been presented. You may work on this evaluation in teams or assigned groups; submit your critique to the course instructor, who will hopefully forward it to the author.

A process model for translator training Based on many years of experience both as a translator and a trainer of translators, Andrew Jameson has developed what he terms the “process model” of translating. This provides a helpful frame of reference for understanding the techniques of translation and its teaching from a theoretical as well as a practical perspective. I cannot consider the entire model here, but do wish to call attention to several aspects in particular that have potential relevance to Bible translators, as summarized in the following selection of citations: Besides working part-time as a tutor and professional translator from Russian and German, Andrew Jameson is Chair of the Association for Language Learning Russian Committee, Reviews Editor of the journal Rusistika and Listowner of the Jiscmail Russian-teaching email list: 6 Gilbert Road, Malvern WR14 3RQ UK, Tel/fax 01684 572466, [email protected].  These citations were kindly supplied to me electronically by the author. They form part of a seminar presentation (hence the oral style) entitled “Towards a theory of practical translation: the process model,” which was given in the [TRANSLATION-STUDIES] CTIS (Centre for Translation & Intercultural Studies, University of Manchester) Speaker Series on Monday, 2 October, 2006. These ideas were initially developed in the article “Recent developments in translation theory applied to a practical approach to teaching Russian-English translation” Rusistika 25:5-11 (Spring 2002). 

Creating a contextualized framework for teaching and learning My suggestion is that we could designate as translation authority the guiding force or guiding light for the translator at each of my proposed three stages of actual text work. I would suggest that these three stages are, No 1, the initial re-writing of the ST in the target language. Here the “authority” is the language of the original writer in his or her native language. Stage 1 takes the text out of the SL, but not yet into the TL. Stage No 2 is the second rewriting of the text as it is revised by the translator. Stage 2 should (with luck) take us from the “interlanguage” after Stage 1 into an acceptable version in the TL. Here the authority shifts from the original writer to the translator. The Translator is the new authority. With many, but not all types of text, Stage No 3 is the third re-writing (editing, style alignment etc.), and here the authority may be the end-user or client who has requested the Translation. “Responsibility” could be used for the first 2 stages, but not for the 3rd, so it’s difficult to find an appropriate general term…. My approach proposes that we set out from the beginning to define what features we consider the most important in our Source Text and therefore what we wish to preserve and/or re-create in our Target Text. To give these features a clear operational name, I have devised/coined the term TRANSLATION PRIORITIES (TP). Translation is a long-drawn-out repeated decision making process, or sequence of decisions, and priorities help with this. What happens is that, after interrogating/analysing the Source Text and collecting the necessary information about it, that is having gone through my Process Model Stages 1 through 4, the translator makes a short series of decisions (which are in effect these TRANSLATION PRIORITIES) and preferably writes them down, at which time they become the guiding principles of the translation. So what exactly is a TP? The definition is sometimes objective, sometimes subjective: It is, in the case of the translation that you are NOW working on – simply the most important feature(s)/aspect(s) that you want (or need) to get right. Sometimes these may appear to be obvious, even banal –, but as a teacher of translation, I can assure you that these things are NOT obvious to students who are encountering them in the classroom for the first time. These TPs are whatever the translator decides pragmatically. Examples might be: • • • •

•

Technical translations – get the technical terms right [other TPs may well be added] Plays – an actable/speakable text [other TPs may well be added] Opera libretto – a singable text (important criterion here: which vowels come at which musical pitch) Report of a political speech – 1) accuracy of important statements (may be politically crucial later) but ALSO 2) edit and correct so that rhetoric is fully realised in the Target Language [converting spoken to written language could also be an issue] Prose literature – 1) to produce a text which is sufficient in itself (without e.g. footnotes), 2) which reads as if originally written in English, and 3) is faithful to the emotional truth of the original

287

288

Ernst Wendland As you’ve observed, the last two examples have two, and three TPs. As experienced translators you will probably want to say that you would list two or three or even more features which you would want to make priorities, and I agree completely. To define your overall task in making your translation, you will need at least two or three TPs. Sometimes these two or three separate TPs could appear to overlap or compete. So far, so fairly obvious. TPs are useful for training students of translation. Going on from this, I would like to develop this idea into a decision making procedure. Here, I hope, comes the interesting part. I suggested that you write down your TPs when you come to translate. I suggest that you write them down and number them in order of importance for that particular text. Then you think of the list of TPs as rules in rank order. No 1 is the most important, No 2 the next most important and so on. So you do NOT implement TP2 if it conflicts with TP1. … You are working on your translation and you come to a point requiring a decision. TP 1 is not relevant to that point, but TP 2 is relevant. But in order to apply TP2, you would violate TP1. But we have already decided that TP1 is the most important overall. Therefore TP1 overrules TP2, and TP2 is NOT observed…. There is no possible single set of Translation Priorities which will be valid for all categories of translation. These short statements, the TPs, can be statements of many different kinds: 1. Some TPs will be concerned with the treatment of specific Source Language text-types or literary genres. 2. Some TPs will be concerned with the degree of faithfulness to the original ST (scientific; medical; political statements by political leaders). 3. Some TPs will be concerned with the interpretation of one culture to another. 4. Some TPs will be concerned with the structure and style of the Target Language. 5. In the real world some TPs may be forced on translators, concerned with technical and publishing requirements, giving rise to the possibility of conflict with the translator’s professional principles. 6. Some TPs will be assumed by translators to be obvious, and remain unstated. (Queries concerning the TPs): How strong should we make the TP rules? Maybe some of them are (real needs) imperatives, and others are optional desirables? Are they actually guidelines which can be broken when they are not convenient? In the course of translation, translators may find that the order of the rules needs to be changed; they may also find that a new rule is needed. Does this adaptability invalidate the concept, or does it merely reflect the fact that language is infinitely flexible? Personally, having got used to thinking in these terms myself, I can’t now imagine working without them.

Creating a contextualized framework for teaching and learning

289

At what stage in the work do we define TPs? In real life, translators have already formed judgements about how to treat specific text-types and genres. However each new case of translation is different and the possibility of change or the addition of TPs needs to be considered. When a new translating job is taken on, we assume it is either a completely familiar text-type, or it is examined at the start. At this point the TPs are stated immediately, but with the proviso that they may change at a later stage. The earlier TPs are applied, the easier decision making will be. TPs are also essential at the checking/editing stage… (For example, Table 7). Text-type News report: Visa-free Travel RM Oct 2005

Translation Priority 1 Accurate translation of significant political statements (Important for future reference)

Translation Priority 3 Translate in formal high style of English quality newspaper

Stay neutral even though article is mildly polemical

Translation Priority 2 Add brief explanations in running text for British readers Delete brief explanations inserted for Russian readers Get the government and citizenship terminology right

News article: Russians in Estonia Internet Business report: World tourism L-Info Nov 2005

Understand the statistics and translate them correctly

Research and recognise technical terms and names

Formal neutral business style

Prose Fiction: Sasha (Panova)

Free flowing natural English

Retain Russian colour; briefest cultural explanations in running text

Understand and portray emotional interplay of characters

Political Speech: Gorbachev at UN 1988

Accurate translation of significant political statements (Important for future reference) Special attention to passages giving political / historical insights

Realise the rhetoric and make it work in English; Correct linguistic (but not factual) errors

Get the political jargon of the period right

Political Memoirs: (Yury Zhukov)

Translate in formal high style of English quality newspaper

Research and annotate in foot- or end-notes to explain context

Table 7: Grid of text-types and translation priorities

EXERCISE-3  Compare Jameson’s three stage model of translation with Nida and Taber’s three stages of analysis – transfer – restructure (1969:33-34): What are the main similarities and differences? Can you propose a combined, or hybrid, model that would feature the insights of both?

290

Ernst Wendland

 Can you suggest some additional key questions that need to be asked when preparing a specific Translation Process Model to implement for a language group that you are familiar with?  Below is a proposed protocol (frame of reference) for a hypothetical job commission that has been specified for a new English Bible translation. Evaluate the two versions (consider them draft translations) that follow (samples A and B), using Rev. 5:6-10 in terms of this particular protocol: Which version better fulfills, or satisfies, the protocol, and tell why. Give several specific examples that support your assessment. Text-type

Translation Priority 1

Translation Priority 2

Translation Priority 3

Sacred text: a contemporary Bible translation into English

A scholarly, accurate translation of original in terms of essential semantic content

A natural, readable style of English that will be acceptable to and appreciated by young adults of 20-35 years

A text that is aurally intelligible – that is, it can be readily understood when spoken aloud or in public

A. 6 Then I saw a Lamb standing in the center of the throne, surrounded by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb appeared to have been killed. It had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God that have been sent through the whole earth. 7 The Lamb went and took the scroll from the right hand of the one who sits on the throne. 8 As he did so, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each had a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of God’s people. 9 They sang a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to break open its seals. For you were killed, and by your sacrificial death you bought for God people from every tribe, language, nation, and race. 10 You have made them a kingdom of priests to serve our God,

and they shall rule on earth.”

B. 6 Then I saw between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders a Lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He went and took the scroll from the right hand of the one who was seated on the throne. 8 When he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell before the Lamb, each holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 They sing a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation; 10 you have made them to be a kingdom and priests serving our God, and they will reign on earth.”  Now specify the main translation protocol for the version that you are currently working on (or were involved with in the past). Then translate the text that was considered above, Rev. 5:6-10, in your language according to the protocol that you

Creating a contextualized framework for teaching and learning

291

have specified. Mention one specific example of where each one of your translation priorities has been satisfied in your draft version. Also summarize one problem that arose, where two or more of these priorities came into conflict, and briefly explain how the matter was resolved. Text-type

Translation Priority 1

Translation Priority 2

Translation Priority 3

Expanding the teaching-learning context through networking How then shall we continue the mutually-contextualizing dialogue already begun in this coursebook? In the present chapter we have discussed a number of issues that pertain to our current methods of training translators. Several suggestions have been put forward regarding the possibility, in Africa at least, of making this crucial endeavor more interactive, inductive, indigenized, communal, developmental, comparative, and applied in nature. Other teaching techniques and models have also been explored. I certainly don’t have answers for all the questions that may be raised in connection with such efforts to achieve more effective pedagogy, and probably neither do you. But training technique, educational strategy, and program assessment is a crucial subject that definitely needs further consideration in relation to each and every world region in which our various translation courses are being offered: Not only, What should we be teaching, but also, How can we best be doing it? That includes the total conceptual frame of reference in which the tutoring and learning process is expected to take place: Just how adequate and amenable is the local educative environment? This subject naturally includes a careful evaluation of the various published translator training resources that are currently being used in the field, for example, Hebrew poetry in the Bible: A guide for understanding and for translating (Zogbo and Wendland 2004) in the UBS Helps for Translators series. What could be improved in this text, and what needs to be corrected or added? Perhaps some of you will be in a position to continue this discussion in your own respective areas of Bible translation. It will then be up to the responsible consultants, team leaders, and administrators to write down your ideas and put their heads together to find a way of bringing your advice, suggestions, cautions, experiences, and so forth to a larger forum where they may be shared with the wider Bible translation community. Certainly, there is a lot that we have to teach and to learn from each other in this regard! Or as they say in Chewa: Madzi achuluka ndi am’njira “The water [of a major river] is increased by that [which is added] along the way [from its many tributaries].” “Education is not merely the transfer of information,” but it also endeavors to encourage students, as well as their instructors, “to interact with ideas, concepts, tools” (Voth 2005:92). This must become an essential component of any translator

292

Ernst Wendland

training program, wherever in the world it is conducted. The vital process of education, in turn, should be carried out in harmony with principles and procedures that are most appropriate for the language, culture, setting, and church bodies concerned. That has been the emphasis of this chapter, and I would like to close with an appeal to all readers: •

Translation trainers: be sensitive enough to always keep indigenous methods and styles of instruction, informal as well as formal, in mind as you investigate local resources and prepare, present, and evaluate your various courses of instruction. Be humble!

•

Translation trainees: be bold enough to constructively advise your teachers as to how to instruct adults in your sociocultural context and give them some appropriate models and methods to follow. Be respectful!

In short, we need to educate each other about how to more effectively communicate the Word of God both verbally and behaviorally in the situation that we share, whether locally or with reference to our global translation fellowship. I will close by reflecting on some of the diverse contextual issues and perspectives that have been raised in this study, with special reference to all teachers and learners engaged in translating Scripture. As the periodic references have indicated (and many more could have been cited), a significant number of Bible translation theorists and practitioners are currently working in the broad field of context definition, analysis, management, research, and testing. Their goal is to understand more fully how pervasive and important an influence the total cognitive environment is during the process of Scripture communication within a given sociocultural, religious, and linguistic-literary setting. Secular scholars working in such domains as cognitive linguistics, information technology, intercultural communication, mental-space theory, and others have similar aims and objectives in relation to the different types of text that they study. How is it possible in the first place to keep abreast with all that is being done – then to classify and evaluate the results – and finally to apply what is most helpful and productive to the tangible improvement of biblical literacy world-wide? As research by Ernst-August Gutt (2000), Harriet Hill (2006) and others has shown, such text (translation)-based knowledge alone is generally quite inadequate in terms of the kind and amount of cognitive assumptions and contextual implications that it makes available to ordinary readers and hearers about the Word of God as a whole. So much more can, and must, be done to provide Bible users – everyday consumers and communicators alike – with a broader, as well as a deeper, frame of reference for interpreting and applying the text of Scripture to their hearts and lives. The point is that all must make and effort to become more actively involved in what is essentially an ongoing educative process of the greatest magnitude and importance. The more one delves into the library of Scripture, the more meaning one discovers that there is to dig out and then also to dispense, whether textually, para-textually, or extra-textually, in another language and cultural setting. The problem is that many Bible translators and trainers alike do not realize how much they need to carry on with their education with respect to the original text and its manifold context. The learning never ends.

Creating a contextualized framework for teaching and learning

293

I will mention two specific examples that draw particular attention to this need for ongoing instruction and constant assessment. First, concerning an exegesis (SL-based analysis and interpretation) of the original text: What resources are available with respect to a particular book of the Bible and how helpful or reliable are these? In other words, what is the comparative quality of our immediate interpretive context in terms of the scholarly studies (commentaries, handbooks, dictionaries, Paratext, Translator’s Workplace, CONOT [Ott 2005], etc.) that we must depend on to establish the textual as well as extratextual background and conceptual framework for a given passage of Scripture? As we saw in our study of Revelation 4-5, we often find competing interpretations, different proposed solutions, and disparate translations, so how do the “non-experts” decide between and among them to determine which is better/best in terms of credibility? For example, is the book of Revelation to be viewed and interpreted as a single, unified composition – the product of but one author (Beale) – or is it a compilation, the product of several sources and editors (Aune)? And if we agree that only one author was responsible, which “John” was it – the Apostle (Johnson) or some early Christian prophet by that name (Beale)? The decision here is important, for it will determine part of the necessary hermeneutical frame of reference that a person depends upon, not only to understand what the author is saying, but also to better hypothesize why he is saying it – that is, what is the ostensible communicative intention of the text. There are countless conflicts or options of this nature that confront translators and their advisers on a daily basis as they work through the Scriptures. It is indeed helpful, therefore, to have task-specific resources in print as well as in electronic form, series such as the UBS Translator’s Handbooks or SIL’s Exegetical Summaries and Semantic Structure Analyses, which help to sort out the wheat from the chaff in terms of providing a narrower, more reliable and translation-oriented inventory of exegetical alternatives from which to choose. However, what is currently available can always be improved upon, especially some older studies that have not benefited much, if at all, from the insights of discourse analysis, modern literary theory and rhetorical approaches, lexical semantics, cognitive linguistics, or inferential reasoning processes. A number of practical management factors are involved in this important effort to promote a greater degree of updated “contextual conditioning” in our current translation tools, for example, providing the Bible translation community with competent resource and research experts whose job it is to encourage and coordinate feedback, and then to ensure that all pertinent new information as well as corrections get plugged in to any revised version of a given scholarly work. However, during this initiative the matter of accommodating different levels of scholarly support also needs to be addressed: What may work well for a translation consultant is not always suitable for ordinary on-the-line translators. Then, what about the theory and practice of translator training, which is the special focus of this chapter and has become a factor of major importance to agencies and programs all over the globe? In the first place, the necessary standards must be set and maintained: For example, what should be set as the minimal contextual competence in terms of background knowledge and practical experience that translators require in order to be capable of doing an adequate and acceptable job? Do they need to know the

294

Ernst Wendland

biblical languages, and if so, how well, and how can this level of expertise be certified and evaluated in a practical way? Are non-mother-tongue speakers able to prepare a valid and trustworthy translation of the Scriptures for a people not their own? Second, what is the most effective way of training translators – by means of an inductive, deductive, or mixed method, or perhaps simply by a period ofapprenticeship to an experienced “master translator”? How important is it for translators and their trainers to be able to visit the Holy Land and experience aspects of the biblical history and setting on site? What is the most relevant theory of communication that is currently available to provide a foundation for such text-heavy formal and informal instruction? To what extent can publications like the Journal of Translation and the Bible Translator (especially the Practical edition) contribute to the cause – how useful are they in the overall educational effort if the information they disseminate does not demonstrate a clear practical outlet for application? Of course, these are highly debatable issues because situations, settings, and circumstances vary greatly with regard to the many different projects that are being carried out in the world today. The point is, in short, that a Bible translation project requires a suitable model and method for accurately contextualizing its current situation before staff actually get started, and later then for monitoring, managing, and maintaining the program adequately while the work is being carried out in a specific setting and for a particular purpose. The preceding observations merely serve to highlight the need for a great deal of (or – a greater degree of) interdisciplinary collaboration and inter-agency cooperation. The goal here would be to create a more conducive organizational frame of reference – including a favorable and facilitative scholarly environment for innovative production – that will both inspire and also inform the diverse intellectual skills that are required in the generation of successful Bible translations in this 21st century. My study has suggested a number of the key factors in this regard (involving, for example, a comprehensive inventory of proven as well as needed translation tools and techniques), but there are many others that need to be more fully explored. Alternatively, the issues that I have raised may be better explained and exemplified from the perspective of a different theoretical model and/or practical methodology. In this connection, periodic international workshops or conferences that focus on some fundamental issues in translation theory and practice (e.g., complementary modes of communication, discourse analysis, staff training, non-print media transposition, audience engagement, research and testing) must be strongly encouraged and followed up in terms of publishing and disseminating the results to all interested individuals and groups. A good example in this respect is the annual workshop series being sponsored by the Wycliffe Bible Translators (e.g., Bible Translation – 2005 on “quality,” BT – 2006 on “context,” BT – 2007 on “training for translation”). This question is of course rhetorical. In this case, seeing is understanding – with respect to a host of specific biblical features and their verbal signs in the texts of Scripture. A proven program in this regard, one that incorporates a first-rate Hebrew language course of study, is that offered by the Home for Bible Translators (Dr. Halvor and Mirja Ronning), which operates in conjunction with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (www.BibleTranslators.org). Here translation staff from various parts of the world can also get together to enrich one another with their diverse perspectives on the interpretation and re-presentation of the Bible. 

Creating a contextualized framework for teaching and learning

295

These different aspects of the wider Bible translation process are in some ways also analogous to the enveloping leaves of an onion which protect and nourish the developing core embryo (a translation team and its text). Thus, all supporting institutions that sponsor and promote the various research activities and products relating to Bible translation in specific regions and settings of the world ought to be more strongly sustained. In Africa, for example, we have the Centre for Bible Interpretation and Translation in Africa (University of Stellenbosch, South Africa) as well as a number of universities and recognized theological colleges which offer special programs for the advanced post-graduate training of Bible translators (e.g., in Africa: NEGST, FATEAC, ISTEL). Furthermore, translation-oriented databases, such as those maintained by both the UBS and SIL, must be streamlined and made more accessible (i.e., to outside agencies) and user-friendly. Ditto for the electronic technology that undergirds our work: At times what is currently available far exceeds the competence of the average translators with whom we work in many parts of the world (e.g., the present Paratext environment for generating Study Bible notes). All relevant publications should be made readily available electronically to translators or their advisers – and also localized with reference to particular global regions if possible (and/or translated into major LWCs). It is encouraging to see more of this being done via the continually developing websites of translation agencies like SIL (www.sil.org), UBS (www.biblesocieties.org), and others. Along these same lines, joint collaborative educational initiatives, such as the STEPS exegetical project (Salisbury 2002), need to be duplicated, when possible, elsewhere among the international fellowship of Bible translation agencies. A final word of advice concerning cooperation comes from the extensive Chewa corpus of didactic proverbial lore: Chiswe chimodzi sichiumba chulu! “One termite does not mold a mound!” So also, a concerted, coordinated effort is required to enable the worldwide corps of Scripture translators to accomplish their mutually-supportive goals – namely, to create an organizational “context” that fosters and sustains a much greater sharing of human resources, ideas, tools, and methods. In this regard, the Apostle Paul’s dynamic corporeal analogy too can be readily applied to the variegated task of Bible translation and promotion (1 Cor. 12:4-5, 7, 27 – NIV): There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. … Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. … Now you are the body of Christ, and each of you is a part of it. EXERCISE-4  List the three most important aspects of “networking” that have been brought up in this section – that is, from the perspective of your translator-training programme. Give reasons for your choices and try to set a priority: which factor is most vital to your educational endeavor? NEGST = Nairobi Evangelical Graduate School of Theology (Anglophone – Kenya); FATEAC = Evangelical Theological Faculty of the Christian Missionary Alliance (Francophone – Ivory Coast); ISTEL = The Superior Institute of Evangelical Theology in Lubango (Lusophone – Angola). 

296

Ernst Wendland

 Mention any broad inter-agency contextual factor that has not been considered in this section, or treated in sufficient detail. What is the special importance of this factor to your translator-training programme?  How well are the different members of the “body” of your translation organization integrated as far as their working procedures go and also encouraged to feel like a unified team, engaged in a common effort to produce a significant product? What more might be done to promote such an attitude and work ethic?  How might the wider body of translation agencies or organizations cooperate more in order to foster a more effective “context of collaboration” with regard to the various aspects of producing a Bible translation and carrying out research that enhances our common communication effort?  Give a proverb (or two) from your cultural setting that effectively addresses the issue of contextualized education in society from one key perspective or another. Then tell how this proverb applies to some aspect of training Bible translators. Do the same for a particular Bible passage of your choice.

Appendix: Bible translation and primary orality Study the following article (de Vries 2000) from the perspective of the various cognitive, sociocultural, organizational, situational, and textual frames discussed in chapters 2-6. Then evaluate the author’s argument and tell whether or not you agree with it and why (not) – that is, from the standpoint of your own cultural setting. Finally, summarize the implications of what is said here as it pertains to certain key aspects of your own translation setting and the relationship between Bible translation and “primary orality.” To what extent should the “orality factor” (whether primary or secondary) be an issue of serious consideration in the modern age – for instance, when establishing a strategy of Scripture communication for all segments of society? Give an example, if possible.

Introduction In New Guinea but also in other parts of the world many Bible translation projects were and are carried out in speech communities that did not know writing prior to the commencement of Bible translation projects in their languages. The term primary orality for societies that do not know writing was introduced by Ong (1982), and the specification ‘primary’ was meant to clarify that we are not talking about orality in societies that have a tradition of writing. Most Bible translators working in such primary oral contexts want to incorporate in some way or other the oral perspective of their readers and listeners in their translations (Noss 1981). The central question of this article is what a primary oral context means for Bible translations. First, I will describe the influential view of primary orality of Ong (1982) against the background of the academic debates which informed Ong’s views. Then I will relate the findings of Ong to the study of corpora of primary oral texts from New Guinea. Finally, I describe the relationship between the (macro)genre of Bible translations and primary oral genres such as myths, tales, songs or informal conversations. Although the present consensus in discourse studies is that there is no proof for absolute differences between literate and oral societies (in terms of mode of thinking or type of discourse), there are good reasons to start our discussion of Bible translation and primary orality with Ong since his picture of primary orality is still influential in the world of Bible translators.

Primary orality according to Ong Since Ong’s (1982) views are crucially informed by three other academic debates, we need to consider those first (cf. Foley 1997:417-424). The first debate is the debate about oral and written styles in English. For Chafe and Danielewicz (1987:103; Chafe 1988) processing constraints are the critical factor distinguishing the styles of written and oral texts: “In other words, there is a strong tendency for casual speakers to produce simple sequences of coordinated clauses, avoiding the more elaborate interclausal relations found in writing. Elaborate syntax evidently requires more processing effort

298

Ernst Wendland

than speakers ordinarily devote to it.” Chafe emphasizes the syntactic fragmentation of spontaneous, casual talk as opposed to the syntactic integration of written texts. In addition to the integration factor, Chafe mentions the involvement factor: speech is more involved whereas writing tends to be more detached. Whereas we still find two parameters in the work of Chafe, in the important study of Biber (1988) we find twenty parameters, like situation versus abstract content and interactive versus edited text. Biber (1988) investigated around twenty genres of English texts but found no absolute differences between written and oral texts. Whether a given text, say an interview or a scientific article, scored high for a certain parameter could not be predicted on the basis of whether that text was oral or written. In other words, Biber’s work undermined the whole idea of a style continuum with ‘typically oral style’ and ‘typically written style’ as extreme poles and that notion was replaced by genre-determined configurations of stylistic characteristics. Besnier (1995) did a similar investigation in a non-western context in the Polynesian society of Nukalaelae. Stylistically, personal letters group with conversations on Nukalaelae whereas written sermons group with political speeches and radio broadcasts. The genre of personal letters is determined by the cultural context of Nukalaelae in which kinship and exchange relations are crucial. In Besnier’s work it becomes very clear to what extent genre, the decisive factor of Biber’s work, is a culturally and historically determined notion. The second debate relevant to Ong’s view of orality is the anthropological debate about universal cognitive dichotomies, like prelogical versus logical cultures (LévyBrühl 1926) or cultures with thought processes tied to the concrete versus those that can abstract from concrete circumstances (Lévi-Strauss 1966). In the work of Olson (1994), such cognitive dichotomies are reformulated in terms of oral versus literate societies. Olson (1994) emphasizes that written language is ‘decontextualized’ when compared to speech. Speakers rely strongly on the context and situation of their utterances and they expect their listeners to infer information by combining utterance and context. Writers have to be much more explicit and cannot rely on implicatures to a great extent. Olson (1994) links this explicitness and autonomy of writing to cognitive changes in the direction of analytical and critical thinking of a type not possible in the contextualized, more implicit communication of primary oral cultures. The second element in Olson’s view is the fact that a written text is available to the reader as a fixed object which can be compared to other texts, interpreted, summarized and so on. Such operations would stimulate the distinction between text and interpretation, and create a different meta-language consciousness, leading to grammars, lexicons and, ultimately, to the development of logic. This anthropological debate on universal cognitive dichotomies of cultures is a thing of the past now, partly because of relativistic theoretical developments leaving no room for universal, a-historical dichotomies, and partly because of the results of empirical research on the cognitive effects of the introduction of writing. Scribner and Cole (1981) for example studied the effects of writing among the Vai of Liberia. Three writing systems are used by that community, the Arabic script for religious instruction, the English script for school, government and the workplace and the syllabic Vai script for informal use at home, such as personal letters and shopping lists.

Appendix: Bible translation and primary orality

299

The Vai script is informally transmitted in the home. There are Vai people without formal training who write just in the syllabic Vai. Those persons, although literate, turn out to score low for tests involving abstract categorizations but high for tests in which words have to be formed from syllables. In other words, there are cognitive effects of writing but those effects are not universal, but local, determined by the local cultural and institutional contexts in which writing systems function. The third debate is the philological debate on the oral nature and origin of texts from Antiquity as we find in the work of Parry (1928) on Homer and Kelber (1983) on the Gospel of Mark. Parry emphasized the high density of epithets, formulas, standard themes and other formulaic elements in the metrical epics of Homer. That formulaic nature of the Homeric texts was attributed to the oral performance of such texts in which performing artists produced their text by drawing from a rich store of fixed formulas, standard themes and epithets, stitching such elements together in various ways depending on the occasion and circumstances of the performance. Kelber (1983) also observes formulaic elements and other oral narrative style features in Mark such as triads (three times Jesus wakes up the sleeping disciples, three times the prediction of Jesus’ death), the use of the narrative present tense and the use of the third person plural instead of the passive. Kelber (1983) sees those oral features as concessions of a writer to an orally oriented audience. Many elements from the three debates mentioned play a role in the book Orality and Literacy by Ong (1982). Ong (1982:49) describes the oral mode of thinking as situational rather than abstract, aggregative rather than analytic, conservative or traditionalist, empathetic and participatory rather than objectively distanced. These cognitive characteristics stem from the anthropological debate on universal dichotomies as represented in the writings of Lévi-Strauss (1966) and others. The textual and stylistic features mentioned by Ong include additive rather than subordinative, redundant, formulaic and no sequential parallelism. Ong’s explication of the feature additive style makes clear that the debate on speech and writing in English is crucially linked to Ong’s portrayal of primary oral discourse. Referring to Chafe, Ong (1982:37-38) writes that he misses in primary oral discourse “the analytic, reasoned subordination that characterizes writing” and he continues with the observation that “written discourse develops more elaborate and fixed grammar than oral discourse does because to provide meaning it is more dependent simply upon linguistic structure, since it lacks the normal full existential contexts which surround oral discourse and help determine meaning in oral discourse somewhat independently of grammar.” The characteristics formulaic and no sequential parallelism in Ong’s portrayal of primary orality have their origin in the philological debate on the so called Homeric question as Ong himself points out. That debate, in which Milman Parry was the central figure, is regarded by Ong as fundamental to the modern discovery of primary orality. Below I will return to the presumed formulaicity and absence of sequential parallelism in primary oral discourse. Summarizing we can say that in Ong’s picture of primary orality the additive parataxis from the linguistic debate about speech and writing in English, the contextbound concreteness from the anthropological debate on universal cognitive dichotomies, and the formulaicity from the philological Homer debate come together.

300

Ernst Wendland

Primary orality in transcribed texts from New Guinea Let us now relate the findings of Ong to the study of corpora of primary oral texts from New Guinea. As far as the cognitive characteristics from the anthropological debate go, like ‘situational rather than abstract’, there is little left to verify since cognitive anthropologists themselves have rejected universal dichotomies in which literate societies were contrasted with illiterate societies in oppositions like rational versus traditional and abstract versus concrete thinking. As we saw above, such universal hypotheses were rejected on both theoretical and empirical grounds and were replaced by more limited hypotheses about local, culture-specific cognitive effects of writing systems (see for example Scribner and Cole 1981). Concerning the characteristics from the linguistic debate, the central feature here is the additive parataxis, a characteristic from the area of clause combining, the way speakers and writers combine clauses into larger syntactic and textual units. Ong (1982) uses the term additive parataxis to refer to simple juxtapositions of clauses, with coordinating conjunctions providing the links. As an example of additive parataxis, Ong (1982) quotes Genesis 1 verses 1-5 in the Douay translation of 1610. That translation reflects the additive parataxis of the Hebrew original according to Ong: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth. And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters...”

According to Ong, the meaning relations between the clauses in such additive paratactic style are not coded in the utterances themselves but have to be inferred by the receptor on the basis of the context, a typical oral style which contrasts with the complex, interclausal relations found in written style, explicitly coded in the utterances by forms of subordination. Notice that Ong (1982) takes a written text, from a literary tradition in ancient Israel, to illustrate primary orality. Ong (1982) sees a massive oral residue in ancient Israel enabling him to take such texts as examples. However, to study primary orality there is a much more direct way: we can study the texts and the languages of really primary oral cultures such as still to be found in isolated parts of New Guinea. There are well-documented oral languages that have subordination as the most frequent, unmarked way of clause combining, for example Yimas of Papua New Guinea. Foley (1991:497) writes that Yimas “contrasts with many other Papuan languages in making less extensive use of clause chaining…The most common type of clause linkage in Yimas involves nominalization, both finite and non-finite.” It is indeed true that clause chaining is by far the most widespread type of clause combining in the oral languages of New Guinea. In clause chaining languages, single verb clauses of usually simple internal structure are chained together to form long chains of clauses. The last clause of the chain has independent or final verb forms whereas the preceding clauses have medial or dependent verb forms. The medial verb forms express interclausal relations of switch-reference and temporality. Switchreference distinctions pertain to the question whether the next clause in the chain has

Appendix: Bible translation and primary orality

301

a different or the same agent as the preceding clause whereas temporality relations pertain to relations of sequence or simultaneity of the events denoted by the verbs in the chain. These medial morphological oppositions often play a major role in indicating textual coherence relations. The functions of syntactic processes of subordination and coordination in IndoEuropean languages, to express interclausal and textual relations, are carried out to a significant extent in language groups such as Semitic and Papuan languages by morphological processes. For Hebrew I refer to recent work by Baayen (1997) about the textual role of morphological oppositions in Biblical Hebrew verbs. If one looks at Semitic or Papuan languages from the perspective of Indo-European languages, one easily overlooks the morphological expression of interclausal coherence, since the morphological categories involved (like switch-reference in Papuan languages and the opposition between prefix- and suffix verb conjugations in Semitic languages) are unknown in Indo-European grammars. ‘Literal’ translations of Papuan or Semitic clause chains often give an impression of a loose, additive ‘and...and…and’ style, falsely suggesting a low level of interclausal integration in the Semitic or Papuan source texts because the translations do not capture the morphological processes of interclausal integration. The obligatory indication of switch-reference of Papuan utterances for example is hard to translate explicitly and naturally in Indo-European languages. The philological debate on Homer is the source for the following three characteristics ascribed by Ong to oral cultures: a formulaic style, a highly redundant style and the absence of sequential parallelism. With the last feature Ong (1982:147) means that oral narrators would have the tendency to start a story in medias res: “Oral narrative is not greatly concerned with exact sequential parallelism between the sequence in the narrative and the sequence in extra-narrative referents. Such a parallelism becomes a major objective only when the mind interiorizes literacy.” The Homeric bards may have had the tendency to use a in medias res narrative style, practically all Bible translators in New Guinea and also elsewhere (Callow 1974:43) struggle with the opposite problem, namely that the target cultures tell stories in strict chronological order. With a formulaic style Ong means the frequent use of epithets, proverbs, fixed sayings, standard themes and so on. Indeed, anyone reading Homer will be struck by the formulaic style. This style has been linked to the demands of the meter: to get metrically smooth lines the oral performers of texts from the Homeric tradition could choose from a large stock of epithets so that they could pick the epithet which best suited the metric scheme of the line. But Ong goes further than this metric motivation, for him there is a mnemonic motivation: oral cultures cannot fix their insights and knowledge in writing and in order to be able to fix knowledge in the memory, knowledge is stored in easily storable rhythmic, formulaic form. Oral cultures think in rhythmic, formulaic fashion, according to Ong (1982). However, in the primary oral cultures formulaic elements do not appear to be The importance of switch reference and temporality distinctions in clause chaining languages of New Guinea does not imply the absence of overt grammatical marking of other semantic (interclausal) relations like Cause or Reason (see for example De Vries and Wiersma 1992:63-64). 

302

Ernst Wendland

significantly more prominent than in societies with writing. Rather, at least in some oral societies, like the Awyu societies in south-east Irian Jaya, one has to look hard to find evidence for formulaic elements. It is quite possible that the idea that primary oral societies think in formulaic fashion has its roots in the fact that literate observers cannot imagine other ways of preserving and transmitting complex knowledge than through language, in the form of easy to memorize verbal forms. But it is easy to find other forms of preserving and transmitting knowledge in most oral societies. The complex cosmology of the Marind and Asmat of Irian Jaya is represented in very elaborate ritual actions, masks and woodcarvings. The totemic ancestors of Korowai clans are remembered by food taboos concerning the totem animal. Of course, there are myths which relate the same notions in verbal form but these myths have no fixed linguistic form: it is the content, the intention of the mythology which counts. The symbolic and dramatic representation of those contents in rituals and carvings, together with the telling of the myths, ensures the transmission and continuation of knowledge. It is not that the myths form the basis for the rituals, rather rituals and myths express the same basic cosmological themes, in a mutually reinforcing way. In the Awyu cultures which I studied even the magic ‘formulas’ had no fixed linguistic form. In such magical expressions, the only fixed elements are proper names of ancestors and spirits. These names are the fixed heart of the magic expressions since the names evoke the powerful entities they are associated with. Apart from additive parataxis, formulaism and the absence of sequential parallelism, redundancy is stressed by Ong (1982) as a characteristic of primary oral discourse: recapitulation, repetition and a low information rate. When reading the reader can go back to what he has just read, the listener gets only one chance. When writing, the writer can endlessly rephrase what he wants to write, the speaker has to process his new utterance while performing the present utterance. Repeating information and other strategies of reducing the amount of information per utterance all help the speaker to win time to process his next utterance and the listener to process the present utterance. The verification of the claim that primary oral discourse has a high degree of redundancy, by studying corpora of transcribed texts of oral societies, is not so easy since the notion of redundancy is hard to define. What is redundant at the propositional level may be informative at the interactional or rhetorical levels. Ong (1982) seems to refer to redundancy at the propositional level. If we study text corpora from New Guinea like the Korowai texts edited by Van Enk and De Vries (1997) from the perspective of propositional redundancy, two, at first sight conflicting, things strike the observer. In the first place, tail-head linkage and generic verb linkage of clause chains are two conventional recapitulative devices that occur very widely in New Guinea. Especially in narrative texts these repetitive linking devices occur very frequently. The other striking thing is the complaint by almost all scientific editors of such oral texts that so much information is left implicit and is supposed to be known to the addressees that it is often impossible to know who is doing what and where the events of the story are taking place. These two at first sight contradictory aspects of New Guinea oral narratives, the redundancy of the frequent recapitulative linkage devices and on the other hand the

Appendix: Bible translation and primary orality

303

avoidance of redundancy by leaving out known of inferable information both have to do with the distribution of information in clause chains. The medial clauses in the chains have a high information load: wherever possible, it is avoided to identify participants with nominal phrases or pronouns. The addressees have to combine switch-reference and agent cross-referencing morphology on the verb with context and situation to identify participants of medial clauses. Not only participants but also the time and place framework is left implicit wherever possible in medial clauses. The clause chains are connected by tail-head linkage and generic verb linkage (Van Enk & De Vries 1997). In tail-head linkage the last clause of the chain (the tail clause) is repeated as the first clause (head) of the next chain. During tail-head linkage the speaker talks much slower and repeats information. Thus the tail-head linkages provide conventional resting points between two chains for the speaker to process his new chain and for the addressee to process the information from the previous one. The highly redundant recapitulative linkages are badly needed to compensate for the high rate of information in the medial parts of the chain. Summarizing this section, we can say that very few universal claims about primary orality can stand the New Guinea test. The characteristics of primary orality as additive-paratactic, redundant, formulaic, bound to concrete contexts and so on did not emerge from empirical study of specific primary oral societies in their historical uniqueness but seem to result from universalistic projections on these societies of pictures from various academic debates such as the Homeric debate, the debate of written versus oral style in English and the anthropological debate on cognitive dichotomies in terms of literate versus illiterate societies.

Oral genres and Bible translation The complex relationship between oral genres and the genres which we find in Bible translations can be clarified in terms of the notion of genre of Foley (1997).­ Building on the work of Bakhtin (1986), Foley stresses that genre is not a abstract, closed linguistic object like the grammatical notion of sentence but rather a historically given way to produce and interpret texts in culture-specific settings and institutional frameworks. Genres change when society changes and people use genre patterns creatively for their own purposes. The ability to produce texts according to a specific genre pattern is in many societies an important element in defining social roles, for example, the pastor and the sermon, the scholar and the scientific article. This notion of genre moves away from an a-historical, autonomistic and structuralistic notion of genre and comes close, in several regards, to the notion of genre of scholars like Gunkel, Bultman and Dibelius, for example in the link between genres and the social and institutional frameworks in which genres function, the so-called Sitz im Leben. The Sitz im Leben, the place of a text type in the life of a society, for example a wedding ceremony or a harvest feast, was very much a diachronic notion for scholars like Gunkel, embedded in nineteenth century thinking, it was the place where oral Vorlagen of the biblical texts functioned. Modern notions of genre are both historical and synchronic, focusing on the way a text synchronically reflects the social and institutional setting in which it functions.

304

Ernst Wendland

The historical and cultural dimensions of genres can be illustrated with the genre lamolaup of the Korowai of Irian Jaya. The name of the genre means ‘history of the world’. Only adult Korowai males may listen to and transmit these sacred origin stories. They are taboo for women, children and outsiders. They are told only in times of crisis like severe droughts, solar eclipses, famines. The lamolaup stories relate how the cosmic order came into being and in crisis situations, when Korowai people feel that their world is falling apart, the narration of these stories is thought to help restore the cosmic order of things. In primary oral societies Bible translations are a new genre, or rather a new macrogenre with sub-genres like psalms and apostolic letters. The newness of the genre of bible translations does not only reside in the new medium, writing, but also in the new social and cultural setting, the new Sitz im Leben, in which translated Bible texts function, and in the secondary character of translations, secondary texts in the sense that they represent texts written in the first place for other people, in another world and in another language. These three factors are constitutive for the new macro-genre of Bible translations and all three, the new medium (writing), the new social and cultural functions (e.g., in church, with marriage and burial ceremonies) and the new, secondary nature have tremendous impact on the way language is used in translations, causing pragmatic innovations which set apart (Bible) translations as a new genre of texts in oral societies. Let us first discuss the new Sitz im Leben, the cultural function of translated Bible texts and its concomitant pragmatic innovations. The translation functions first of all as a religious base text in the young Christian community, in the liturgy but also during other occasions such as marriage ceremonies and burials in a way entirely different from the functions and roles of oral genres which have their own cultural meanings following from their historically given Sitz im Leben. Compare the differences between a reading of Genesis 1 during a church service and a narration of a Korowai lamolaup story of origin to adult males during a crisis situation in order to overcome that situation. The liturgical and ecclesiastical functions of Bible translations find their pragmatic expression in the new genres found in these translations. Take for example the pericopes with their headings found in translations. Whereas oral texts from narrative genres like the Korowai lamolaup are narrated in long sessions of many hours, in their entirety, the Biblical stories, like the Genesis narrative, are cut up in small pericope units which are read to the congregation in readings of usually not more than ten minutes. There is no place for the reading of whole books in the liturgy. The pericope divisions tend to lead to repeated, strong identifications (by full nominal phrases, pronouns) of participants in the beginning of new pericopes. This strong identification of (given) participants at pericope breaks contrasts strongly with the weak (usually verbal) identification of given participants in traditional oral narrative genres. In addition to this, the headings form a new way to topicalize: oral genres do not headings or titles to guide the addressees thematically and to identify short story fragments. In most oral societies of New Guinea, where most people remain functionally illiterate after literacy programs have been carried out simply because writing and reading

Appendix: Bible translation and primary orality

305

remain largely irrelevant for their daily lives, Bible translations tend to function as follows: a small class of literati reads the translation during formal occasions to the illiterate majority. In these circumstances it is of course essential that the translation is easy to read aloud. Visual structuring signs, such as pericopes, headings, clearly visible paragraph breaks, usually help those that have the task to read the translation to other people. But the addressees in these circumstances need audible structuring signals. If Achtemeier (1990) is right, many source texts in the Bible contain such “acoustic clues”, audible signals structuring the text, because those texts functioned in very similar fashion and were written to be read aloud to audiences. The apostolic letters for example correspond in a certain sense to formal, public letters from Hellenistic officials to the ekklesiai of the cities under their authority (Berger 1987: 212). The ekklesia in the case of the apostolic letters is the Christian community and the authority is apostolic and prophetic. Public reading of such letters to the Christian community would fit that Sitz im Leben. Repetitions such as three times παρέδωκεv αυτoυς ό θεoς in Romans 1 verses 24, 26 and 28 are examples of acoustic echoes in the sense of Achtemeier (1990). Translations in oral settings should not translate away such audible cohesion signals. The secondary nature of translated texts, described by Hatim and Mason (1996:1) as “an act of communication which attempts to relay, across cultural and linguistic boundaries, another act of communication,” is the second factor behind the new pragmatics of Bible translations. The world behind the translated text is a strange world; it is the world of the ancient near east. The participants of the translation move in that strange world. This makes the participants harder to trace, to keep apart and the stylistic result is again a tendency to maintain given participants with relatively strong, nominal means in addition to verbal means. This is in contrast with the weak, verbal means commonly found in oral genres of New Guinea where participants, after a single strong initial introduction, tend to be maintained by verbal agreements and verbal switch-reference affixation. Biblical referents unknown to the receptor culture like the Sanhedrin or phylacteries are often described in complex nominal phrases. Both the pericope divisions (connected to the liturgical function) and the secondary nature of translations have a nominalising effect on the style. Another factor favouring participant identification by nominal means in Bible translations maybe the influence of English, Indonesian and Tok Pisin base texts. This stylistic shift into nominal direction in its turn leads to heavier, more elaborate clause structures. These heavier clauses, the building blocks of clause chains, lead to shorter clause chains. The genres that develop in translations of the Bible, like apostolic letters or psalms, could be called secondary genres. Secondary genres mediate between primary genres of source and receptor cultures; they will always contain elements from both source and receptor genres but never coincide with those. For example, a translation of the Song of Songs will always have genre continuities with Israelite love songs and with love songs of the receptor culture but at the same time the translated text, as a secondary text, will be essentially different from both. A well-known secondary genre in Dutch is the psalms. They have genre continuity with the Hebrew genre, for example in paralellismus membrorum and in chiastic forms but the rhythm and sound patterns are distinctly Dutch. At the same time the translated psalms received a crucial and

306

Ernst Wendland

special role in the liturgy of the various Dutch church traditions. There are no general rules for the way in which secondary genres mediate between primary genres of source and target cultures. Important factors are the function which a translation has in speech and church communities, the cultural place of receptor genres and the degree of formal and functional overlap between source and target culture genres. The unique historically given cultural place of a genre does not mean that there are no continuities of genres across cultures. When both source and target cultures have similar institutions (like marriage or monarchy), there may be similarities between the text types that developed in those institutional frameworks. There are also formal similarities. Parallelism has been found in various forms in poetic genres in all parts of the world (Foley 1997:366). Such genre continuities support the mediating role of secondary genres. But in the end it is the creativity of the translator who creates from the elements from source and target genres, new secondary genres. The third factor distinguishing Bible translations as a new genre in oral societies is the new medium, writing. The new medium has drastic effects for patterns language use but not all pragmatic innovations should be ascribed to the new medium. One of the most striking effects of the new medium is the sharp decrease in the use of topic markers in written genres; in oral genres topic markers tend to be used frequently. The change in the use of topic markers is not just a quantitative change. Bromley (1981) notices a new constraint on the use of topic markers emerging in written genres of Dani: one topic marker per clause. I have observed Papuan Bible translators re-editing their translations and in the process they not only edited out topic markers in many places but also inserted them sometimes in places where they had been absent in the first drafts. The drastic decrease of topic markers in translations follows from the double functionality of topic markers in oral genres of New Guinea languages, they indicate thematic coherence but they also have a processual function, to mark pause, in order to give the speaker the chance to formulate what he wants to say and the addressees to process what they just heard (Bromley 1981; Van Enk & de Vries 1997). The thematic function remains in translations, although it is realized in a different fashion in translations than in oral genres, but the pause and hesitation function of topic markers becomes irrelevant. Another effect of the written medium is the decrease of the use of tail-head linkages in Bible translations; just like topic markers, tail-head linkages have both thematic and processual functions and it is the processual function which becomes irrelevant in written genres. The combined stylistic effects of the three genre distinguishing factors of new medium (writing), new cultural functions (church, burials, marriages) and the secondary nature are pervasive and drastic: decrease and different distributions of topic markers and tail-head linkages, increase of nominal participant identifications, heavier clauses, shorter clause chains, to mention a few. The fact that specific new pragmatic patterns develop in the new (macro)genre of Bible translations makes it problematic to apply stylistic patterns from other genres, such as traditional oral genres, in Bible translations. An example would be the use of cohesive elements like topic markers. The way these are used in oral genres is not automatically right for a genre like Bible translations. Renck (1990:96-97) gives

Appendix: Bible translation and primary orality

307

interesting data from the Yagaria area of Papua New Guinea. The New Testament has been translated into two dialects of Yagaria, in the Move dialect and in the KamiKuluka dialect. Renck (1990) gives Mark 15 verse 21 in both translations: (1) Yagaria (Move dialect): Gitoga path-on Simo’, Simon

ne’vagani while they go-and

ve he-man

Gilene yo’ Cyrene village

Lufugiteti’ Rufus-and both

bogo one

igopaloti’ de, land-from

avoti’ama’ father-their dl.

agaea he

agi’a name-his Alesategi manAlexander-and

hoyaviti’ garden-from

no’egapi while he comes-and they

fotu meet

hida they-and urge

tagani do him they-and he

Yesu Jesus

malipuyava’a cross tree-his

govile he carries-and

gapi they

idae. they went

lebelebe hida they-and

‘While they went on the street, a man by the name of Simon, a man from the settlement of Cyrene, the father of both Alexander and Rufus, as he came from the field, they met him and urged him, and (as) he carried the cross of Jesus, they went on.’ (2) Yagaria (Kami-Kuluka dialect): Zisasibo Jesus

bagesamahebo kill-they were going to

lida take-and

baleda put-end

no’egana while he comes-and

ne’vaganahebo while they go-and

fotu meet

hama they-that

demo man

Alekesadagiti’a Alexander-and both

balonae put-and

Sailini Cyrene

demo man

gi’amo name-his

egana come he-and

debogobo he man-one

hae. they

Fotu meet

avo’ina’amabo father-their dl.

gavaileda him lead they-and

Lufasigiti’a Rufus-and both Saimonibo Simon Zisasibo Jesus



lina take-and

gavaileda him lead they-and

gaigali place

308

Ernst Wendland ama come they-that gemo word

vemo man

hapaedahebo him tell they

havu bow

vemagimo men

kagaemo you

hakeli’a strong

taginoka you turn back-and

taloka Zisasibo bagesupa you take and Jesus kill-in order that we shall zavamo tree

govilika you carry-and

govilina carries he-and

vuvo you go

hida hagana say-and speak they-and he

vize. he goes

‘While they go, leading Jesus in order that they kill him, a man is coming, and they meet him. The man they meet, a man from the place of Cyrene, the father of both Alexander and Rufus, by the name of Simon, he comes. As he comes, the men which lead Jesus and come, the soldiers, tell him strongly: you turn back, and take the timber on which we will kill Jesus, carry it and go! After they say that, he carries it and goes.’ The Kami-Kuluka version in (2) uses cohesive markers (and tail-head linkage) as in oral Yagaria narrative genres: it has 17 cohesive markers (printed in bold) in 3 sentences which are connected by tail-head linkage (underlined). The Move version does not use those devices in this fragment. Renck (1990) writes that the Kami-Kuluka version is harder to read than the Move version because of the high frequency of cohesive markers and other ‘oral’ features.

Conclusion We still do not know much about processes of pragmatic innovation in Bible translations in oral societies. The little that has been written on the subject approaches such processes from assumed written/oral style oppositions. Renck (1990:87) interprets the differences between the two Yagaria versions also from that point of view: He sees the Move version as having a compact written style and the Kami-Kuluka version as a long-winding, hard to read ‘oral’ style. However, when we look at the two Yagaria versions from a broader notion of genre, within which the medium (writing versus speech) is only one genre-determining factor, we see that the Kami-Kuluka version indeed follows oral genres as far as topic markers is concerned but in terms of referent identification the Kami-Kuluka version has a typical secondary genre pattern: the soldiers and the cross for example are identified with heavy nominal phrases. In this regard, the Kami-Kuluka version deviates more from oral narrative genres than the Move version. New pragmatic patterns like reduction and redistribution of topic markers and increase of nominal participant identifications emerge quickly in the new written genres

Appendix: Bible translation and primary orality

309

of oral societies. Just like lexical-semantic innovations, they emerge spontaneously in speech communities as a response to new communicative needs. In the very initial stage of new written genres, for example in first drafts of the first translated Bible books, sometimes translators in New Guinea still use many cohesive markers and recapitulative linkages. However, when reviewing and editing their texts, translators tend to edit out many cohesive markers and recapitulative linkages but at the same time they insert them in places where they were absent in the first draft. These editing tendencies are even stronger in later revisions of the translation. All this points to processes of pragmatic innovation that are developing in the new written genres. Sometimes this birth of new genres is not welcomed by translation consultants who see the traditional oral genres as the natural model for translated texts and in such a framework favour the use of topic markers, recapitulative linkages and sequential parallelism as a ‘natural’ style for translations. Given the influence and strong role of external translation consultants in many translation projects in oral contexts, it is crucial that they view ‘naturalness’ from a broad notion of genre and not from the perspective of oral-written style oppositions and of stereotypes of primary orality. What is needed is a genre notion which distinguishes between primary and secondary genres and which treats genres not as a formal, structuralistic notion but as a pragmatic and historical category. In this perspective, a natural style is a style which follows from the factors which are constitutive of a given genre. In the case of the macro-genre of Bible translations, these factors are the secondary nature, the written medium and the cultural role of these texts in the church and in the speech community. The secondary nature is responsible for the integration of elements from both primary source and primary receptor culture genres into the new secondary genres found in the translations. These elements from primary genres are not copied into the translations but rather creatively transformed within secondary genres.

References for Appendix Achtemeier, P. J. 1990. “Omne verbum sonat: The New Testament and the oral environment of late Western Antiquity.” Journal of Biblical Literature 109/1. 3-27. Baayen, Harald R. 1997. “The pragmatics of the ‘Tenses’ in Biblical Hebrew.” Studies in Language 21/2. 245-285. Bakhtin, M. 1986. Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press. Berger, K. 1987. “Het Nieuwe Testament als literatuur.” In A.S. van der Woude (ed.), Bijbels Handboek, deel III. Kampen: Kok. 194-221. Besnier, N. 1995. Literacy, emotion and authority. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bromley, Myron H. 1981. A grammar of Lower Grand Valley Dani (Pacific Linguistics C-63). Canberra: Australian National University. Callow, K. 1974. Discourse considerations in translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

310

Ernst Wendland

Chafe, W.L. and J. Danielewicz. 1987. “Properties of spoken and written language.” In R. Horowitz and S.J. Samuels (eds.), Comprehending oral and written language. New York: Academic Press. 83-113. Chafe, W.L. 1988. “Linking intonation units in spoken English.” In J. Haiman and S. Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1-27. Gerrit J. van Enk and Lourens de Vries. 1997. The Korowai of Irian Jaya: Their language in its cultural context. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Foley, William A. 1991. The Yimas language of New Guinea. Stanford: University Press. Foley, William A. 1997. Anthropological linguistics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason. 1996. The translator as communicator. London: Routledge. Kelber, Werner. 1983. The oral and the written Gospel: The hermeneutics of speaking and writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul and Q. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1966. The savage mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lévy-Brühl, Lucien. 1926. How natives think. New York: Knopf. Noss, Philip A. 1981. “The oral story and Bible translation.” Bible Translator 32/3. 249-318. Olson, D. 1994. The world on paper: the conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ong, W. 1982. Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen. Parry, Milman. 1928. L’Epithète traditionelle dans Homère. Paris: Société Éditrice Les Belles Lettres. Renck, Günther. 1990. Contextualization of Christianity and christianization of language: A case study from the highlands of Papua-New Guinea. Erlangen: Verlag der Ev.Luth. Mission. Scribner, S. and M. Cole. 1981. The psychology of literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Vries, Lourens de and Robinia Wiersma. 1990. The morphology of Wambon of the Irian Jaya Upper-Digul area. Leiden: KITLV Press.

References Aune, David. 1997. Revelation 1-5 (Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 52). Dallas: Word Books. ------ 2003. The Westminster dictionary of New Testament and early Christian literature and rhetoric. Louisville & London: Westminster John Knox Press. Baker, Mona. 1992. In other words: A coursebook on translation. London and New York: Routledge. ------ 2006. “Editorial: Translation and context.” Journal of Pragmatics 38, 317-320. ------ 2006. “Contextualization in translator- and interpreter-mediated events.” Journal of Pragmatics 38, 321-337. Barnstone, Willis. 1993. The poetics of translation: History, theory, practice. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Basco, Francesca M., Monica Bucciarelli, and Bruno G. Bara. 2004. “The fundamental context categories in understanding communicative intention.” Journal of Pragmatics 36, 467–488. Bassnett, Susan. 2002. Translation studies (3rd edition). London and New York: Routledge. Bascom, Robert. 2003. “Lost in translation: Mental maps and the cultural understanding of scripture.” Unpublished paper presented at the UBS Triennial Translation Workshop, Foz do Iguassu, Brazil. Bauckham, Richard. 1993. The climax of prophecy: Studies on the book of Revelation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Beale, G.K. 1999. The Book of Revelation: A commentary on the Greek text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Beasley-Murray, G.R. 1997. “Revelation.” In R.P. Martin and P.H. Davids (eds.), Dictionary of the later New Testament & its developments. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Belloc, Hilaire. 1931. On translation. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Benjamin, Walter. 1969. “The task of the translator.” In H. Arendt (ed.; H. Zohn, trans.), Illuminations: Essays and reflections. New York: Schocken. Blackmore, D. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell. Bluhm, Heinz. 1965. Martin Luther: Creative translator. St. Louis: Concordia. Blumczynski, Piotr. 2007. “The Gospel in slang: with special reference to the contemporary Polish context.” The Bible Translator 58:1, 19-30. Boase-Beier, Jean. 2006. Stylistic approaches to translation (Translation Theories Explored). Manchester: St. Jerome. Bock, Darrell L. 2005. “Are gender-sensitive translations safe or out?” Bible Translator 56:3, 169-187. Brown, G. and G. Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Richard. 2004. “New dimensions in communicative translation.” Power Point presentation included on the CD: Bible Translation – 2003. Dallas: SIL International. Slides 1-141. Campbell, Charles L. 2003. “Apocalypse now: Preaching Revelation as narrative.” In Joel B. Green and Michael Pasquarello III (eds.), Narrative reading, narrative preaching: Reuniting New Testament interpretation and proclamation. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 151-175.

312

Ernst Wendland

Chesterman, Andrew. 2001. “Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath,” The Translator, 7:2, 139-154. Collins, C. John. 2005. “What the reader wants and the translator can give: First John as a test case.” In W. Grudem, L. Ryken, C.J. Collins, V.S. Poythress, and B. Winter, Translating truth: The case for essentially literal Bible translation. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 77-111. Coulson, Seanna. 2001. Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crisp, Simon. 2000. “Icon of the Ineffable? An Orthodox View of Language and its Implications for Bible Translation.” Unpublished paper prepared for the Triennial Translation Workshop of the United Bible Societies, Malaga, Spain. den Hollander, A. A. 1997. De Nederlandse Bijbelvertalingen 1522-1545. Nieuwkoop. de Vries, Lourens. 2000. “Bible translation and primary orality.” Bible Translator 51:1, 101-114. ------ 2003. “Paratext and Skopos of Bible translations.” In W.F. Smelik, A. A. den Hollander, U. B. Schmidt (eds.), Paratext and megatext as channels of Jewish and Christian traditions. Leiden and Boston: Brill Publishers (Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series), 176-193. de Waard, Jan and Eugene A. Nida. 1986. Functional equivalence in Bible translating: From one language to another. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Dick, W., L. Carey, and J. O. Carey. 2001. The systematic design of instruction (5th ed.). New York: Longman. Dooley, Robert A. 1995. “Combining functional and formal approaches to language.” Notes on Linguistics 69, 5-34. ------ 2005. “Source-language versus target-language discourse features in translating the Word of God.” Journal of Translation 1:2, 1-18. ------ and Stephen H. Levinsohn. 2001. Analyzing discourse: A manual of basic concepts. Dallas: SIL International. Douglas, Mary. 1970. Natural symbols. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. ------ 1993. In the wilderness: The doctrine of defilement in the book of Numbers (JSOT Supplement Series 158). Sheffield: JSOT/Sheffield Press. Duranti, Alessandro and Charles Goodwin, eds. 1992. Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Evans, Barrie and Alina Krajewska. 2006. “ ‘Equivalence’ in the presence of ‘otherness’.” The Bible Translator 57:3, 138-153. Ford, J. Massyngberde. 1975. Revelation: Introduction, translation, and commentary (Anchor Bible). Garden City: Doubleday. Gonzalez, Julia and Robert Wagenaar. 2003. Tuning educational structures in Europe. Final report: Phase one. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto. Grudem, Wayne. 2005. “Are only some words of Scripture breathed out by God? Why plenary inspiration favors ‘essentially literal’ Bible translations.” In W. Grudem, L. Ryken, C.J. Collins, V.S. Poythress, and B. Winter, Translating truth: The case for essentially literal Bible translation. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 19-56. Gutt, Ernst-August. 1992. Relevance theory: A guide to successful communication in translation. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

References

313

------ 2000. Translation and relevance: Cognition and context. Manchester: St Jerome. Hanks, William, 1992. “The indexical ground of deictic reference.” In Duranti, Alessandro and Charles Goodwin, (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 43–76. Hatim, Basil and Jeremy Munday. 2004. Translation: An advanced resource book. London and New York: Routledge. Hays, Richard B. 2005. The conversion of the imagination: Paul as interpreter of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids & Cambridge: Eerdmans. Hill, Harriet. 2003. “Communicating context in Bible translation.” Word & Deed 2:2, 1-31. ------ 2005. “The effect of key term choices on local theology.” Unpublished paper presented at The Bible in Africa conference, September 19-23, University of KwaZuluNatal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, 1-18. ------ 2006. The Bible at cultural crossroads: From translation to communication. Manchester: St Jerome. Hill, Ralph. 2004. “Contextual adjustment strategies and Bible translation.” Word & Deed 3.1, 1-25. Hymes, Dell. 1962. “The ethnography of speaking.” In T.A. Gladwin and W. Sturtevant, eds., Anthropology and human behavior. Washington: Anthropological Society of Washington, 15-53. Johnson, Alan F. 1994. “Revelation” in K.L. Barker and J. Kohlenberger III (eds.), Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary (vol. 2: New Testament). Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1125-1232. Katan, David. 2004 (2nd ed). Translating cultures: An introduction for translators, interpreters and mediators. Manchester: St. Jerome. Keener, Craig S. 1993. The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Kelly, Dorothy. 2005. A handbook for translator trainers: A guide to reflective practice [Translation Practices Explained]. Manchester: St. Jerome. Keita, S. and J. W. Dyk. 2006. “The scene at the threshing floor: Suggestive readings and intercultural considerations on Ruth 3.” Bible Translator 57:1, 7-32. Kiraly, Donald. 2000. Pathways to translation: Pedagogy and process. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Kompaoré, Anne E. Garber. 2004. Discourse analysis of directive texts: The case of biblical law. M.A. Thesis, Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary, Elkhart IN. Lacey, Rob. 2003. The Word on the street. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Levinsohn, Stephen H. 2006. “Reasoning styles and types of hortatory discourse.” Journal of Translation 2:2, 1-10. Lindstrom, Lamont. 1992. “Context contests: debatable truth statements on Tanna (Vanuatu).” In Duranti, Alessandro and Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 101–124. Louw, Johannes P and Eugene A. Nida (eds.). 1988. Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament based on semantic domains (Vol. 1: Introduction & Domains). New York: United Bible Societies. Lunn, Nicholas P. 2006. Word-order variation in biblical Hebrew poetry: Differentiating pragmatics and poetics. Bletchley, UK: Paternoster.

314

Ernst Wendland

Malina, Bruce J and Richard L Rohrbaugh. 1992. Social-science commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. ------ and John J. Pilch. 2000. Social-science commentary on the book of Revelation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Matthewson, Andrew. 2007. “Cartoon-style Bible hits the mark.” UBS World Report 408, 19. Metzger, Bruce M. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament (second edition). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Miller, Cynthia L. 2005. “Translating biblical proverbs in African cultures: Between form and meaning.” Bible Translator 56:3, 129-144. Mojola, Aloo. 2003. “Bible translation in the context of the ‘text, church and world’ matrix – a post-Nida perspective.” Unpublished paper presented at the UBS Triennial Translation Workshop, Foz do Iguassu, Brazil. Mossop, Brian. 2001. Revising and editing for translators [Translation Practices Explained]. Manchester: St. Jerome. Moyise, Steve and Maarten J.J. Menken (eds.). 2004. The Psalms in the New Testament. London & New York: T&T Clark International. Nagai, Yasuko. 1994. “Reading theories and methods and their relationship to cognitive and cultural learning styles.” Notes on Literacy 20:4, 33-54. Nida, Eugene A and Taber, Charles R. 1969. The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: Brill. Omanson, Roger. 2006. A textual guide to the Greek New Testament: An adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Texual Commentary for the needs of translators. Stuttgart: German Bible Society. Ott, Willis. 2005. A consultant’s notes for Bible translators: Notes on the book of visions commonly called Revelation (3 vols., CONOT). CD copy made available by the author ([email protected]). Pattemore, Stephen W. 1994. “Principalities and powers in Urak Lawoi’, Introduction: Contextualizing key terms.” Bible Translator 45:1, 116-129. ------ 2003. Souls under the altar: Relevance theory and the discourse structure of Revelation (UBS Monograph Series No. 9). New York: United Bible Societies (CD copy). Porter, Stanley. 1999. “The Contemporary English Version and the ideology of translation.” In Stanley Porter and Richard Hess (eds.), Translating the Bible – Problems and prospects. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 18-45. Pritz, Ray. 2006. Producing study editions of the Scriptures (CD format). Reading, UK: United Bible Societies. Pym, Anthony. 1992. Translation and text transfer. New York: Peter Lang. ------ 1998. Method in translation history. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Reiss, Katharina (trans. Erroll Rhodes). 2000. Translation criticism: The potentials & limitations (Categories and criteria for translation quality assessment). Manchester: St. Jerome. Ross, Ron. 2003. “Advances in linguistic theory and their relevance to translation.” In Wilt (ed., q.v.), 113-151. Rowland, Christopher C. 1998. “The book of Revelation: Introduction, commentary, and reflections.” In L.E. Keck (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible (vol. XII). Nashville; Abingdon Press, 502-743.

References

315

Ryken, Leland. 1992 (2nd ed.). Words of delight: A literary introduction to the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker. ------ 2005. Choosing a Bible: Understanding Bible translation differences. Wheaton: Crossway. Salisbury, Murray (ed.). 2002. Skills for translating and exegeting the primary Scriptures (STEPS): An electronic resource for self-study and for training others (trial version). CD copy provided by the author ([email protected]). Saunders, Stanley P. 2003. “Revelation and resistance: Narrative and worship in John’s Apocalypse.” In Joel B. Green and Michael Pasquarello III (eds.), Narrative reading, narrative preaching: Reuniting New Testament interpretation and proclamation. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 107-150. Semantic dictionary of biblical Hebrew. 2000-2006. Reading, UK: United Bible Societies. Smeno, Dag and Andrea Rhodes. 2007. “Sharing God’s Word with music-loving Azeris.” UBS World Report 408, 3-4. Spielmann, Ruth and Hart. 2003. “Secondary orality.” Unpublished paper presented at the UBS Triennial Translation Workshop, Foz do Iguassu, Brazil [Available from TIC Talk 53: www.ubs-translations.org/cms/download.php?94fa9821fdc87de572e9fadd744b273d]. Starcher, Richard L. 2007. “Assessing for quality.” ACTEA Forum No. 6 (email message of 15/01/2007). Stockwell, Peter. 2002. An introduction to cognitive poetics. London & New York: Routledge. Strauss, Mark L. 2005. “Form, function, and the ‘literal meaning’ fallacy in English Bible translation.” Bible Translator 56:3, 153-168. Sundersingh, Julian. 2003. “Analysis of density in audio Scriptures: Implications for translation.” Unpublished paper presented at the UBS Triennial Translation Workshop, Foz do Iguassu, Brazil. Tamez, Elsa. 2006. “The Bible from the perspective of the deaf community.” Unpublished paper presented at the UBS Triennial Translation Workshop, Mombasa, Kenya. Terry, Ralph B. 1995. A Discourse Analysis of First Corinthians. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Texas at Arlington. Thiselton, Anthony C. 1980. The two horizons: New Testament hermeneutics and philosophical description. Exeter UK: Paternoster Press. Thomas, Kenneth J. and Margaret Orr Thomas. 2006. Structure and orality in 1 Peter: A guide for translators (UBS Monograph Series, No. 10). New York: United Bible Societies. Van der Jagt, Krijn. 2002. Anthropological approaches to the interpretation of the Bible (UBS Monograph Series 8). New York: United Bible Societies. ------ and Ray Pritz. 2004. The Bible lands as classroom (7 CD series plus Presenter’s Manual). Reading, UK: United Bible Societies. Van Dijk, Teun A., 2001. “Discourse, ideology and context.” Folia Linguistica XXXV, 11–40. Van Steenbergen, Gerrit J. 2007. “Worldview analysis as an exegetical tool (Part 1).” The Bible Translator 58:1, 30-40. Vella, Jane. 2002. Learning to listen – Learning to teach: The power of dialogue in educating adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Press. Voth, Esteban. 2005. “Orality and writtenness in ancient near eastern prophecy: Its effect on translation as communication in Latin America.” The Bible Translator 56:3, 114-128.

316

Ernst Wendland

Voth, Steven. 2006. “Towards an Ethic of Bible Translation.” Unpublished paper presented at the UBS Triennial Translation Workshop, Mombasa, Kenya. Watts, R.J. 1991. “Cross-cultural problems in the perception of literature.” In P. Sell (ed.), Literary pragmatics. London and New York: Routledge, 26-43. Weber, David J. 2005. “A tale of two translation theories.” Journal of Translation 1:2, 1-40. Wendland, Ernst. 1985. Language, society, and Bible translation. Cape Town: Bible Society of South Africa. ------ 1992. “Temple site or cemetery? – A question of perspective: The influence of world view on the interpretation of Haggai 2:10-19 and its implications for the handling of implicit information in Bible translation.” Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics 5:1, 37-85 ------ 2004. Translating the literature of Scripture: A literary-rhetorical approach to Bible translation. Dallas: SIL International. ------ 2005a. “A literary (artistic-rhetorical) approach to biblical text analysis and translation, with special reference to Paul’s letter to Philemon.” Journal of Biblical Text Research 16, 266-363. ------ 2005b. “Aspects of ‘quality’ and ‘quality control’ in Bible translation.” Bible Translation – 2005 Conference CD. Dallas: SIL International. ------ 2006a. “Translator training in Africa: Is there a better way of teaching and learning?” The Bible Translator 57:2, 58-65. ------ 2006b. LiFE-style translating: A workbook for Bible translators. Dallas: SIL International. ------ and Salimo Hachibamba. 2000a. “A central African perspective on contextualizing the Ephesian potentates, principalities, and powers.” Missiology XXVIII:3, 341-363. ------ 2000b. “ ‘Do you understand what you are reading [hearing]?’ (Acts 8:30): The translation and contextualization of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 in Chitonga.” In G. West and M. Dube (eds.), The Bible in Africa: Transactions, Trajectories and Trends, Leiden: Brill, 538-556. West, Gerald. 1996. “Reading the Bible differently: Giving shape to the discourse of the dominated.” Semeia 73, 21-41. ------ and Musa Dube (eds). 1996. “Reading with”: An exploration of the interface between critical and ordinary readings of the Bible (African overtures). Semeia 73. Wiggins, G., and J. McTighe. 1998 (2nd ed., 2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria: ACSD. Wilcox, Michael. 1975. I saw heaven opened: The message of Revelation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Wilson, Mark. 2002. “Revelation.” In C.E. Arnold (ed.), Zondervan illustrated Bible background commentary (vol.4). Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 245-383. Wilt, Timothy (ed). 2003. Bible translation: Frames of reference. Manchester: St. Jerome. Winter, Bruce. 2005. “Revelation versus rhetoric: Paul and the first-century Corinthian fad.” In W. Grudem, L. Ryken, C.J. Collins, V.S. Poythress, and B. Winter, Translating truth: The case for essentially literal Bible translation. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 135-150. Zogbo, Lynell and Ernst Wendland. 2004. Hebrew poetry in the Bible: A guide for understanding and for translating. New York: United Bible Societies.

index accentuation 198 acceptability 226 accountability 76, 281 acoustic clues 305 Africa 8, 13, 29, 37, 68 alliteration 160 allusion 112, 203 (Revelation), 205 anadiplosis 155 anaphora 152, 197 aperture 153, 185, 198 apocalypse 187, 190 appeal-focused text 232 applied learning 276-277 apprenticeship training 274 appropriateness 51, 69, 275 argumentation 160 artistic 156, 198 assessment (evaluation) of translation xvii, 75-76, 101, 211, 226-227, 268, 271, 280, 285 assonance 160 audience, target xvi, 46, 60, 71, 85, 101-102, 208, 216, 225, 226, 227, 235 audio articulation 207 audio effects 160 audio Scriptures 61, 135, 170, 224, 233 Aune, David 175, 176, 180, 181, 190, 260 authenticity 227-228 authorial intention 246 authorship, of Revelation 174-175 Bacchiocchi, Samuele 191 “backward design” (pedagogy) 278-279 Baker, Mona 75, 94, 239 balance, syntactic 200 ballet 248 Bantu language/s 122 Barnstone, Willis 218-219 Bascom, Robert xi, 5, 7, 31-32 base translation 120 base-models approach 120, 211 Beale, G.R. 175, 188, 189, 203, 204, 205 Beasley-Murray, G.K. 177, 186 Beatitudes 26 beauty, literary 101, 164, 171 behavior 25 belief system 24 Bible 13 Bible translation xiii, xv, 6, 9, 71, 305-306 (genre) Bible translation, “essentially literal” 87-88, 269270 Bible translation, administrative committee 71, 223, 226-227 Bible translation, challenges / problems 61-62, 69, 85-86, 102-103

Bible translation, organizational frames 78 Bible translation, project setting 15-16, 43-45, 72, 123 Bible translation, strategies 34 Bible translation, types 15 Bible Translation: Frames of Reference v, xv, xvii, 72 Bible Translator 294 biblical literacy 292 bibliolatry 79-80 blind spots, cultural 29 Bluhm, Heinz 117, 118 Blumczynski, Piotr 104-105 Boase-Beier, Jean 17-18, 156, 165 Bock, Darrell 58-59 borrowing, interlingual 119 borrowing, intertextual 118-119 boundary markers, compositional 146-147, 168, 196 (Revelation) breaks, compositional 144, 146-147, 194 Brief 71, 76, 101, 122, 208 Brown, Richard 234 canon, of Scripture 128-129 capabilities 25 causality 19-20 cell phone 10-11, 23, 40 Centre for Bible Interpretation and Translation in Africa vi, xviii, 295 challenge – riposte 63 channel of communication 93 Chewa xiii, xvi, 2, 49-50, 99, 119, 121, 174, 208, 217, 234, 236, 291 chiasm / chiasmus 153, 154, 197 Christianity 33, 185 chunking 143-144 church 68 citation (quotation) 112 clashes in viewpoint 12, 16, 50, 72, 80, 166 clause chaining 300-301 climax 156, 198, 200, 265 closure 153, 198 coach 81-82 cognitive contextual possibilities 235 cognitive environment 27-28, 174, 183-184 (Revelation), 235-236, 292 cognitive filters 23-25 cognitive frames 13 coherence 147 cohesion 147, 157, 196, 308 Collins, John 269 communal / collective learning 274-275 communication 12 communication breakdown 14, 29, 34, 53 communication dynamics 94

318 communication embedding 179-180 (Revelation) communication gap 60 communicative (hermeneutical) clues 11, 132-133 comparative learning 276 competition 21 concepts 35, 41, 49, 162, 235 conceptual blending 42, 205 conceptual context 1-2, 182 (Revelation), 234 conceptual network formation 59-60 concordance 237 conditions of service 74 connotation 7, 85, 99, 101, 106, 235 connotative clash 58 consultant 81-82 Contemporary English Version (CEV) 220 context xvi, 2-3, 7, 17, 28, 59, 94, 173, 235, 292 contextual adjustment strategies 223 contextual assumptions 227 contextual conditioning 117, 245-246 contextual factors v, 177-178 (Revelation), 207 contextual implications 227 contextualization 124, 173, 212, 242, 246-247, 273 contextualized cognitive conditioning 238-239 convergence (combination of features) 155, 158 copyright 74 Corinthians, epistle 167-168, 169-170 cotext 3, 7, 185 (Rev. 4), 186, 259-260 (Rev. 5) Crisp, Simon 77-78 cultural orientations 19-21, 33 culture 22, 265 customs 36 date of composition (Revelation) 176-177 De Blois, Renier 50 De Vries, Lourens xi, xiv, 78, 85, 248-249, 296 defamiliarization 158, 202 deictic particles 199 denominations, Christian 76-77 denotation 85, 235 dependency 74 Deuterocanon 129 developmental learning 275 dialect 93, 103, 307 dialogue 272-273, 279 dialogue education 279-280 direct discourse (speech) 194, 199 discourse analysis 183 (Revelation), 185 discourse marker 10, 49, 110-111, 132, 141, 146, 155, 183, 185, 200, 203, 306 disjunction 143-144, 194 (Revelation), 264 domestication, of communication / translation 60, 79, 123, 257-258 Dooley, Thomas 41, 45, 60 Douglas, Mary 31, 79 Drama 189 Dutch 85-86, 249-258 (translation) echo, intertextual 112-113

Ernst Wendland egocentric conception 249 electronic literacy 66-67 electronic media 11, 65, 293, 295 electronic text 66, 71, 77, 224-225 emotion 6, 28, 41, 100, 106, 156, 218 enclavists 32 enculturation 38, 41 engagement, of the audience 101, 281 (pedagogical) environment 20, 25 Ephesians 240-242 epiphora 153 epistle 188 epithets 199 error types, translation 229 essential skills course 81, 83 ethics, in translation 90-91 exegesis 293 Exegetical Summaries 293 exercises on translation xv Exodus 136-137 explanatory notes 236-237, 242-243, 267 explicatures 18, 207 extratextual resources 26, 222-223 extratextual supplementation 223-224 (Revelation) faith 34 fidelity 227 focus 156, 198 foreground 156 foreignization, of communication / translation 79, 123, 257-258 format, typographical 161, 168-169 formula, compositional 155 frame / framing 5 frame interaction 6 frame prioritizing 10, 13 frames in competition / conflict 14-15 frames of reference xiii, xv, xvi, 2, 4, 17 frames of reference, cognitive 18 frames of reference, organizational 68, 79, 209 frames of reference, situational 92, 179 (Revelation) frames of reference, sociocultural 36, 69, 208 frames of reference, textual 110, 210 functional equivalence 133, 134 funeral 8, 13, 29-30 gate-keepers 72, 75 gender issues 57-58 generic-specific 4 genre bending 202 genre selection / specification 135, 263 genre/s 43, 93, 110, 135-136, 177 (Revelation), 187, 263, 303-306, 308 German 18, 117 goals 285 goals of communication 92, 159, 196 Good News Translation (GNT) 121, 220, 269 Graphic Bible 248

Index Greek, koine 164 Greek-English Lexicon of the NT 49, 99-100, 241 grid 31 grid-group perspective 31 group 31 Gutt, Ernst-August 6, 10, 133, 242, 292 Hays, Richard 115 hierarchists 31 high-context / low-context cultures 38-39 high-context communication (HCC) 38 Hill, Harriet 213, 227, 235, 236, 238, 292 Hill, Ralph 213, 227 holistic approach xv, 280 honor – shame 44, 63 hortatory thesis 22, 159 human relation skills 81 human resource development (HRD) 80, 84 Hymes, Del 92 hymn 200 hyperbole 157 hypertext 65-66 ideology 23 idiolect creation 202 idiom 7-8 idiomacity 228 illocution 96 illocutionary force 134, 269 illustrations 57, 96, 238, 266 imagery 157, 180, 199, 261 implication 18, 57, 100 implicatures 18, 166, 207, 227 implied audience 176 implied author 176 in group – out group 64 inclusio 153, 154, 196, 197, 264 indigenized instruction 274 individualism – collectivism 20 individualists 31 Indonesia 256-257 inductive deductive style 22, 245, 273-274, 283, 285 inductive – deductive thinking 20, 280 inference 18, 45, 61, 207 instruction (direction) 159 intelligibility 228 intention, translation 89 interactive / participatory instruction 273, 280 intercultural communication v intercultural mediation 256 intercultural spaces 257 interference, linguistic 118, 201, 245, 257 interpretive framework 129-130, 184 (Revelation) intertextual pressure 116-117, 131 intertextuality 110, 112-114, 131, 180, 202 (Revelation), 259, 265 intratextuality 131-132, 186, 197 intuition xiv, xviii

319 Irian Jaya 302-303 irony 157, 158 isolationists 32 James, epistle of 47, 134, 135 Jameson, Andrew 286 job commission 71, 76 Joel 149-152, 157-158 John 162-163, 176 Johnson, Alan 175, 190 Journal of Translation 294 Katan, David 19, 24, 38-39 Keita, S. & Dyk, J.W. 53 Kelly, Dorothy 277-278, 283-284 key, communicative 92 King James Version (KJV) 119 kinship 249 language of wider communication (LWC) 37, 120, 147, 295 layout, compositional 170 Levinsohn, Stephen 22, 41, 159 literary features xiii, 132, 217 (Chewa), 264 literary functional equivalence (LiFE) 216-217 literary translation 165, 219 literary(artistic)-rhetorical analysis xiv, 156, 166, 171, 186 (Rev. 4) liturgy 189 locution 96 logo 73 love – hate 63 low-context communication (LCC) 38 Lusaka Bible Translation Centre 70 Luther, Martin 117 magic 49-50, 109, 241 Malina, Bruce & Pilch, John 260, 267 Malina, Bruce & Rohrbaugh, Richard 62 memo of understanding, of translation project 123 mental representations (mental models) 17, 40-43, 45-47, 110 metaphor 42, 148, 157, 165, 198, 225 metonym 42, 148, 158, 185, 242 millennium 191 Miller, Cynthia 220-221 mimetic traditions 251 Mitchell, Bill 106 model translation 120 Mojola, Aloo 9, 79 Mossop, Brian 229-230 Narrative 188 National Bible Society (NBS) 71, 209 networking 291 New Guinea 300, 304-305 non-print media 170, 205, 224, 225, 232, 247 non-verbal communication 30, 61

320 norms of communication 92 novelty 280 objectives 285-286 Ogden, G. & Zogbo, L. 124 Ong, Walter 297-299 onion xvi, 1, 3, 173 oracle 153 oral articulation 192, 194-195, 224 oral culture 40, 298-301 oral narrative 301 oral style 308-309 oral-aural dimension / discourse 160, 167 oral-aural features 161, 264 orality, primary 296-299, 309 oratorical text / translation 192-193, 216, 247 oratory 161 organization 21, 23, 44, 68-70, 73-74, 80-81, 84 organizations, competing 85 Orthodox perspective 77-78 “otherness” 270-271 paraenetic discourse (paraenesis) 181, 189 parallelism 126, 133, 154, 157, 161, 162, 196, 198, 200, 306 parataxis 299-300 paratext 222, 265 Paratext 43, 120, 276, 293 295 paratextual resources 26, 72, 222, 225, 236 paronomasia (punning) 160 patron – client 63 Pattemore, Stephen 182 pause points 181 peak 156, 158, 168, 198, 200 perceptibility 11, 115 performance (Revelation) 184 performance management cycle 81 pericope 194 personality, ancient – Western 27 perspective 12, 189 (multiple), 191, 199, 264 perspective, Western / non-Western 53-56, 69, 175, 245 perspicuitas (clarity) 250-251 persuasion 159, 198 phonic enhancement 160 phonological analysis 192-194 poetic – prosaic 194 poetic insert 200 poetry 18, 137-141 point of view 12 Polish 104 power relations 74-75 pragmatics 10, 18, 94 praxis (pedagogical) 280 prayer 98 pre-texts 110, 204 (Revelation) process model, translator training 286-290 prominence 10

Ernst Wendland prophecy 187 prose 141-143 proverbs 220-222 proximity 227 public relations 72 purity – pollution 64 quality control 73, 211, 226 Quechua (Peru) 106-108 reader-response criticism 244 recontextualization 240, 247 recursion 148-149, 152, 196-198 (Revelation), 264 redundancy 40, 218, 301-303 Reformed Churches 250-251 Reiss, Katarina 230-232 relatedness 280 relations 41 relationships 20, 183 relevance principle 6, 42, 242 relevance theory 28, 97, 133, 135, 183 relevancy 228 religious beliefs 14 repetition 40, 61, 133, 147-149, 196, 245, 302 research 26, 35, 62, 65, 67, 77, 101-103, 122, 218, 223, 233-234, 268, 276, 292, 295 resources 25, 73-74, 120, 291 respect (pedagogical) 280 restatement 148, 196 Revelation xvi, 10, 174 revision parameters, for translation 229 revision principles 230 revision, of a translation 102, 119, 237, 271, 309 rhetorical 156, 158-159, 188, 198, 216, 229, 246 rhetorical question 61, 155, 158 rich – poor 64 role-playing 83-84 Ross, Ronald 97, 99 Rowland, Christopher 202, 205 Ruth 53-57, 249, 252-255 Ryken, Leland 87, 164 safety (pedagogical) 280, 282 Salisbury, Murray 153, 295 Saunders, Stanley 182, 184, 188, 190, 202 scenario 43 scenic dislocation 202 schema 43 schema theory 44 script 43, 51 secondary orality 65-67 section heading 155, 201, 265 segmentation 195 Semantic Domain Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (SDBH) 50-52 semantic domains 48-49 sense of identity 24 sermon 8-9

Index setting of communication 92, 179-180 (Revelation) shifts, compositional 144, 147 sign language 61 signs, semiotic 59 simile 153, 157 Sitz im Leben 303-305 Skills for Translating and Exegeting the Primary Scriptures (STEPS) 135, 295, 315 skopos/Skopos (translation goal) xiv, 71, 86, 122, 208, 249, 254-256, 271 slang 104 social-scientific criticism 62 sociocentric community 249 sociocentric participant reference 255 sociocentric terms 252-254 sociolect 93, 103, 105, 251 sociolinguistic model (S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G) 92, 94, 106 solidarity 31, 74-75 Song of Songs 124-128 sorcery 49-50 space 21 speech acts 92, 97, 99-100, 200, 265 speech-act analysis 95-98 Spielmann, R. & Wiens, H. 65 spirits / spiritual powers 240-242 stanza 153 Starcher, Richard 278 status 12 Strauss, Mark 87-88 strophe 136, 147, 149, 153-155, 157-158, 162-163, 194, 210 structure 2, 5, 19, 21, 28, 31, 40, 46, 68, 74, 133, 136, 147, 148, 155, 158, 171, 179, 183, 195 (Revelation), 261 study Bible 123-124, 222, 242, 276 style 8, 18, 22, 77-78, 93, 104, 123, 164, 165, 201, 202, 205, 210-211, 229, 265, 273, 297 stylistic figures 18 Sundersingh, Julian 232-233 supporting material 159 suspense 199 symbolism 30, 42, 265 tail-head linkage 303 Tamez, Elsa 61 target language 120 teaching / instruction – methodology (pedagogy) 245, 272, 273-277, 278-279, 281 teaching translation xv, xvii, 282 teaching, student-centred methodology 283 team-work 272 281 text 38, 107, 110 text criticism 124, 200-201 text design 168, 170 textual problems 124-128, 267 The Message 48 The Word on the Street 105 theme 191 (Revelation)

321 Thomas, Kenneth 40, 161, 166, 170, 194, 225 thought 20 throne room (Revelation) 181, 186 time 21, 190-191 (Revelation) Tonga 108-109, 241-242 top-down / bottom-up text processing 42 transculturize / transculturization 241, 246 translating 239 Translating the Literature of Scripture xvii translation comparison 212-216 (Chewa) translation competence / proficiency 284-285 translation criticism 230-232 translation decisions xiv translation equivalence 53, 265 translation policy 77, 132 translation priorities 287-290 translation process (methodology) xiii, 17, 210-211 translation style 77, 116, 123, 212, 216, 241, 276, 289-290 translation text frame 122, 210 translation trainers 292 translation, primary – secondary – tertiary 120, 305, 309 translational gender sensitivity 59 translator training techniques 277-278, 287-290, 293 Translator’s Handbook 293 triggers 17, 41 Tyndale, John 117, 119 typography 168 United Bible Societies (UBS) xviii, 9, 70 universalism – particularism 20 value system 24 values, Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) 62-64 Van der Jagt, Krijn 27 Van Steenbergen, Gerrit 26 Vella, Jane 279, 281 vocative 155 Voth, Esteban 90 Wilt, Timothy v, xv, 92, 208 witchcraft 50, 109 word order 198, 217, 264 world view 4, 19, 22-23, 28, 30, 60, 92, 108, 234, 246 worldview analysis 26, 275 worship 191 Zambia xvi, 16, 37, 70-71, 102-103, 173, 208-209, 239, 244