Diploma in bible translation faculty seminar
Serampore College, Serampore (19-22 October, 2010)
Theme: Best Practices for Bible Translator Training
Topic: Mother Tongue Translators
Presenter: Mr. H. Joseph Lalfakmawia
Lecturer (New Testament)
Master’s College of Theology
Visakhapatnam
1. Introduction
The Italian proverb, “traduttore, traditore” (every translator is a traitor), is a formidable fact. John Pilch’s statement is undoubtedly true and worth to challenge every translator: “Rarely is there a one-to-one equivalence from one language to another. The translator is inevitably going to make an unfortunate choice of words.”[1] This clearly designates the complexity of the translators’ tasks. Thus, the translators, both the cross cultural translators (foreigners) and the local translators (mother tongue translators) together face the same problem in choosing the most appropriate words for certain crucial terms. In this case, this paper tries to maximize the role of the local speakers because they are the ones who know the sentiment of the local people best. The Mother Tongue Translator, in this paper, means the local or indigenous translators while the cross cultural or expatriate translator means any translator other than the mother tongue translator. For instance, in India, the cross cultural or expatriate translators are both the western world’s missionaries in the past and present, and any other Indian translators working in another cultural context. This, especially the latter, is frequently found today. Many Indian intellectual missionaries are now taking up the task of Bible translation into several dialects in India. Thus, they should be called expatriate translators. This paper, however, is not a case study of certain community. It rather cites examples from certain communities which were enlightened and influenced by the western countries.
2. The Significance of the Mother Tongue Translators
The Bible translation history casually proves that the first Bible translators or the responsible ones for backward communities are the missionaries from more developed countries. Several examples can be cited such as Ziegenbalg in Tamil (the first to translate New Testament in Tamil, India),[2] Adoniram and Ann Judson in Burmese, William Wade Harris in Adioukrou (Côte d’ Ivoire),[3] Ann Judson in Thai (the Gospel according to Matthew),[4] James Herbert Lorrain and F. W. Savidge in Mizo (Mizoram, India) etc.
As one of the proofs, we can cite the report of William D. Reyburn, editor of The Bible Translator. He reported
In Africa in 1969 there were eight expatriate translator consultants and no persons native to that region. In 1972 we had still eight expatriates (having lost one European and having gained another) but there were also four persons native to the region. In Asia in 1969 there was one UBS translations consultant (Dr William Smalley) as well as three national translation secretaries (Australia, India and Indonesia). There were in addition four translations consultant trainees. The only persons native to the region were the three translation secretaries. In 1972 there were six UBS translations consultants and nine translations consultant trainees. Moreover, nine persons are now native to the region.[5]
This report implicitly says that through the enterprises of the UBS or the SIL or whatever the local people or natives were victimized under the influence of the western world. More discussion on this can be seen below.
Townsend’s[6] observation, “The greatest missionary is the Bible in the mother tongue. It never needs a furlough, is never considered a foreigner,”[7] is unquestionably right. However, the issue here is not concerning the version of the Bible, either English version or vernacular version. We rather talk about the translators of the vernacular Bible. Usually the first or one of the first strategies of the missionaries is translation of Bible into vernacular language. My point here is that the first translators are mostly the outsiders or cross cultural translators. Paul Hiebert’s view of the cross cultural missionaries or Bible translators is undeniable. In his opinion, although missionaries from outside have lived with the native people and have gained more of an indigenous view, yet they never fully become one with the people. This is still the truth in Bible translation works. Even though they have gained many valuable linguistic and cultural insights, they never fully develop the cognitive insights that a member of the culture can have.[8]
Having this in mind, we should say that the Bible translators should be the insiders or mother tongue translators. The only native speakers know the most appropriate words, phrases, idioms, taste of word for different subjects and the flow of speech.
3. Insufficiency of the Cross Cultural Translation
One good example for this fact can be seen from Fr. Michael Hannan who translated the NT into Shona[9] language in 1966. Though J. C. Kumbirai of University of Rhodesia highly admired him and his work,[10] he himself wrote that some missionaries who knew Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic found that some of his translation did not do justice to the original, and, therefore, did not regard it as the world’s standard of translation.[11] Above all, Fr. Hannan confessed himself how he wished that he had been a native speaker so that he could have rendered his translation more intelligible and meaningful.[12]
As it has been intimated above, the expatriate missionaries’ immediate movement is usually Bible translation. William Carey, though abundantly blessed with linguistic skill, could be estimated as too ambitious in translating the Bible. The Serampore Trio published the Bengali New Testament in 1801, eighth year after they landed in Calcutta.[13] The Serampore mission translated and printed the Bible into Assamese (the New Testament in 1819, the Old Testament in 1833), but as it used Bengali characters neither the Assamese nor the Khasis in the Hills could not understand it.[14]
Mizo Bible translation might serve as one of the best examples for this discussion. The first two missionaries in Mizoram were J. H. Lorrain and F. W. Savidge (Arthington Aborigines Mission) who reached Mizoram on 11th January 1894.[15] By 1895 they hurriedly started their Bible translation works![16] Though it is said that their first work was to reduce Mizo language into writing,[17] there is also an assumption that these two missionaries already composed Mizo alphabets even before they entered Mizoram.[18] The emphasis here is that they were not well equipped to begin translation work in order to convey the true message of the Bible in the receptors’ language, that is, Mizo.
Z. T. Sangkhuma, a senior pastor of the Presbyterian Church Mizoram, said that their grammar books, as well as the translated Bible, which was the first ever recognized work in Mizo language cannot be read correctly at the first attempt.[19] This is partly because people that formulated the Mizo grammar have not mastered the language when they started doing it. The expatriate missionaries are almost always over ambitious or hasten to translate Bible into the local languages. Despite the fact that they were zealous for the natives to make known the Gospel, one may think that one of the motives of translation is a play to erect a landmark in the history of the receptors as the first translator(s).[20] The outcome testifies the insufficiency of the hastened translation because they could not wait for the longer time to be well versed with the local language.
4. Linguistic Skill: Horizontal and Vertical Dimension
Kumbirai’s principle is worth to notice. To him, translation can be horizontal, from one contemporary language into another, (for instance, from English into other language) and vertical, from a language of the past into a language of today (for instance, from ancient Hebrew into English or French). In his observation, Bible translation seems to be a blending of both horizontal and vertical.[21] It is obvious that the translator needs knowledge of both the source languages and the receptors’ language.
As it is discussed above, the missionaries in Mizoram translated Bible into Mizo even before they learned the dialect properly. The first Mizo Bible translation, therefore, could not be read properly. Moreover, to say that J. H. Lorrain as a trained linguist does not have evidential proof, especially in the original languages (Hebrew and Greek).[22] A fresh instance of this kind has happened in Mizoram this year. P. C. Biaksiama, a church Elder of Mizoram Presbyterian Church has recently translated parts of the Bible in Mizoram. This translation is called the Parallel Bible as the New King James Version is used as its parallel. In other word, this Parallel Bible is translated from the NKJV.[23] It is sad to mention that the translator of this version does not have knowledge in the original languages (apart from occasional use of lexicons). In spite of the translator’s popularity and wonderful public influence these days, it is obvious that this type of immature translation would not be as effective as it is expected (by the translator and the publishers). Intellectual Mizo people definitely understand what is lacking in such a translation without the knowledge of the original languages.
This kind of experience was also found in the Shona Bible translation. Missionaries began translating the Bible into Shona scarcely a few months after they settled among the Shona.[24] They failed to meet the horizontal need of translation technique.
A suggestion can be made from the examples given above:
Firstly, the expatriate translators can never be the best translators for other cultures because they do not excel the local people in selection of the most suitable words, phrases or idioms. The expatriate missionaries or translators should agree to this fact. In case of some crucial terms, phrases or names the cross cultural translators should not try to play decisive role.
Secondly, the host culture or the receptor must select the qualified persons from their community to take up translation work. They are what we call Mother Tongue Translators. This is inevitable because horizontal translation can never meet the accurate intention of Bible translation since it involves ancient languages such as Hebrew and Greek. The receptor that does not possess such qualified translators is advised to accept help and guidance from the capable consultants.
5. Caution on the Name of God
One of the most crucial difficulties in Bible translation is concerning spirit, whether good spirit to mean angel or evil spirit to mean demon. Not less than this is the name of God. It is no doubt that every culture, past and present, believes in the presence of supernatural or supra-mundane being. It is out of question that no two communities share the same description of their deities. The communities invaded or captured by Christianity almost always gradually compromised the original interpretation or understanding of their deities into the new interpretation of God.[25] Those characteristics that do not resemble Christian God’s have been slowly vanished into myth but developed the characteristics which the indigenous deities do not have in common with the Christian God. In order to convince the receptors missionaries picked up the receptors’ supreme deities’ names (normally the names only).
Fortunately the development of traditional deities into God have not met severe objection so far[26] except the Malaysian government’s official ban of the use of Allah for other supreme beings other than Muslim in 2007 on account of internal security.[27] The church disputed this and argued that the word predates Islam as a term for God and is used in many places in a non-Muslim context. The church said that in Malaysia, the term is widely used among indigenous Christian tribes in Sabah and Sarawak.[28] Allah is also used in Africa (e.g., Juba and Wolof) and Southeast Asia (e.g., Patani Malay) to mean the supreme being, God while Khoda is used in South Asia (e.g., Baluchi and Dari) and in Central Asia (e.g., Kazakhi, Kirghizi, Tajiki, and Uzbeki).[29] The use of Allah to refer to God is of no offence since it is obvious that the term Allah, as a generic term for the Supreme Being or God is pre-Muhammad, as early as 5th century BCE.[30] Whether or not certain countries or communities resist Christians to use Allah to mean God, Kenneth Thomas’ suggestion, “Christians should not be encouraged to avoid the use of Allah where it has been traditionally used … whether Allah, Khoda, Mungu, or some other local word,”[31] is a good advice.
Meanwhile, care should also be taken if the term for ‘God’ unnecessarily hurts the sentiment of other faiths. It is always good to cope up with the receptors’ original terms for ‘God.’ For instance, in some parts of India where there is a diverse community of faiths such as the followers of Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, primal religions etc., the translators are in a very critical situation to choose the best term for God. The name of the majority’s God might be offensive or repulsive for others. There should not be foreign intervention in this matter, even initiation. Not only this, a cautious and mild dialogue should be called because a single mistake may add fuel to fire.
A good example can be quoted from the name of God in Mizo. In the beginning of translation, missionaries could not agree to which name should be used because more than one name for god was existed then (Pathian, Khuanu, Pu Vana etc.). It is assumed that the Welsh missionary, J. H. Lorraine was the deciding factor to call the Supreme Being as ‘Pathian’ thinking that ‘Pathian’ is superior to every other name proposed.[32] In fact, these supreme beings are not understood hierarchically. The name ‘Pathian’ had mostly a mystical nature while ‘Khuanu’ and ‘Pu Vana’ had more anthropological and cosmological concern. Revision and replacement of this name is extremely difficult, if not impossible, today.
One major debate that took place during the translation was on the translation of the word ‘God’. It was mainly between the local helpers, Mr. M. Suaka and Mr. Thangphunga, who were in confusion between two names Pathian and Khuavang. Mr. Thangphunga said Khuavang was stronger than Pathian which was proposed by Mr. Suaka.[33] As Lorrain saw the disagreement, he decided that in the place of ‘God’ he would use Jihova.[34] Lorrain’s authority resulted that English word, ‘God’ is often translated as Jihova which simply does not have any meaning for the Mizos, which was neither Mizo nor Hebrew. After some years, Lorrain resumed his investigation in the southern part of Mizoram. He asked people in the street, “Who created you?” Since most of the answers he got were Pathian, so he sealed the deal of using Pathian for God.[35] Henceforth, Pathian becomes the official name or translation of the English word ‘God’ or Hebrew ‘Elohim.’ Fortunately no Mizo questions the use of ‘Pathian’ for God.
Suggestions, again, can be made with reference to this:
Firstly, expatriate translators or consultants are advised not to exercise excessive authority or monopoly taking their dignities and academic superiority as advantages. They are also advised to wait for the local people patiently until they come into conclusion.
Secondly, mother tongue translators should comprehend the attitude of the mass of people. If it is translated for a nuclear society (small and similar background) the religious history and the concept of God should be well aware of.
Thirdly, if the Bible is translated, even by the mother tongue translators, in a multi cultural and religious setting (common language may be used in this setting), they must care for the sentiment of the people of other faiths in order to keep away from avoidable crises. They have to sift what is the most suitable term for the word ‘God’ or whatever technical term they have to translate.
Fourthly, though it is necessary to care for the people of other faiths, first priority should be given to the recipients of the Bible. As long as they widely use any term, Allah or whatever, the mother tongue translators should boldly use such word knowing that Allah is not the exclusive term for Muslims and the like.
6. Decolonization
There is a tragedy in Latin America that only few local Christians hold advanced degrees in any field (especially in theology or biblical studies). Even when they achieve advanced degrees, they usually leave their cultures behind, often concealing their indigenous roots and identity so as better to fit into the majority Hispanic culture.[36] Another tragedy is that many Indians are not differed from this. It is a general truth that inestimable numbers of Indian youths dream of their higher studies, as well as jobs in the western world. The socio-economic advancement of the west mesmerizes those pursuers. Thus, westernization affects both secular and religious fields of studies.
Ann and Adoniram Judson, the first American missionaries to Burma (Rangoon in 1813), translated complete Bible in 1835.[37] Professor Pe Maung Tin,[38] defending Judsons’ translation, criticized other translators who followed Judson but did not take Buddhism seriously as neglecting the Buddhist monks, not realizing that the monks are the custodians of the faith.[39] Rosalie Hall Hunt also wrote that when Burmese biblical scholars met to develop a new edition of the Bible, they decided, “Judson’s remarkable translation was so beautiful and so compellingly rendered that the scholars could not improve upon its accuracy and purity,” so they disbanded.[40]
Prof. Tin’s criticism of the other translators who neglected the Buddhist monks’ concern implicitly says that though the new translators followed Judson’s pattern but they minded their own Christian life setting. That is why, Pleasants also raises question, “Is Judson’s work so reflective of colonialism that Burmese people easily dismiss it?”[41] Pleasants seems to be correct to say that whether Judson intended to or not, when he moved south into British territory after the first Anglo-Burmese War, he followed the flag of imperialism.[42] The situation demanded this assumption. It is more complicated when the mother tongue translators are polluted by the western hypnosis.
H. S. Luaia, one of the most prominent Mizo Bible translators (mother tongue translator) who studied and worked under the foreign missionaries from his childhood, claimed that he still prefers the first Mizo Bible translation to other recent versions. Though he did not say his ground for this preference, it can be assessed (may be a fact) that he is still spellbound by the western spirit. It is a fact that the first translation, done by J. H. Lorrain, F. W. Savidge and D. E. Jones stood as a breakthrough or a milestone but it is not reasonable to accept it as the preferable translation because it cannot be read properly. This version is preserved in the archives of Aizawl Theological College, Baptist Church of Mizoram etc.
The mother tongue translators, therefore, should have an unpolluted mind in terms of philosophy and theology (especially from the western influence). In this area, Gravelle’s suggestion is worth to notice.
The longer translators are away from their language and cultural heartland, the more they are removed from their cultural perspective. As a result they might begin to forget the deeper things the people of their culture struggle with. Therefore, a refresher course on the social situation most of their people are situated in may be necessary. It would enable the translators to figure out how to communicate biblical concepts more deeply… sending them back to their village to learn how to think about important theological concepts in their own language and culture.[43]
Additional care should be taken if the mother-tongue translators are away from their culture for a long period of time especially when they spend years in university, seminary, or government jobs. The longer they are removed from their language and cultural situation, the more they lose their mono-cultural perspective. They are consciously or unconsciously influenced by the culture they have been living with.[44]
In the Mizo society the ethical term ‘Tlawmngaihna’ is the all time champion ethical principle till today. But this term has never been used in the Mizo Bible translation. H. S. Luaia, the Mizo mother tongue translator, frankly confessed that there is no use of this word in translating Bible. It can be assumed that this is because of the fear of syncretism because its derivation is not religious, but socio-cultural and ethical concern. Tlawmngaihna could mean ‘charity’ or ‘sacrificial love of others.’ The characteristics of word tlawmngaihna and agape (Gk) have similarities though there is no one-to-one equivalent in English.[45] It is not still in use in the latest Mizo version, CL Re-edited (Common Language Re-edited). A question is apparent: what sort of book is the scripture that does not have any use of the tlawmngaihna, which is the all time champion ethical principle of the Mizos? Is it true that this word is not a biblical term or it is not worth for Christian life? Definitely not. We can claim that Jesus was a very tlawmngai man. In other word, Jesus was living the life having tlawmngaihna.
The consequence is that since it has not been used in the Bible till today, this precious moral and ethical principle is gradually waning down because the teaching of the Bible is vital in every aspect of life in Mizoram. We need to raise a question if the mother tongue translators were grabbed by the colonial outlook to depend on English dictionaries or lexicons only. The enduring life as found in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5:39-44), caring the least of the society (Mt. 25:35, 36), loving neighbours as oneself (the second greatest commandment, Mt. 22:39), the characteristics of love according to Paul (1 Cor. 13:4-7) etc. are the nature of tlawmngaihna. All Mizos know this. The only thing lacking is the one-to-one equivalent translation in English, Greek and Hebrew. However, this is one of the most significant teachings of Jesus and Paul.
The mother tongue translators should not solely depend on the English-vernacular dictionaries or Greek/Hebrew-English lexicons. These are all different languages in different times and places with different sense of linguistic taste. Similarities and divergences should be understood all the times for no two languages correspond throughout in their phrases, idioms, grammatical usages and words. Therefore, we cannot appreciate literal translation as the most reliable translation. It sometimes may distort the facts of a language in this type of translation.
Once the complete translation is made it is extremely difficult to change certain words, terms or ideas. The mother tongue translators are, therefore, advised to strip off all the colonial influences especially in translating the Bible. A slight mistake can hurt the sentiment of the people. They have to know that they represent the mass of the people.
7. Linguistic issue in Recension and/or New Translation and/or Re-Translation
a) Modern Language
Some communities do not readily accept modern or common language to translate the Bible. They revere the Bible as holy and sacred that modern or common language does not go well with the holy Bible. They still prefer the old versions as if that is the only inspired one of God. This is current fact in Mizoram today. The latest version, called the CL Re-edited (Common Language Re-edited) has drastic changes in sentence construction, words, etc. Though this version has lot of improvements compare to the older versions majority of Mizos still prefer the previous version, the OV Reference (Old Version). Familiarity of it is one of the causes. The OV Reference is assumed as profound while the CL Re-edited does not sound biblical. One of the most important reasons may be due to the misunderstanding of inspiration of the Bible.
In the general opinion there is an emotion that each and every word, including the punctuation mark is inspired by God that it is unlawful to change it. To these people, the scripture as the ‘inspired word of God’ in 2 Tim. 3:16 is very literal. Although there is no written record yet many people regard that the Mizo Bible is the inspired word or God. They do not tolerate in-depth studies from the original language or from the other English versions (English is widely used in Mizoram). This influence mostly comes from the fulltime evangelistic speakers who lively influence the mass of people. To them, ‘one letter’ or ‘one stroke of a letter’ in Mt. 5:18 and Lk. 16:17 is almost like the punctuation marks and the older verses which they already learned by-heart.
Positively thinking, they prove themselves their seriousness and reverence of the Holy Scripture. They deserve the best translation. In the meantime, introduction of a new and update translation into modern or common language is always appreciated even though the contemporary people have misunderstanding of it. It is useful for those who really want to have a better understanding and for the new generation. It will be accustomed one day.
Another suggestion is to have more awareness on the interpretation of the inspiration of the Scripture. The translators should prepare the minds of the people before providing new translation or recension.
b) Invention or Loanword or literal transliteration
If there is no one-to-one equivalence, it is better for the translators to invent some new words. One of the techniques is by joining two or more words together to have some new sense. The second suggestion, if the first option fails, is borrowing words from the receptor culture’s sister languages or dialects if any. Otherwise, literal transliteration from the original Hebrew or Greek is suggested, but not from the western language.
8. Conclusion
One should not underestimate the efforts and enterprises accomplished by the western missionaries in spreading the Gospel, especially by means of Bible translation. We simply say that these translations are not sufficient for the receptors because of linguistic and cultural gap between the cross cultural translators and the host culture. Therefore, it is suggested that the translator of the Bible should be from within, not from without. They are called the mother tongue translators. Since the mother tongue translators represent the whole people, a heavy burden is shouldered upon them. They are advised to follow horizontal and vertical method of translation. It means that they are highly qualified people. In the meantime, even when the translators are ‘mother tongue translators’ they should be free from the colonial influence in their thought and philosophy. They have to know that what is relevant in the west is not necessarily relevant in their own contexts.
The western or expatriate translators or consultants are also advised not to involve too much in the translation works, especially when there is confusion in settling some special or crucial words. If they want to extend their helping hands the better means may be in terms of funding and supplying materials.
Bibliography
Books and Others
Akosah, Thomas Atta.“The Language Factor in African Christian Mission: Bible Translation and Biblical Interpretation in the Church in Africa Today.” A paper presented in The Bible In Africa Conference Held at the School of Religion and Theology, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg Campus, South Africa Monday 19th – Friday 23rd September 2005.
Frykenberg, Robert Eric. “Christians in India: An Historical Overview of Their Complex Origins.” In Robert Eric Frykenberg, ed. Christians and Missionaries in India: Cross-Cultural Communication since 1500. London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003.
Gravelle, Gilles. “Theological Training and Mother-Tongue Translators.” This paper was given at the BT2007 Conference, 15-17 Oct 2007, hosted by GIAL and SIL International.
Hauhnar, Lalawmpuia. Zofate Hmangaihtu: Zohmangaihi Pa. Aizawl: L. R. Press, 2002.
Hluna, J. V. Mizoram Hmar Bial Missionary-te Chanchin. Aizawl: Synod Literature & Publication Board, 2003.
Lalhmuaka. Zoram Thim Ata Engah. Aizawl: Synod Publication Board, 1988.
Lalthangliana, B. Zosapthara. Aizawl: Mizoram Publication Board, 2003.
Lloyd, J. Meirion. History of the Church in Mizoram (Harvest in the Hills). Aizawl: Synod Publication Board, 1991
Lorrain, J. Herbert. Dictionary of the Lushai Language. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society, [1940], 1975: 513-514.
Moffett, Samuel Hugh. A History of Christianity in Asia: Volume II 1500-1900. Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 2005.
Oommen, George. “Changing Faces of Protestant Christianity in India.” In George Oommen and Hans Raun Iversen, eds. It Began in Copenhagen: Junctions in 300 Years of Indian-Danish Relations in Christian Mission. New Delhi: ISPCK, 2005.
Ralte, Lalhruaitluanga. Zoram Vartian: Chanchin Tha leh Thuziak Khaw Var Tan Dan. Aizawl: Finerprints, 2008.
Vanlalchhuanawma. Christianity and Subaltern Culture: Revival Movement as a Cultural Response to Westernisation in Mizoram. Delhi: ISPCK, 2006.
Zairema. Kan Bible Hi. Kolkata: Author, 2003.
Journals
Bivin, William E. “Mother-Tongue Translations and Contextualization in Latin America.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research. Vol. 34, no. 2, April, 2010: 72-76.
Hill, Harriet. “The Effects of Using Local and Non-Local Terms in Mother-Tongue cripture.” Missiology: An International Review. Vol. XXXV, no. 4, Oct, 2007: 383-396.
Kumbirai, J. C. “The Shona Bible Translation: the Work of the Revd. Michael Hannan, S. J.” Zambezia 2 (1), 1979: 61-74.
Pilch, John J. “Improving Bible Translations: The Example of Sickness and Healing.” Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 2000 30: 129-134.
Pleasants, Phyllis Rodgerson. “Beyond Translation: The Work of the Judsons in Burma.” Baptist History and Heritage 42 no. 2 Spring 2007: 19-35.
Reyburn, William D. “Bible Translations 1969-1972.” Ecumenical Review, 26 no 1 Jan. 1974: 127-130.
Thomas, Kenneth J. “Allah in Translations of the Bible.” The Bible Translator: Technical Papers. Vol. 52:3 (July 2001): 302-305.
Togarasei, Lovemore. “The Shona Bible and the Politics of Bible Translation.” Studies in World Christianity, 15/1, 2009, 51-64.
Unpublished Materials
Rinchamliana. The History of the Mizo Bible Translation from 1897 to 1956: A Postcolonial Appraisal. MTh Thesis, Senate of Serampore, 2010.
Ronghinga, C. Bible Lehlin Chanchin [History of Bible Translation], unpublished material.
Online Sources
Brant, Robin. Kuala Lumpur, “Malaysia Reverses Allah Paper Ban.” BBC News, 30 December 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7164872.stm (9th Oct., 2010, 10:49 pm).
“Malaysia ‘Allah’ Ban Overturned: Court Says Government's Ban on Non-Muslim Publications Using Word is Illegal.” http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2010/01/20101114114404185.html (9th Oct., 2010, 10:55 pm).
[1] John J. Pilch, “Improving Bible Translations: The Example of Sickness and Healing,” Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 2000 30: 129.
[2] Robert Eric Frykenberg, “Christians in India: An Historical Overview of Their Complex Origins” in Robert Eric Frykenberg, ed., Christians and Missionaries in India: Cross-Cultural Communication since 1500 (London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 48-9.
[3] Harriet Hill, “The Effects of Using Local and Non-Local Terms in Mother-Tongue Scripture,” Missiology: An International Review, vol. XXXV, no. 4, Oct, 2007: 385.
[4] Phyllis Rodgerson Pleasants, “Beyond Translation: The Work of the Judsons in Burma,” Baptist History and Heritage 42 no. 2 Spring 2007, 34, endnote no. 12.
[5] William D. Reyburn, “Bible Translations 1969-1972,” A report by William D. Reyburn, editor of The Bible Translator, to the General Committee of the United Bible Societies, Ecumenical Review, 26 no 1 Jan. 1974, 127.
[6] The founder of Summer Institute of Linguistics (Ghana).
[7] Ruth A. Tucker, From Jerusalem to Iran Jaya: A Biographical History of Christian Missions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 357, quoted in Thomas Atta-Akosah, “The Language Factor in African Christian Mission: Bible Translation and Biblical Interpretation in the Church in Africa Today,” a paper presented in The Bible In Africa Conference Held at the School of Religion and Theology, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg Campus, South Africa Monday 19th – Friday 23rd September 2005, 13.
[8] Quoted in Gilles Gravelle, “Theological Training and Mother-Tongue Translators.” This paper was given at the BT2007 Conference, 15-17 Oct 2007, hosted by GIAL and SIL International, 5.
[9] The Shona language is spoken by over ten million people in Zimbabwe and some parts of Mozambique, Botswana and Zambia. Cf. Lovemore Togarasei, “The Shona Bible and the Politics of Bible Translation,” Studies in World Christianity, 15/1, 2009, 51.
[10] Fr. Hannan was a man who had studied his Shona extremely well and had acquired an enormous vocabulary and a deep knowledge of Shona linguistic and syntactic structures; and it was the accumulation of such knowledge that enabled him to produce a first-class Shona dictionary. Equipped with such knowledge, he was also able to leave behind him a translation of the New Testament that is treasured by many…cf. J. C. Kumbirai, “The Shona Bible Translation: the Work of the Revd. Michael Hannan, S. J,” Zambezia 2 (1), 1979: 61.
[11] Kumbirai, Zambezia 2 (1), 61
[12] Kumbirai, Zambezia 2 (1), 62.
[13] George Oommen, “Changing Faces of Protestant Christianity in India” in George Oommen and Hans Raun Iversen, eds., It Began in Copenhagen: Junctions in 300 Years of Indian-Danish Relations in Christian Mission (New Delhi: ISPCK, 2005), 21.
[14] Samuel Hugh Moffett, A History of Christianity in Asia: Volume II 1500-1900 (Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 2005), 430.
[15] Vanlalchhuanawma, Christianity and Subaltern Culture: Revival Movement as a Cultural Response to Westernisation in Mizoram (Delhi: ISPCK, 2006), 98. The Presbyterian Church of Mizoram still celebrates their arrival day as Missionary Day.
[16] J. V. Hluna, Mizoram Hmar Bial Missionary-te Chanchin (Aizawl: Synod Literature & Publication Board, 2003), 13.
[17] C. Ronghinga, Bible Lehlin Chanchin [History of Bible Translation], unpublished material.
[18] See Lalhruaitluanga Ralte, Zoram Vartian: Chanchin Tha leh Thuziak Khaw Var Tan Dan (Aizawl: Finerprints, 2008), 208f.
[19] Rinchamliana’s interview with Rev. Z. T. Sangkhuma, 29th August 2009, Rinchamliana, The History of the Mizo Bible Translation from 1897 to 1956: A Postcolonial Appraisal (MTh Thesis, Senate of Serampore, 2010).
[20] The words of Lorrain to his fellow missionaries affirmed this. F. J. Sandy a Welsh missionary to the north of Mizoram in 1914 reported in his letter to the Welsh Missionary Society secretary:
...in 1914 if I remember rightly-Mr. Lorrain asked Mr. Jones and me to agree to his taking over the work of revising the New Testament… Mr. Lorrain asked that the translation of the Scriptures might be considered his own special work. He said that he had been appointed to do this work by his society, and that he felt an inner prompting to give his time chiefly, if not altogether, to it. In view of Mr. Lorrain’s pressing request, and as at that time it was not possible in North Lushai to give much attention to the work of translation, the arrangement was agreed to. Cf. J. Meirion Lloyd, History of the Church in Mizoram (Harvest in the Hills) (Aizawl: Synod Publication Board, 1991), 166.
[21] Kumbirai, Zambezia 2 (1), 62.
[22] Rinchamliana, The History of the Mizo Bible Translation, 12.
[23] Parallel Bible (Colorado: Colorado Spring, 2010). Proverbs, the Book of Psalms and the New Testament are translated and the NKJV is used as a parallel version.
[24] Lovemore Togarasei, “The Shona Bible and the Politics of Bible Translation,” Studies in World Christianity, 15/1, 2009, 55.
[25] For instance, the terms used in the Adioukrou Bible for God is Nyam. Nyam was the highest of the divinities. He had a wife and children. Although he ruled the world, he was distant, uninvolved in the daily affairs of life, accessible only through intermediaries such as ancestors and other divinities. He was not thought of as a creator God, because people never questioned the existence of the world. Nyam has been used by the Adioukrou for God in the Bible since 1915 when they were evangelized by the Prophet William Wade Harris. From then, Nyam is perceived to be a creator God, attentive to the prayers of people, ready to respond. People pray to him directly and often, asking for his help in the affairs of daily life. His children and wife have been relegated to folk tales. Harriet Hill, “The Effects of Using Local and Non-Local Terms in Mother-Tongue Scripture,” Missiology: An International Review, vol. XXXV, no. 4, Oct, 2007: 385.
[26] Personal objection to the assimilation of the indigenous deities by the Christian God can be seen in Dorah Mbuvayesango, “How Local Divine Powers were Suppressed: A Case of Mwari of the Shona,” in Musa W. Dube (ed.), Other Ways of Reading the Bible: African Women and the Bible (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 67, quoted in Togarasei, Studies in World Christianity, 15/1, 58.
[27] The government had threatened to refuse to give the Weekly Herald a publishing permit if it continued to use the word Allah. The paper’s editor said the word had long been used by Christians to refer to God in the Malay language. The ruling was immediately condemned by civil rights and Christian groups in Malaysia, who said it infringed their right to practice their religion. In a fax to the Herald’s editor, the government says it will get its 2008 permit, with no conditions attached. But Malaysia’s internal security department demanded the word be removed, saying only Muslims could use it. Cf. Robin Brant, Kuala Lumpur, “Malaysia Reverses Allah Paper Ban,” BBC News, 30 December 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7164872.stm (9th Oct., 2010, 10:49 pm).
[28] “Malaysia ‘Allah’ Ban Overturned: Court Says Government's Ban on Non-Muslim Publications Using Word is Illegal,” http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2010/01/20101114114404185.html (9th Oct., 2010, 10:55 pm).
[29] Kenneth J. Thomas, “Allah in Translations of the Bible,” The Bible Translator: Technical Papers, vol. 52:3 (July 2001), 302.
[30] H. A. R. Gibb & J. H. Kramers, Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974), 33; René Dussaud, Les Arabes en Syrie avant l’Islam (Paris, Ernest Leroux, 1907), pp. 141f.; A. Baumstark, “Das problem eines vorislamischen christlichen-kirchlichen Schrifttums in Arabischer Sprache,” Islamica 4 (1929/1930): 562-567, quoted in K. J. Thomas, The Bible Translator: Technical Papers, vol. 52:3 (July 2001), 301.
[31] K. J. Thomas, The Bible Translator: Technical Papers, vol. 52:3 (July 2001), 304.
[32] B. Lalthangliana, Zosapthara (Aizawl: Mizoram Publication Board, 2003), 74.
[33] Lalhmuaka, Zoram Thim Ata Engah (Aizawl: Synod Publication Board, 1988), 98.
[34] Lalawmpuia Hauhnar, Zofate Hmangaihtu: Zohmangaihi Pa (Aizawl: L. R. Press, 2002), 60.
[35] Zairema, Kan Bible Hi (Kolkata: Author, 2003), 170.
[36] William E. Bivin, “Mother-Tongue Translations and Contextualization in Latin America,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research, vol. 34, no. 2, April, 2010, 75.
[37] Pleasants, “Beyond Translation: The Work of the Judsons in Burma,” 25.
[38] Pe Maung Tin (4 April 1888 – 22 March 1973) was a scholar of Pali and Buddhism and educator in Myanmar, formerly Burma.
[39] Pe Maung Tin, "Certain Factors in the Buddhist-Christian Encounter," The SE Asia Journal of Theology, 3, no 2 (October 1961): 27-28, quoted in Pleasants, “Beyond Translation: The Work of the Judsons in Burma,” 21.
[40] Pleasants, “Beyond Translation: The Work of the Judsons in Burma,” 20.
[41] Pleasants, “Beyond Translation: The Work of the Judsons in Burma,” 21.
[42] Pleasants, “Beyond Translation: The Work of the Judsons in Burma,” 21.
[43] Gravelle, “Theological Training and Mother-Tongue Translators,” 5.
[44] Gravelle, “Theological Training and Mother-Tongue Translators,” 5.
[45] Lorrain attempted as to self-sacrifice, unselfish, self-denying, persevering, stoical, stout-hearted, plucky, brave, firm, independent; loath to lose one’s good reputation, prestige etc. Cf. J. Herbert Lorrain, Dictionary of the Lushai Language (Calcutta: The Asiatic Society, [1940], 1975), 513-514.
No comments:
Post a Comment