An Intercultural Criticism of NT Translations

Extracted text from An_Intercultural_Criticism_of_New_Testament_Translations.pdf:

AN INTERCULTURAL CRITICISM OF NEW TESTAMENT TRANSLATIONS Jean-Claude Loba-Mkole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University of Pretoria South Africa lobamkolejeanclaude@gmail.com

Abstract: The aim of this study is to show similarities and differences between Greek and Swahili texts of the New Testament, especially at the lexical, morphological, syntactic, and semantic levels. It uses an intercultural approach that compares Greek, Latin, and Swahili texts, and argues that there is a great deal of similarity between the Greek and the Swahili languages at the grammatical level, except for the Greek deponent form, which has no formal equivalent in Swahili. One of the most striking lexical findings concerns the mismatch between the Greek form of Jesuss name and its Latin or Swahili translations. Both Latin and Swahili do not have formal articles, while the Greek language uses them even before proper names. The original, authentic, and meaningful form of Jesuss name is the Hebrew or Aramaic , or (he saves). The Latin Iesus and the Swahili Yesu/Yezu stand as correspondent transliterations of the meaningless Greek . In a Latin Church culture, the meaning of a proper name in itself may not be that important, but in the Swahili target culture a proper name is bound to be meaningful and informative through its own wording. Consequently, the Swahili Yehoshua or Yeshua would be a more considerate rendering of Jesuss name in view of the target culture frame and that of the most original biblical culture.

______________ I. Introduction The New Testament was written in common Greek, and from the very first days of Christianity the NT has been translated into other languages, for the benefit of people not acquainted with the Hellenic language. This work of translation continues till today (Caragounis 2011). A translation inevitably involves a lower or higher degree of equivalence and transgression between the target text and its source (Engler 2007, 308). In other words, there is nothing that can be translated perfectly (i.e. a certain degree of mismatch is unavoidable), and there is nothing that cannot be translated (i.e. a certain degree of equivalence, representation, or adequacy is possible).

95

translation / fall / 2013

This study uses an intercultural approach that will be defined later on. The aim is to show similarities and differences between the Greek, Latin, and Swahili texts of the New Testament for the sake of a better understanding of some specific Swahili renderings. Due to space restrictions, only few examples have been taken at random to highlight similarities or differences at lexical, morphological, syntactic, and semantic levels. These examples involve some basic issues and therefore are important for a fair comparison between the languages and cultures concerned. Without claiming to be exhaustive, this paper illustrates certain linguistic patterns that substantiate how the Greek, Swahili, and Latin languages might operate differently, though they are ultimately able to communicate the same message through similar but not necessarily corresponding categories. The awareness of such lexical, grammatical, and semantic similarities and dissimilarities can help a translator avoid imposing some particular features of a given language upon another one. For this study, the Greek texts are taken from the Greek New Testament edited by the United Bible Societies (2008), while the Swahili gloss texts come from a GreekSwahili NT Interlinear (2009). This Interlinear also includes the literal Swahili Union Version Revised (SUVR) and the common language Biblia Habari Njema (BHN 2006). These two Swahili Bible versions appear to be the most widely read in Tanzania and Kenya, where the use of the standard Swahili is largely promoted. They also have the same publisher as the GreekSwahili NT Interlinear (GSNTI), namely the Bible Societies of Tanzania and Kenya. Some cases of dissimilarity between the three Swahili renderings will be pointed out as part of an internal dialogue within a same contemporary culture. This shows that an intercultural mediation does not take place only between external cultures. Furthermore, internal dialogues befit both a horizontal and a vertical interculturality since the same culture can produce many contemporary versions (horizontality) as well as several versions from different generations (verticality). A study of vertical interculturality will also be interact with Latin texts of the Vulgate (VUL). Mediations between external cultures and internal sub-cultures may certainly reveal things that we did not know or which we had chosen to forget (Bringhurst 2007, 302). 96

translation / fall / 2013

This study consists of two major parts, namely, the presentation of the underlying methodological framework and a consideration of some translation issues. The overall findings are expected to contribute towards consolidating a more constructive dialogue not only among the distinct Greek, Latin and Swahili texts of the New Testament, but also among some different Swahili NT texts.

II. Contextual and Methodological Frameworks 1. Eugene Nidas Legacy in Bible Translation What is translation? There have been many theories and applications of translation with an emphasis either on literal renditions or meaning-based renderings. In the history of Bible translation, Eugene Nida (assisted by Charles Taber) seems to have been the first to elaborate a functional equivalence where ideally both original form and meaning have to be communicated so that the target audience can experience the same impact as if it were for the original audience. In this perspective, translation consists of reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the SL message, in terms of meaning and style (Nida and Taber 1969, 12). This functional approach remains the first milestone in the conceptualization of Bible translation work since translators of the Septuagint, Coptic New Testament or Vulgate did not produce such theory, even if they share a preference for common language translation. In other words, common language translation did not start with Nida, nor will it end with him, yet his peculiar contribution resides in the theorization of this approach under the name functional approach. Besides, Nidas translation method has been institutionalized by the United Bible Societies and widely adopted by other Bible translation agencies. Continually nurtured and supported by Nida and translation teams, this approach has been spreading all over the world since the 1960s. For example, Nida led the first translation seminar in Kinshasa in 1965 and, along with the Bible Society of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, launched projects for availing common language Bible translations in the Lingala, Kongo, Tshiluba, Swahili, Luba, Uruund, and Songye languages. In spite of their worldwide success, some common language translations did not rigorously convey Nidas view of keeping the balance 97

translation / fall / 2013

between the content and form, as they pushed more for meaningbased translations at the expense of the form. A second important contribution from Nida was that of maintaining the translation focus on specific target audiences. His target audiences included both ordinary and scholarly communities, but each had to be provided with an appropriate product. With Nida, Bible translation becomes itself a missionary, ecumenical, and scholarly endeavor. With Nida, a specific focus is placed on the language accessible to the youth, women, and non-Christians, as they constitute the majority of ordinary people in many countries. As for academic audience, Nida initiated or promoted projects that produced scholarly works such as the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the Greek New Testament, the journal The Bible Translator, and numerous translators guides. Unlike some of the great Bible translators such as the Septuagint translators (third century B.C.E.), Ulfila (311383), Jerome (340420), Martin Luther (14831546), King James Bible translators (sixteenthseventeenth century), Louis Second (18101885), Samuel Ajayi Crowther (18091891), and others who translated the Bible themselves but without a very elaborate theory of translation, Nidas significant contribution to Bible translation does not relate to the translation of a particular Bible. He excelled, rather, in translation consultancy and theorization, which led to many Bible products. Nida became a well known name in the fields of both translation studies and Bible translation, with positive, constructive, and even controversial influence (Gentzler 1993, 4; Mojola and Wendland 2003, 1; Porter 2009, 117 118; Stine 2005, 7; Stine 2012, 38). Nonetheless, Nida remains in a binary model involving the source text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartentia or the Greek New Testament) and the target text (the translated text in making), with less emphasis on any church canonized translation. According to the intercultural approach, the latter is an integral part of triple frame of reference. This view on the Church culture is lacking not only in Nidas functional equivalence, but also in other competitive models such as Ernst Gutts Relevance Theory, Katarina Reiss, Hans J. Vermeer, Justa Holz-Mantarri, Christiane Nords Functionalist Theory, and Ernst Wendlands LiteraryFunctional Equivalence (See Mojola and Wendland 2003, 125; Loba-Mkole 2008, 253266). A concrete application of a functionalist translation is provided by Berger and Nord (1999). 98

translation / fall / 2013

2. Intercultural Approach to Bible Translations An intercultural approach to biblical exegesis or to Bible translation studies can fill in the gap that has been widening between these two disciplines. As Porter and Hess (1999, 13) put it: The translation and understanding of the Bible, whether by rendering it in the vernacular or through careful study of the original languages in which it was written, is an essential step in study and interpretation of the text. For this reason, it is surprising that more studies are not devoted to the question involved in the process and the final product.

99

translation / fall / 2013

Intercultural mediation is a dialogical process that involves not only literary works but also artistic symbols and human beings who ensure the transmission of the biblical text from an original culture to a contemporary one, including the critically assessed heritage of a church culture (See Loba-Mkole 2004a, 3758; 2004b, 79115; 2005a, 5880; 2005b, 291326; 2007, 3968; 2008, 253 266; 2012). Here, culture is to be understood not only as an artistic component of a society but mainly as a totality of a human experience in a given time and space. It is never holistically apprehended at once and for all, but it allows itself to be progressively accessed through languages and texts. The concept of cultural or cross-cultural mediation in not new in translation studies, however intercultural mediation as developed in this study needs some clarification. Intercultural involves a relation between two or more cultures while mediation evokes the idea of a representation. In that sense, a translated Bible is a representation of two or more cultures: a source-text culture, a target-text culture, and a church culture (the latter is expected to be sensitive to both Christian and non-Christian audiences). Even if intercultural mediation is less known in biblical exegesis, it can be argued that an exegetical study is a representation of the source-text culture, a church culture, and a target audience culture. The peculiarities of intercultural mediations are stated below for the sake of a general overview; further details can emerge when this method is being applied in other works of Scripture translation or exegesis. It is worthwhile noting that intercultural mediation could also refer to a process, a product or a criticism (analysis, study) based on that approach. Research on this methodlike the current papercan fall under the category

of an intercultural criticism, analysis, or study, while a work that applies this method to interpret and/or translate the Scripture can be called an intercultural exegesis or intercultural translation (LobaMkole 2004a; 2004b; 2005a). Intercultural process involves the use of peculiar features of this method in order to deliver a relevant product or criticism. For example, an intercultural process was used in producing the New Testament in Lari and Beembe languages of Congo-Brazzaville, respectively in 2005 and 2013. In both projects, the final product is a translated text negotiated between the Greek New Testament (representing an original biblical culture), the Vulgate (representing a church culture), and the Lari or Beembe language (representing a contemporary culture). At the level of contemporary culture, horizontal interculturality was applied in the sense that some of the present-day translations in French and Lingala were consulted. Models of intercultural exegesis have been offered by Ukpong (1996), Matand (1998), Cilumba (2001), Manus (2003) and Loba-Mkole (2010, 2013) among others. Intercultural method is applicable to both exegesis and translation; hence its contribution to reducing the gap that some approaches have created between exegesis and translation. Intercultural mediation takes into account a triple frame of reference: the original biblical culture, church culture, and a contemporary target culture. Languages play an important role in the expression and understanding of those cultures. The original biblical culture is accessible through the languages in which the biblical texts were originally written (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). Similarly, a church culture or a contemporary culture avails itself through its particular languages, such as Latin for the Roman Catholic Church culture or Swahili for an African contemporary target culture. In view of Ethnologue data, Swahili is spoken by approximately 100 million people living in Tanzania, Kenya, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Mozambique, Zambia, Malawi, South Africa, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Canada, the United States of America, and possibly other parts of the world (Mulokozi 2008; Lewis, Simons and Fennig 2013). Intercultural mediation operates with a triple epistemological privilege; that is, the epistemological privilege is granted not only to the contemporary audience (contra Ukpong 2002, 62; Tamez 100

translation / fall / 2013

101

translation / fall / 2013

2002a, 10; 2002b, 58), but also to all three sets of cultures involved. The unique epistemological privilege of canonicity is given to the original biblical cultures because they contain authoritative books for ruling in matters of faith and conduct. The unique privilege of elderliness is conferred to the church cultures because on the one hand they shape the original biblical cultures through the fixation of the biblical canons, and on the other they spiritually engender their target contemporary cultures through the evangelization ministry. The unique epistemological privilege of liveliness is bestowed upon the target contemporary cultures because they revitalize both the original biblical cultures and the church cultures. In other words, the target contemporary cultures are the only ones presently active and who are responsible for improving their own lives while connecting the past, the present, and the future. By definition, an epistemological task refers to intellectual and practical efforts which have to be deployed for the attainment of knowledge (See van Aarde 1994, 584; Loba-Mkole 2005b, 298; Pym 2007, 195). According to Arduini, translation epistemology is a rhizome where knowledge is the point where the rhizomes roots cross and overlap and make paths (Arduini 2004, 9). For intercultural mediation, the rhizome of knowledge is located at the junction of paths from the original biblical cultures, church cultures critically assessed, and the target contemporary cultures. After that junction, the journey has to continue on the road of the target contemporary cultures, leading to the future. Intercultural mediation embraces three epistemological values: a target culture worldview (what is valuable is that which promotes life), a message from the historical Jesus (what is valuable is that which concurs with a message of the historical Jesus), and a Christian culture value (what is valuable is that which is in consonance with the Churchs critically assessed culture). In terms of ethical values, intercultural mediation includes accuracy to the original culture (ethics of accurate representation), loyalty to the current target culture (ethics of service), and honesty toward a critically assessed church culture (ethics of transparency). Intercultural mediation integrates a triple cultural scope: current cultural locations of the mediator, horizontal cultures, and vertical cultures. Current cultural locations of the mediator consist of diverse situations in which the mediator lives. The horizontal

intercultural scope deals with the experiences between neighboring cultures and the target culture, while the vertical intercultural scope applies to the interplay between the present target culture and its past, as well as its future. As a matter of fact, each of the triple cultural scope shapes the mind of the mediator, and their viewpoints need to be clearly spelled out to avoid confusions on the one hand and pave the way for genuine harmony on the other (See Akper 2006, 111; August 2006, 1218; Jonker 2006, 19-28). The originality of the intercultural biblical mediations resides in its triple frame of reference, triple epistemological privilege, triple epistemological value, and triple cultural scope. Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind that an intercultural mediation requires the practitioner to be creative in order to invent points of agreement between the cultures concerned. For van Binsbergen Intercultural communication is always transgressive, innovative, subject to bricolage. Genuine differences [] can only be reconciled in dialogue, love, seduction, trade, diplomacy, therapy, ritual, ethnography and intercultural philosophy in an innovative way [] that is not compellingly imposed. (van Binsbergen 2003, 516)

Even without being exhaustive regarding each aspect of an intercultural mediation, the present paper envisions to promote intercultural approach to both exegesis and translation, viewed as two distinct yet integral parts of the same interpretive endeavor.

III. Translation issues in Swahili Renderings of the Greek New Testament The Greek New Testament is a set of theological books. One may raise the question whether the Swahili language is able to express this set of theological ideas. Such a question assumes that the Greek language has more epistemological privilege than the Swahili language, which from intercultural perspective is not the case. The epistemological privilege of the Greek language of the New Testament is limited to the original biblical culture, which it shares with Hebrew and Aramaic, while the epistemological privilege of the Swahili language is limited to its contemporary target audience, which it shares with various local and international languages. The Swahili language cannot take the place of the Greek 102

translation / fall / 2013

language in the original biblical culture, nor can the Greek replace Swahili in the target culture. Each language is unique and irreplaceable in its own symbolic world. Each expresses the theological ideas of the New Testament books in a unique way, yet with a great deal of similarity. None of the two languages is theological in itself, except when argued from an incarnation perspective whereby Jesus Christ is confessed as the Son of God who became human. But in this case every human language (including Greek and Swahili) is theological because Jesus shared his divine nature with all human conditions, except sin. Succinctly, the content or ideas of the New Testament books remain theological, but not the languages through which those ideas are expressed (Greek or Swahili). These languages are human though they have acquired theological status through the incarnation of the Son of God and by the virtue of communicating theological ideas. Nevertheless, this paper focuses on the similarity and dissimilarity of the Greek and Swahili languages with regard to the New Testament texts since the linguistic patterns of each of them constitute a significant vehicle for theological ideas. Language patterns seem to confirm that there is no language that has inbuilt theological words. Theological ideas are, rather, expressed through human languages like any type of human knowledge even if each science can develop a specific terminology. 1. Contrastive features with regard to idiomatic expressions Contrastive features will be examined based on the UBS Greek New Testament (GNT), the Vulgate (VUL) and the three Swahili versions: Swahili Union Version Revised (SUVR), Biblia Habari Njema (BHN) and Greek-Swahili NT Interlinear (GSNTI). SUVR represents a formal sub-culture, while BHN and GSNTI stand for a common language sub-culture and a scholarly sub-culture, respectively. It is obvious that Greek idioms cannot be rendered literally into Swahili. For example GSNTI and SUVR render in Matthew 3:8 with zaeni basi matunda (produce then fruits) instead of fanyeni basi tunda (make then fruit). In addition to the idiomatic rendering of by zaeni, the Greek accusative singular is rendered in Swahili by the plural matunda (fruits), since naturalness in Swahili cannot tolerate the literal fanyeni tunda (make fruit). BHN reads Onesheni 103

translation / fall / 2013

kwa vitendo (show by actions). Interestingly, the literal fanyeni tunda, avoided by the three Swahili versions, corresponds to the VUL rendering facite ergo fructum (make therefore fruit). In addition, in Matthew 6:2 is translated in SUVR with utoapo sadaka (as you give alms), while BHN translates it with unaposaidia maskini (as you help the poor), and GSNTI has ukitoa sadaka (when you give alms). All three Swahili versions agree not to literally render the idiom with fanya sadaka (do or make alms): SUVR and GSNT replace the verb fanya with toa, since the latter fits better with the word sadaka in this context. BHN chooses a Swahili idiomatic equivalent (unaposaidia maskini). VUL has cum ergo facies elemosynam (as you then make an alm). These examples show that the same Greek verb ( + noun) can be rendered by different Swahili equivalents: zaa (produce), toa (give), and even saidia (help) when it is accompanied by . VUL constantly uses the equivalent facere even where the context supports an idiomatic meaning. 2. Contrastive features with regards to lexical items There is no perfect equivalence between certain Greek terms and Swahili because of the differences at the syntactical level or word order in a sentence. For example, the Greek lexicon includes a gender system (M/F/N), where nouns are also categorized as being definite, indefinite, or neutral. The gender is often enhanced by the presence of an article, though an anarthrous use of a noun does not affect its gender. In contrast, the Swahili lexicography is characterized by noun class system which determines whether a noun belongs to the category of human beings, animals, nature, inanimate things, abstract things, etc. While the gender of a Greek noun defines the gender of the qualifying article and adjective, the class of a Swahili noun determines the form of the affix of the adjective and verb. Furthermore, it has to be noted that even if Swahili does not have articles, it can express the definiteness by means of an elaborate demonstrative system. The Greek (in + anarthrous beginning), (definite article the + the noun word) as well as the anarthrous (god) in John 1:1 have all been rendered respectively as katika mwanzo (in beginning) or hapo mwanzo (there in be104

translation / fall / 2013

ginning), neno (word) and mungu (god). As is to be expected for a language that has no explicit articles, all the three Swahili versions render a Greek noun with or without the article in a same way (mwanzo for , neno for , and mungu or Mungu for ). Nevertheless, GSNTI gives mungu in lower case as does GNT, while SUVR and BHN both give Mungu with upper case. However, they use a lower case where GNT has an upper case in John 10:34: (nyinyi ni miungu, you are gods). VUL capitalizes the equivalent of (Verbum, Word) and (Deus), but it uses a lower case for the capital letter of (dii estis, you are gods). The word is not a proper name, but a common noun which has both singular and plural forms. It should not be capitalized everywhere as if it were a proper name, as SUVR, BHN and VUL have done. Similarly, it should not be written with a lower case where GNT has an upper case (John 10:34, contra SUVR, BHN, and VUL). The exegetical and translation debate around the absence of the article before (beginning) and (God) in John 1:1 is almost irrelevant from the perspective of Swahili language syntax. Nonetheless, the absolute or relative meaning of and can be determined from the context (Wallace, 1996). But, the vocative case of the Greek article in Colossians 3:184:1, also known as vocative span (Young 1994, 253), is conveyed in Swahili by a personal pronoun as shown in the following (Colossians 3:18; 4:1): Enyi You , wake, wives, Tiini obey to the waume husbands

, Enyi mabwana, haki na You masters, the just and the

adili watumishi watendeeni fair to the slaves do

105

translation / fall / 2013

GSNTI uses enyi where SUVR has nyinyi. BHN alternates nyinyi and nanyi, which is a shorter form of na nyinyi (and you), but the addition of na (and) seems to be superfluous. Nyinyi can be used for personal pronoun, second person plural, nominative and vocative cases, but enyi is strictly used for the

vocative, second person plural. It is worth noting that enyi or nyinyi covers both Greek feminine and masculine forms because Swahili does not have a gender system. Since Latin has no articles, VUL does not represent them, but the meaning of the Greek vocative is conveyed by the correspondent Latin vocative (mulieres subditae estote, wives, be submissive; domini quod iustum est et aequum servis praestate, masters exhibit to your servants what is just and equal). A Swahili reader who is accustomed to interact with the New Testament through European languages such as English, French, and others may be surprised to see that the Greek uses articles even before proper names (e.g. , the Jesus) while these languages use them only before common names. The Greek form has no meaning, while the Hebrew or Aramaic or means he saves. In Bantu culture a personal name is meaningful; can a Bantu language like Swahili continue translating a meaningless Greek form of the meaningful Hebrew name of Jesus and others? From the perspectives of Semitic languages, the Swahili rendering of Jesuss name would not be Yesu (a mere Swahili transliteration of the Greek form), but rather Yehoshua or Yeshua. Unfortunately, the GSNTI, SUVR and BHN have all used Yesu, which is similar to the Latin transliteration Iesu (VUL). Another lexical issue concerns the phrase (the son of the man). SUVR translates it as Mwana wa Adamu (son/daughter of Adam), whereas BHN renders it Mwana wa Mtu (a Son/daughter of Human Person), GSNTI mwana wa mtu (son/daughter of human person), and VUL Filius hominis (Son of man). In many occurrences, this phrase records Jesuss self-designation. On those grounds, VUL might be right in using the upper case only for Filius which begins the whole phrase but not for hominis. In the Swahili language, the expressions mwana wa mtu, mwana wa adamu, whether in upper or lower case, refer unmistakably to any indefinite female or male human being. First, the word mtu (a human being) belongs to the noun class of human beings; secondly, the genitive marker wa (of) associates mwana (daughter or son) with mtu to indicate where she or he belongs. However, the NT phrase mwana wa mtu refers to a male because it translates the GNT phrase of mas106

translation / fall / 2013

107

translation / fall / 2013

culine gender . On that basis, the Swahili mwana wa mtu can be understood not as daughter of a human being, but more precisely as a son of a man. The phrase , like the case of or , is not a proper name but a common name which has its plural form in (see Mark 3:28) as well as an anarthrous form (John 5:27; Revelation 1:13; 14:14). Furthermore, the Swahili phrase mwana wa mtu, whether it applies to a female, male, or both has an idiomatic meaning of a human being. The strange double determinative (definite article + genitive) in the word (the son of the man) has led the majority of New Testament scholars to insist on the titular use of this expression, which is reflected in SUVR and BHN through capitalization. An argument based on articles will not work in Swahili, though the latter can still indicate definiteness with regard to a word which is qualified by an article in the source language (LobaMkole 2000, 563; 2003, 853; 2010, 125127; Casey 2007, 319). In the Masoretic text, ben adam in Ezekiel occurs ninety-three times, whereas the Aramaic only appears in Dan 7:13. The Septuagint has rendered both expressions with , which means a man, a human being. Nevertheless, a great number of biblical scholars consider the son of man in Daniel as the most sublime messianic conception that the Bible offers since he seems to be not a collective character, but a transcendent Messiah with heavenly and divine features (Feuillet 1975, 478; Kuzenzama1990, 19 and 76; Mulholland 1999, 187). Some extrabiblical writings (1 Enoch 4671; 4 Ezra 13:3) have been brought forward to support the expectation of the Messianic Son of man in Judaism. However, this interpretation goes far beyond literary evidence. The most persuasive view is that the Danielic son of man is a symbolic expression which refers not to an individual messianic figure, but to the people of Israel. They are represented by a human figure that anticipates the kingdom of God while other kingdoms have been compared to beasts (Hampel 1990, 32, 42, and 63). This view is shared by some exegetes, such as Leivestad (1972, 244; 1982, 234), Bietenhard (1982, 337), Coppens (1983, 111), Haag (1993, 167) and Koch (1993, 84), among others. Philological research attributes three understandings to , namely the generic sense (every human being), the indefinite

sense (someone), and the circumlocutional sense of the first person personal pronoun (I). At all levels, it refers to a human being in the third or the first person (auto-reference). There are three types of auto-designation conveyed by the phrase son of man: exclusive auto-designation (when the speaker refers to himself alone); the inclusive auto-designation (when the speaker refers to himself and to all other human beings); and the idiomatic auto-designation (when the speaker refers to himself and to a class of persons he associates with) (Lindars 1983, 2324). On linguistic grounds, the phrase refers to a human being without implying any divine or messianic connotation. In the history of religions, there is no convincing evidence indicating that this expression bore a divine or messianic meaning that could account for its titular use. Nonetheless, Jesus of Nazareth is the only religious and historical leader who is recorded as someone who used this phrase to refer to himself, not for revealing his divine nature but to confirm his human nature. Moreover, no church confesses Jesuss divinity through this expression. The Swahili phrase mwana wa mtu (GSNTI) is not a literal equivalent but an accurate rendering of the Greek and in the sense of a human being. The difference between the source and the target terms pertains to the fact the Greek phrase is a masculine gender referring to a male human being while the Swahili rendering is gender-inclusive. The Latin filius hominis also has its own peculiarity. While filius is a masculine gender, hominis (homo) can be gender-inclusive like the Swahili mtu, but generally it cannot refer to a female human being alone (as per the Greek ), whereas the Swahili mtu can do so. 3. Swahili Equivalents of Greek Moods, Tenses, Voices, and Aspects The Swahili particle na is used to represent the Greek indicative mood, present tense, active voice, as in the following example (Matthew 3:11): ninawabatiza I you baptize kwa in maji water

translation / fall / 2013

108

GSNT and SUVR have both the form ninawabatiza (I baptize you), while BHN records ninawabatizeni, where the ending ni emphasizes the plural form of the verb complement. This emphasis can be left out without affecting the plural form of the verb complement wa, which is a personal pronoun in second person plural. Ninawabatiza and ninawatizeni are both accurate renderings of the same . However, this example displays the remarkable agglutinative character of the Swahili language, where the personal pronoun subject ni, the tense marker na, the personal pronoun object wa, and the verb stem batiza are expressed with a single word (ni-na-wa-batiza). VUL has ego quidem vos baptizo (I indeed baptize you), adding an extra personal pronoun ego (I) to the one included in the verb baptizo (I baptize). Another particular feature of the Swahili verb pertains to the use of the particle hu (not translatable in English) at the beginning of a verb in the present active indicative to show a habitual action (Matthew 8:9): ninasema I say , kwa huyo, to this one, , Nenda, Go, na and huenda he goes

The GNTI, SUVR, and BHN use the particle hu as a marker of a habitual verb action, but a mere present form such as anaenda (s/he goes) can also convey the sense of a habit similar to VULs dico huic vade et vadit et alio veni et venit (I say to this one go and he goes and to another come and he comes). The particle ta is used to represent a Greek future tense (e.g. Matthew 3:11): atawabatiza he will you baptize kwa in mtakatifu holy roho spirit na and moto fire

109

translation / fall / 2013

GSNTI, SUVR and BHN all have the same future tense marker ta, which corresponds to the Latin b (baptizabit, he will baptize). The aspect of aorist indicative active in Greek can be rendered by the Swahili particles li or ka, which are markers of the past tense (e.g. Matthew 1:2):

 Abrahamu Abraham

ali(m)zaa begat

Isaka Isaac

GSNTI, SUVR, and BHN all have the same li for the Greek indicative aorist while VUL has the perfect genuit (begat). However, in some cases the Greek aorist is rendered by the Swahili perfect tense like in Matthew 14:15: the saa hour tayari already imepita has passed

BHN differs from GNTI and SUVR by using a plural form saa zimepita (hours have passed), which is not in the Greek source text. But the Swahili singular form saa imepita and the plural form saa zimepita can be used interchangeably. The Swahili perfect imepita or zimepita conveys the sense of a recent past, whereas the past tense ilipita (used as an equivalent of Greek indicative aorist) evokes a distant past. VUL has a pluperfect hora praeteriit (hour had passed). The use of the aorist in Greek is wide ranging and complex. In Swahili, the particle li is used to represent the indicative aorist active (e.g. Mark 14:22). wakiwa wanakula eating they alipochukua he took mkate bread alipobariki ali(u)mega he blessed he broke

na and

ali(wa)pa he gave

na them and

alisema said

Unlike GSNTI, SUVR and BHN use ka in some places to represent both the indicative aorist active and participle aorist active (e.g. Mark 14: 22): walipokuwa wakila (SUVR) / walipokuwa wanakula (BHN), alitwaa mkate, akabariki, akaumega, akawapa, akasema (as they were eating, he took bread, he blessed, he broke, he gave them, he said). The succession of verbs in this verse could eventually explain the choice made by both SUVR and BHN for 110

translation / fall / 2013

the use of ka instead of li. It is known that the aorist participle usually denotes antecedent time to that of the controlling verb. But if the main verb is also aorist, this participle may indicate contemporaneous time (Robertson 1934, 11121113; Wallace 1996, 614). The main verbs are in the aorist indicative ( [] ). Moreover, and are aorist participles, suggesting that actions expressed by these participles took place before those of the main verbs (Porter, Reed, and ODonnell 2010, 110). In addition, is a genitive absolute that provides background information. VUL renders this genitive absolute with an ablative absolute manducantibus illis (as they/ these ones were eating), and it uses an indicative perfect (accepit, fregit) or a present participle (bendicens) in the place of Greek aorist participle accepit Iesus panem et benedicens fregit et dedit eis et ait (Jesus took bread and blessing he broke and gave to them and said). The Greek present indicative participle is represented by the particle ki (e.g. , akisema, saying by SUVR and GSNTI, or VUL with dicens in Matthew 5:2). BHN drops this present participle. In addition, when a participle is used as a noun, the particle ye serves to represent this noun participle (e.g. Luke 14:11): yule he anayejikweza who exalts mwenyewe na himself and yule he anayejishusha who humbles mwenyewe himself

111

translation / fall / 2013

SUVR differs from GSNTI and BHN in another form of nominal participle, namely ajikwezaye. In any case, anayejikweza in GSNTI and BHNor ajikwezaye in SUVRalso functions as a relative clause (he who exalts), thus corresponding to the rendering qui exaltat by VUL. When the participle or relative pronoun marker ye is used in Swahili, it comes at the end of the verb, and the present tense marker na disappears. It must be noted that when the Greek article is used before an adjectival participle, it can be conveyed in Swahili by a demonstrative pronoun adjective (cf. yule). Likewise, the Greek article in vocative case can be represented by the Swahili personal pronoun referring to the addressee (compare the vocative span of Colossians 3:184:1). Moreover, SUVR, GSNTI, and BHN have introduced the reflexive particle

ji, which is absent in GNT as well as in VUL. Unlike the Greek and Latin languages, in Swahili the reflexive particle ji is combined with mwenyewe (him/herself) to indicate that the action of the verb emphatically refers back to the subject involved. This particle is not used when the action of the verb refers to a complement of object (e.g: yule anayekweza uzuri wake mwenyewe, the one who exalts his/her beauty him/herself). The reflexive particle ji can also be used without mwenyewe in a context where the subject is a beneficiary or victim of his/her own action. This case corresponds to the Greek middle voicefor example , aliyejifungua (person who loosened him/herself) (see Olson 1991, 109). In Greek, a noun participle is usually accompanied by an article (, , or , which are respectively masculine, feminine, and neuter), but in Swahili only the particle ye signals the presence of a nominal participle, since Swahili has neither article nor gender. As was suggested above, the particle me is used in Swahili to represent a Greek perfect active indicative tense (e.g. Matthew 3:2): umekaribia it has approached maana for the ufalme reign wa of mbinguni the heavens

The indicative perfect active in Mathew 3:2 is rendered by the same umekaribia in GSNTI, SUVR, and BHN, or its equivalent adpropinquavit (has approached) in VUL. The Greek indicative pluperfect active in Swahili is represented by the particles ... li-kuwa ... me-kwisha .... (e.g. Mark 15:7): katika in the uasi insurrection mauaji murder walikuwa wamekwisha fanya they had committed

GSNTI uses the pluperfect walikuwa wamekwisha fanya, as does VUL with fecerant homicidium (who had done homicide). SUVR has waliosababisha (who caused), which is a past participle or a relative clause, while BHN has kwa kusababisha (for causing), an infinitive form. The Greek indicative imperfect active is rendered in Swahili by the particles ... li-kuwa ... na (e.g. Matthew 8:15): 112

translation / fall / 2013

 alikuwa ana(m)tumikia she was serving

yeye him

GSNTI uses the indicative imperfect active alikuwa ana(m)tumikia, while VUL likewise uses ministrabat eis (she/he was serving them), though the two differ regarding the number of the object complement (him or them). SUVR prefers akawatumikia (she/he served them) and BHN akamtumika (she served him). Both prefer to use the particle ka, which marks a succession of actions but has the disadvantage of not accounting for different aspects or tenses of the verbs involved among which some might be in the indicative aorist, others in the imperfect, and so on. The Greek present subjunctive is rendered by the Swahili particle e at the end of the verb. The subjunctive mood is commonly used to convey a wish or an order (e.g. Matthew 5:45): ili so that muwe you may become watoto children wa of baba father yenu your

GSNTI has a straightforward subjunctive form muwe, as does VUL with sitis (you may be), while SUVR and BHN use an auxiliary form of the verb mpate before the verb kuwa (mpate kuwa, you may become). In the protasis of a conditional sentence, Swahili uses the particle kama (if) followed by a verb in the indicative mood where the stem is preceded by the particle nge (GSNTI) or its variant ngali (SUVR and BHN). In the apodosis, Swahili also uses a verb in indicative with nge or ngali particle (e.g. John 11.21). This particle indicates that an undesirable action has taken place in the past. kama if ungekuwa hapa you had been here hangekufa he not had died the kaka brother m yangu of mine translation / fall / 2013

While GSNTI, SUVR, and BHN stick to the indicative mood where the past aspect is suggested by the particle nge, VUL uses the conditional pluperfect si fuisses hic frater meus non fuisset mor113

tuus (if you could have been here, my brother would not have died). The Greek passive voice is represented by the Swahili suffix wa (added at the end of the verb stem; e.g. Matthew 15:12): The Mafarisayo Pharisees walikwazwa were scandalized

Both SUVR and BHN have walichukizwa (they were annoyed) with the same ending suffix wa, like GSNTI, to express the passive voice. VUL has a gerundive with the verb esse (to be) in the indicative present: Pharisaei scandalizati sunt (Pharisees are scandalized). The Greek also uses the middle voice, which is formed in the same way as the passive voice although it has the sense of the active voice. However, it often underlines an action intended for the benefit (or detriment) of the subject of the verb (e.g. Matthew 11:7): wakiwa wanakwenda zao they departing for themselves

SUVR uses the participle aorist walipokwenda (they having departed) while BHN has the participle imperfect walipokuwa wanakwenda (as they were departing). GSNTI sticks to the Greek participle present wakiwa wanakwenda, and it adds the emphatic zao (for themselves) to indicate the sense conveyed by the middle voice. VUL has an ablative absolute illis beuntibus (as they/these ones were departing), where the emphasis is expressed by the demonstrative pronoun illis. The Greek uses deponent verbal forms, which are represented in the passive voice but have the meaning of an active voice. GSNTI uses a straightforward rendering in the active voice. For example, the passive deponent in John 1:21 has been rendered by the active alijibu (he/she answered) instead of the passive alijibiwa (he/she was answered). SUVR and BHN do the same, even though they prefer the particle ka to li to render 114

translation / fall / 2013

an indicative aorist. VUL also has an indicative active, albeit in the present tense, respondit (he answers). The Greek deponent verbs do not necessarily correspond to Latin deponent, semideponent, or gerundive verbs. For example, GNT has a present participle (he who exhorts) in Rom 8:12, but VUL uses a deponent or gerundive qui exhortatur (he who exhorts). In ancient Greek, some verbs were defective rather than deponent as far as voice is concerned (some did not have all tenses in both active and middle voices) (Robertson 1934, 332); this is also the case with Latin.

Summary of Basic Equivalence between NT Greek, Latin, and Swahili Greek/Latin Noun Nominative, accusative, dative Vocative Genitive Pronoun Adjective Article Conjunction Adverb Preposition Interjection Verb Active Voice Middle Voice Passive voice Indicative present active +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ Swahili + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Swahili Renderings Translatable Translatable (Bound or Unbound) Personal pronoun or ee before nouns Possessive particle (e.g. wa, ya) Translatable Translatable Not translatable as definite or indefinite article Translatable Translatable Translatable Translatable Translatable Translatable Addition of a pers.pron. or ji particle wa at the end of the verb na translation / fall / 2013

115

Greek/Latin Indicative future active Indicative aorist active Indicative present participle Indicative aorist participle Participle noun Indicative Imperfect Indicative perfect active Indicative Pluperfect Subjunctive (exhortation) Subjunctive (or condition) Imperative Infinitive Deponent Verbal endings (person + number + tense markers are generally at the end, except for Greek aor, imp, perf, and pluper) Gender (masc, fem. neut) Bound morphemes (Verb + Personal Pronoun Endings) +/+ +/+/+ +/+/+ +//+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+

Swahili + + + + + + + + + + + + -

Swahili Renderings ta li ki po ye alikuwa ana me alikuwa amekwisha e kama.nge a ku at the beginning of the verb Active voice Person + Number + tense are expressed at the beginning of the verb (ni-u-a-tu-muwa+ na, ta, li, etc) Persons and things Subject Personal Pronaouns+Verb+Objects

+/+ +/+

+: literal presence of linguistic item; - literal absence of a linguistic item

translation / fall / 2013

116

117

translation / fall / 2013

Conclusion The study of the New Testament both in its original language and translation can prove to be enriching, as similarities and differences between the two or more types of texts are being highlighted for the sake of a constructive dialogue. This dialogue is challenging but possible when the epistemological privileges are equally yet distinctively granted to original biblical cultures, church cultures, and contemporary target cultures. An overview of the Greek and Swahili New Testament texts with regard to their lexical, morphological, syntactic, and semantic similarities and differences has shown how both languages strive to communicate the same message with accuracy and naturalness, even if some mismatch is inevitable. The first striking difference is related to idioms: the Greek and Swahili languages have different idioms, which do not match in meaning when translated literally. A second important difference between the Greek and the Swahili languages concerns the presence of articles in Greek and their absence in Swahili, though in some cases Swahili is able to convey definiteness by the means of an elaborate demonstrative system or even by personal pronouns in vocative case (cf. Colossians 3:184:1). Thus, in Greek the presence of the definite article before nouns , , , and others is not explicitly marked in Swahili, yet their original meanings are well conveyed, taking into account the Semitic background of some of these familiar terms, especially in the case of . A third substantial difference between the Greek and Swahili words of the New Testament pertains to proper names such as Jesus and others. The Swahili Yesu is a meaningless transliteration of the Greek meaningless . But the meaningful Hebrew or Aramaic or could be rendered in Swahili as Yehoshua or the shorter form Yeshua (both meaningful transliterations) and be given the same original meaning. As for certain grammatical elements such as moods, tenses, voices, or aspects, the Swahili language has all the equivalents of the Greek of the New Testament moods, except for deponent verbs, though they may be conveyed in Swahili through active forms. In brief, a comparison between Greek, Latin, and Swahili linguistic patterns indicates that both Latin and Swahili do not have formal equivalence of all Greek words, but they still find ways of conveying at least some aspect of these lexical and grammatical features (see the case

of articles, aorist aspect, deponent verbs, gender, verbal affixes and suffixes, agglutinative or nonagglutinative features). One of the most striking lexical findings concerns the mismatch between the Greek form of Jesuss name and its Latin or Swahili translations. Neither Latin nor Swahili have formal articles, while Greek even uses them before proper names. The original, authentic, and meaningful form of Jesuss name is the Hebrew or Aramaic or (he saves). The Latin Iesus and the Swahili Yesu/Yezu stand as correspondent transliterations of the meaningless Greek . In Latin church culture, the meaning of a proper name in and of itself may not be that important, but in the Swahili target culture a proper name is bound to be meaningful and informative through its own wording. Consequently, the Swahili Yehoshua or Yeshua would be a more considerate rendering of Jesuss name in view of the target culture frame and that of the most original biblical culture.

translation / fall / 2013

118

References

119

translation / fall / 2013

Agano Jipya Kigiriki Kiswahili Baina Mistari. 2009. Paratext Version, edited by Peter M. Renju & Jean-Claude Loba-Mkole, Nairobi; Bible Society of Kenya; Dodoma: Bible Society of Tanzania. Akper, Iornenge Godwin. 2006. From Multiculturality to Interculturality? Locating the Ongoing African Agency Discourse in the Debate. Scriptura 91(1): 111. Arduini, Stefano. 2004. Similarity and Difference in Translation. In Similarity and Difference in Translation, edited by S. Arduini and R. Hodgson, 7 14. Rimini: Guaraldi. August, Karel TH. 2006. The Nature of Interculturality in Development. A Theological Perspective of Relationality. Scripture 91 (1): 1218. Berger, Klaus, and Christiane Nord. 1999. Das Neue Testament und frhchristliche Schriften. Frankfurt am Main: Insel Verlag. Biblia. Habari Njema. Tafsiri ya Ushirikiano wa Makanisa. 2006. Nairobi: Bible Society of Kenya; Dodoma: Bible Society of Tanzania. Biblia Sacra Vulgata. 2007. Editionem quintam emendatam retractatam, edited by Roger Gryson, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Biblia. Yaani Agano la Kale na Agano Jipya Nairobi. 2006. Bible Society of Kenya; Dodoma: Bible Society of Tanzania. Bietenhard, Hans. 1982. Der Menschensohn - ho huios tou anthrpou. Sprachliche und Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Begriff der synoptischen Evangelien I. Aufstieg und Niedergang der Rmischen Welt II.25 (1): 265350. Bringhurst, Robert. 2007. Are you now or have you ever been? A one-way conversation with the border guards of language. Religious Studies Review 33 (4): 302304. Caragounis, C. Chrys. 2011. Greek Language and NT. Word and Life. Accessed December 8, 2011. http://www.chryscaragounis.com/Popular.Scientific.Studies/Greek_Language_and_NT.pdf Casey, Maurice. 2007. The Solution of the Son of Man Problem. LondonNew York: T & T Clark. Cilumba-Cimbumba, Antoine 2001. Wunder, Glaube und Leben bei Johannes. Eine exegetisch-hermeneutische Studie am Beispiel von Joh 3 im Hinblick auf die Inkulturationsaufgabe. Bonn: Borengsser. Coppens, Joseph. 1983. Fils dhomme vtro et intertestamentaire. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Engler, Steven. 2007. Economies of transgression. Translation in Religious Studies. Religious Studies Review 33 (4): 306308. Feuillet, Andr. 1975. Etudes dexgse et de thologie Biblique. Ancien Testament. Paris: Gabalda. Gentzler, Edwin. 1993. Contemporary Translation Theories. London: Routledge. Haag, Ernst. 1993. Der Menschensohn und die Heiligen (des) Hchsten. Eine literarform- und traditionsgeschichtliche Studie zu Daniel 7. In The Book of

Daniel in the Light of New Findings, edited by Adam Simon Van der Woude, 137186. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Hampel, Volker. 1990. Menschensohn und historischer Jesus. Ein Rtselwort als Schlssel zum messianischen Selbstvertndnis Jesu. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener. Jonker, Louis. 2006. From Multiculturality to Interculturality. Can Intercultural Biblical Hermeneutics be of any Assistance? Scriptura 91 (1): 1930. Koch, Klause. 1993. Messias und Menschensohn: Die zweistufige Messianologie der jngeren Apokalyptik. Jahrbuch fr Biblishe Theologie 8 : 73102. Kuzenzama, K. P. Mided. 1990. Le titre johannique du Fils de lHomme. Essais lexicographique. Kinshasa: Facults Catholiques de Kinshasa. Leivestad, Ragner. 1972. Exit the Apokaliptic Son of Man. New Testament Studies 18: 243267. . 1982. Jesus-Messias-Menschensohn: Die jdischen Heilandserwartungen zur Zeit der ersten rmischen Kaiser und die Frage nach dem messianischen Selbstbewusstsein Jesu. Aufstieg und Niedergang der Rmischen Welt II.21 (1): 220264. Lewis, Paul, Simons, F. Gary and Fennig, D. Charles (eds). 2013. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth Edition. Dallas: SIL International. Online Version. Accessed July 28, 2013. http://www.ethnologue.com. Lindars, Bernard. 1983. Jesus Son of Man. A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels in the Light of Recent Research. London: SPCK. Loba-Mkole, Jean-Claude. 2000. The Kiswahili Mwana Wa Mtu and the Greek Ho Huios Tou Anthrpou. In The Bible in Africa. Transactions, Trajectories, and Trends, edited by Gerald O. West and Musa Dube, 557566. Leiden BostonKln: Brill. . 2003. Son of man and Exegetical Myths. Hervormde Teologiese Studies 53 (3): 837858. . 2004a. Bible Translation and Intercultural Hermeneutics. In Biblical Texts and African Audiences, edited by Ernest Wendland and Jean-Claude Loba-Mkole, 3758. Nairobi: Acton. . 2004b. Exegesis and Translation of Mark for an Audio-visual Culture. Journal of Biblical Text Research 24: 76115. . 2005a. Notes on the Holy Spirit for a Kongo Study Bible. In Interacting With Scriptures in Africa, edited by Jean-Claude Loba-Mkole and Ernst Wendland, 5680. Nairobi: Acton. . 2005b. The Social Setting of Jesus Exaltation in LukeActs (Lk 22:29 and Ac 7:56). Hervomde Teologiese Studies 61 (1 and 2): 291326. . 2007. From Inculturation Theology to Intercultural Exegesis. In Cultural Readings of the Bible in Africa, edited by Andre Kabasele Mukeng, JeanClaude Loba-Mkole, and Dieudonn Aroga Bessong, 3968. Yaound: Cl. . 2008. History and Theory of Scripture Translations. Hervomde Teologiese Studies 16 (1): 253266. . 2010. The New Testament and Intercultural Exegesis in Africa. In Paul Foster, New Testament Studies, 115132. London: SAGE. . 2012. Triple Heritage. Gospels in Intercultural Mediations. Second edition. Nairobi: WordAlive.

translation / fall / 2013

120

121

translation / fall / 2013

. 2013. Interculturality in Peace Building (Rm 14:19). Forthcoming in Reflecting on Romans. Essays in Honour of Andrie du Toits 80th Birthday, edited by Jacobus Steyn Gert. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Manus, Chris Ukachukwu. 2003. Intercultural Hermeneutics in Africa. Methods and Approaches. Nairobi: Acton. Matand, Jean-Bosco. 1998. LHermneutique de linculturation dans Ac 15 et Ga 2, 1114. In Inculturation de la vie consacre en Afrique laube du troisime millnaire. Actes du cinquime colloque international, edited by Joachim Kalonga, 144167. Kinshasa: Carmel Afrique. Mojola, Aloo, and Ernst Wendland. 2003. Scripture translation in the era of translation studies. In Bible Translation. Frames of Reference, edited by Tim Wilt, 125. ManchesterNorthampon: St. Jerome. Mulholland, M. Dewey. 1999. Marks Story of Jesus, Messiah For all Nations. Oregon: Wipf & Stock. Mulokozi, M.M. 2008. Kiswahili as National and International Language. Dar es Salaam: Institute of Kiswahili Reaserch/ University of Dar es Salaam. Accessed February 27, 2008. http://www.helsinki.fi/hum/aakkl/documents/kiswahili.pdf. Nida, Eugene A., and C.Robert Taber. 1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill. Olson, S. Howard. 1991. Jifunze kiyunani. Dodoma: Central Tanganyika Press. Porter. E. Stanley. 2009. Assessing Translation Theory. Beyond Literal and Dynamic Equivalence. In Translating the New Testament. Text, Translation, Theology, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Mark J. Boda, 117145. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Porter, E. Stanley and S. Richard Hess. 2009. Introduction. Problems and Prospects of Translating the Bible. In Translating the Bible. Problems and Prospects, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Richard. S. Hess, 1316. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Porter, E. Stanley, Jeffrey T. Reed, and Matthew B. ODonnell. 2010. Fundamentals of New Testament Greek. Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans. Pym, Anthony. 2007. On the Historical Epistemologies of Bible Translating. In A History of Bible Translation, edited by Philip Noss, 195215. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Robertson, Archibald Thomas. 1934. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville, TN: B. & H. Publishing Group. Stine, Philip. 2005. Let the Words Be Written. The Lasting Influence of Eugene Nida. Leiden: Brill. Stine, Philip. 2012. Eugene A. Nida. Theoretician of Translation. International Bulletin of Missionary Research 36 (1): 3839. Tamez, Elsa. 2002a. Reading the Bible under a Sky without Stars. In The Bible in a World Context. An Experiment in Contextual Hermeneutics, edited by Walter Dietrich and Ulrich Luz, 315. Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans. Tamez, Elsa. 2002b. A Star Illuminates the Darkness. In The Bible in a World

Context. An Experiment in Contextual Hermeneutics, edited by Walter Dietrich and Ulrich Luz, 5358. Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans. The Greek New Testament. 2008. Fourth Edition, edited by Barbara Aland, Matthew Black et al., Stuttgart: United Bible Societies. Ukpong, Justin. 1998. The Parable of the Shrewd Manager (Luke 16:113): An Essay in Inculturation Hermeneutics. Semeia 73, 189210. . 2002. The Story of Jesus Birth (Luke 12). An African Reading. In The Bible in a World Context. An Experiment in Contextual Hermeneutics, edited by Walter Dietrich and Ulrich Luz, 5970. Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans. van Aarde, Andries. 1994. The Epistemic Status of the New Testament and the Emancipatory Living of the Historical Jesus in Engaged Hermeneutics. Neotestamentica 28 (2): 57596. van Binsbergen, Wim. 2003. Intercultural Encounters. African and Anthropological Lessons towards a Philosophy of Interculturality. Mnster: Lit. Wallace, B. Daniel. 1996. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics. An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Young, Richard A. 1994. Intermediate New Testament Greek. A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman.

Jean-Claude Loba-Mkole (OP) is Professor Extraordinary at the University of Pretoria, a Research Fellow at Stellenbosch University, a Visiting Professor at Hekima College (Nairobi), and a Bible Translation Consultant with the Bible Society of the Democratic Republic of Congo. He holds a PhD in Theology (University of Leuven). His (co)publications include: Triple Heritage: Gospels in Intercultural Mediations (WordAlive, 2012); New Testament Interpretations in Africa (SAGE, 2007); Cultural Readings of the Bible in Africa (Cl, 2007); Interacting with Scriptures in Africa (Acton, 2005); Biblical Texts and African Audiences (Acton, 2004). His current research focuses on an intercultural approach to New Testament texts and Bible translations.

translation / fall / 2013

122