by By Phares Barine
I am in the process of getting the Good News closer to my Muthambi/Mwimbi community, through Bible translation. As I do so I’m keenly aware that the community has over the years listened to scriptures and even read them in English, Kiswahili, Kikuyu, Kiembu and Imenti, Chuka and Tharaka dialects. Over 70 percent are literate, and those who cannot read and write can listen and understand in any one of these languages. Yet to do this, they have to keep on translating the message in their minds, into their own language and, therefore, inevitably lose some portion of the original message.
Picture this: In the vernacular language from which the community received the Word of God, “righteousness” is translated “Kuthinga”. But in the language of Muthambi/Mwimbi, “kuthinga” means “to mud” (a hut). Righteousness is “wagiru” in their own tongue.
Translating the fig tree has proved rather troublesome. The community inherited the name “mukuu” from the language of early evangelization. It remains “mukuu” in the Muthambi/Mwimbi translation (though unlike the mukuu in the Bible, the local tree is not eaten by humans.) The community has got used to the name and changing it will only result in confusing the people.
The Muthambi/Mwimbi language is spoken by over 95 percent of the community, but it has not been recorded in print yet, so recording is going on side by side with Bible translation. This means one must do much research and orthography work while at the same time translating. The intended use for the translation is, therefore, dual — to record the language and for evangelizing the community- by gifting them with their very first Bible in their own language, a language that speaks directly to their hearts.
This dual function of the translation, therefore, necessitates the use of a type of translation that will support it. The Skopos Translation Theory is the friendliest type as it approaches translation from the point of view of the target audience, the “user” but it is not what I would use. According to proponents of Skopos Theory, what matters is the function or aim (skopos) of the translation, and not the requirements of the source text. Skopos Theory caters for the different users, for instance children or youth users. It allows for divergence of opinion and theological outlook of the receptor audience. Its biggest weakness, however, is that it ends up altering the “bible-ness” of the Bible — its physical, cultural and historical reality. If that is lost the Muthambi/Mwimbi people could as well say the translated text is not their baby!
I could opt for Formal Correspondence, also called Literal Translation, but this would limit me to transferring the message from the Source text to the receptor audience by following the form and style of the source language and cultural values, using a word-for-word approach. I would be striving to reproduce a mirror image of the original, a feat that is nigh impossible, for no two languages or cultures are entirely similar. This type of translation would have serious limitations regarding translation of the Holy Book into Muthambi/Mwimbi. The word-for-word rendering is of little or no value to the receptor audience because it will convey mostly the meanings of the individual words, which will result in unintelligible text. It will fail to convey the “sense” meaning.
Dynamic Equivalence type of translation on the other hand captures the “sense” or meaning in the source text. In this method the translator aims at reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language, first in terms of the message then in terms of style. When Dynamic Equivalence is used, it is the message in the source text that is transported into the receptor language. For instance, in 2 Samuel 1:20 the phrase “daughters of the uncircumcised” is loaded with cultural connotations that could evoke negative emotions in the receptor community if translated literally, thus hindering acceptance of the Scripture into the community. If only the meaning is translated, “…women of those who don’t know God” (RSV) it is clearer and hence helpful to understanding it in the receptor audience.
Translating the Bible using Dynamic Equivalence is sure to make the translation acceptable to the Muthambi/Mwimbi target audience.
For example, as I translate the Christmas story to my community, I’m aware that this news has already reached them through various media and in varying forms. The Nativity story has also received many embellishments along the way, presumably due to its charming characterization, romantic setting and mystical allure and this too impacts their interpretation. Consider the familiar church school choral below:
I did see three cars, I did see three cars, I did see three cars, on Christmas Day. Where were those cars going (*3) on Christmas Day? They were going to Jerusalem (*3) on Christmas Day; And what was inside (*3) on Christmas Day? It was Mary and Joseph (*3) on Christmas Day!
Traditionally, my community always imagined that Mary and Joseph stayed in a cowshed because the local hotel had no room for them; that Mary gave birth to baby Jesus in the cowshed, laid him in a manger and wrapped him with a shuka while mystified cows watched.
Different English translations too reflect textual differences that could impact the way the message of the holy birth is received by readers, who may use these same translations to get the Bible into their local language, perpetuating the inconsistences. Take Luke 2:1 for instance, which speaks of the activity that mandated Joseph to travel with Mary to Bethlehem. Of the 15 versions I checked, eight translated that Caesar Augustus had ordered a census; four versions said they went to ‘be registered’ while the Revised Standard Version (RSV) used the word ‘enrolled’ . King James Version (KJV) used the word ‘taxed’ while its newer version, NKJV revised it to ‘be registered’. Contemporary English Version (CEV) had “listed in record books.” Our Muthambi/Mwimbi project has translated the idea as ‘to be counted’ using the same word as ‘to be registered’ in 2:2 and 2:3.
Inconsistencies also occur in Luke 2:5. Some versions seem to suggest that Joseph and Mary were both going to be registered. Our translation went along with other versions that indicated that it was Joseph who was going to be registered in Bethlehem, and only took Mary along.
The cultural idea of betrothal also finds divergence in translation. RSV, ESV and the New KJV all have betrothed while NRSV, NLT and CEV translate the idea as engaged. NIV and BSB render it as ‘pledged’ while Good News Bible has ‘promised’. The KJV has rendered it ‘espoused wife’ while TLB calls Mary a fiancée. All these renderings have varying shades of meaning. In Jewish culture, a betrothal was as good as marriage and could only be reversed through divorce. We translated betrothed as “dowry wife.” This captures the completeness of the marriage process that is suggested by “betrothed.”
Verse 2:7 is perhaps the most culturally loaded. Most versions render the newborn baby as “firstborn son.” TLB, however, has “first child, a son” and Good News has “first son.” The idea of firstborn son has doctrinal significance in the Jewish culture. Firstborn sons belonged to God. They had to be redeemed, a ritual Mary and Joseph did later on in Jesus’ life. The Muthambi/Mwimbi culture also captures the importance of the firstborn son and translates it accordingly, for the firstborn son takes over position of head of the family should the father cease to be available.
However, the act of wrapping a baby with swaddling cloths is foreign to the Muthambi/Mwimbi culture. Were we to use the Skopos Theory type of translation, we would have had Mary wrap the baby in a nice soft warm kikoi or shuka. But then this being a historical incident we’ll do what the Jewish culture demanded — wrap him in “itame jia nguo” (‘pieces of fabric’ for the term “swaddling.”) However, the translator must be careful not to make it appear as if Mary and Joseph were wrapping the baby in rags. “Wrapped him with bands of cloth” is a good translation for the Muthambi/Mwimbi, because it reflects the custom and not the lack of proper clothing.
Mary then laid baby Jesus in a manger, as most versions translate it. Muthambi/Mwimbi translation too renders it manger. This has to be captured in a phrase though — “the trough where livestock feeds from,” since a single word “rukongoro” would not communicate the exact meaning of manger. Curiously, CEV renders it “bed of hay” and seems to avoid the actual structure in which baby Jesus is placed. Perhaps this translation aims to paint a more idyllic picture of the holy birth, that which focuses on coziness and warmth. Admittedly, use of “manger” makes it look like baby Jesus had “occupied” the animals’ dining room.
The last bit of information seems to explain why baby Jesus had to be laid in the manger: Seemingly, there is no place for the holy family in the inn. “Inn” is historically a house providing accommodation, food and drink, especially for travelers. Here are the various translations on the information. CEV, BSB, KJV, NKJV: “because there was no room for them in the inn”. Good News: “There was no room for them to stay in the inn.” ESV, RSV, NRSV, LSV: “because there was no place for them in the inn.” A footnote adds an alternative rendering: guest room. NIV: …because there was no guest room available for them. FBV: …because the inn had no rooms left. NLT: …Because there was no lodging available for them. TLB: …because there was no room for them in the village inn.
Other versions have translated “inn” as guest quarters (ISV), guest chamber (Young Literal Translation), Living quarters (CEB), House for strangers (Worldwide English) and Lodging place (Holman Christian Standard Bible.) According to one scholar, 36 out of 50 English translations render the Greek word kataluma as “guest room”. But why “guestroom” instead of its other related meaning “inn”? Some scholars believe that Joseph and Mary may have stayed, not in a packed unfriendly hotel, but in a country house as guests, among Joseph’s distant relatives, hence the guest room and manger. What the holy family lacked was room or space in the house where they were staying as guests. This goes to show how translators’ exegetical and interpretative skills, and indeed the choice of the Source Text will colour and impact the message that eventually reaches the receptor community.
The Muthambi/Mwimbi translator has rendered the line : “Because there was no space for them in the guest room.” Let the Muthambi/Mwimbi community know that Christ was born in a family setting and not in a friendless and impersonal environment.
Luke 2:10 records the description and content of the news that goes out from this fascinating “maternity ward.” It is a newsflash worth a breaking news label, and the news anchor is no less than an angel of the Lord. While most versions including Good News Bible, NRSV, KJV and ESV proclaim “…good news of great joy…” KJV and NKJV caption it “…good tidings of great joy…” RSV suggests that the “good news” is about “a great joy,” meaning Jesus. TLB is a screamer: “…the most joyful news ever announced…” But other translations like CEV express little excitement. The angel is all business: “I have good news for you, which will make everyone happy.” Some translations (NIV, CEV, Good News, NLT, FBV) seem to suggest that this news is intended to make everyone happy. Others like KJV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, however, point out that this good news is for all the people — including the Muthambi/Mwimbi community! The Living Bible (TLB) puts it most explicitly: “…and it is for everyone!” The Muthambi/Mwimbi translator agrees — the news is for all people.
Finally, Luke 2:11 states the content of the news: “For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.” And to the people of the Muthambi /Mwimbi community- and to you the reader, the “you” above is all inclusive. This particular baby is yours!
Phares Barine is involved in translating the Bible into the Muthambi/Mwimbi language.
