What language is the Bible in? There’s no clear answer to this question, given that the Bible is constructed from many disparate parts that in places contradict each other, written in many languages and translated over and over again, through the many centuries the various books it contains have existed. Modern audiences are very likely to have a Bible translation for a language they speak, but the Bible exists in full for only a small portion of the world’s languages.
So what, then, is the impact of translating a Bible into a minority language? I thought of this question when considering the adoption of Christianity by Māori, but it turns out that the first Māori Bible, Te Paipera Tapu, was published only after the Māori king movement was established, and most other events detailed in our lecture in week three. In 1868, the year of Te Paipera Tapu’s publication, Te Kooti escaped exile in the Chatham Islands, to begin a guerilla war in the East Coast. The fact that the written Bible did not influence these significant events makes sense, given the history of Māori oral tradition.
So the question broadens: what influence does the language a religion is practised in have? There’s certainly much conflict over language in a faith — Jan Hus objected to a Latin Mass as part of his Reformation, which became a feature of the wider movement as it grew in power. The printing press enabled the Bible to be translated into the local language, and widely distributed. As the Bible became more widespread, literate people who didn’t know Latin could access scripture.
This brings us back to minority languages. Languages are a core part of the cultural identity of many groups around the globe, and for various reasons they are being replaced by larger languages. Could translations of scripture be a good way to help preserve endangered languages? People should be represented by their own language, so the answer is yes.
Really interesting thoughts Jamie. It may be interesting to also consider the way meaning is lost through translation. Most of my own study of scripture is rooted in the origins of words in the Greek and Hebrew they came from. For example, in English translations of the Bible the word ‘love’ is used where four different meanings exist in the Hebrew; ‘Storge’ being an empathy bond, ‘Philia’ a friend bond, ‘Eros’ romantic love and ‘Agape’ unconditional “God” love. Understanding these different kinds of love and where they are used in scripture completely changes the meaning of the text, yet there is no substitute in English! I wonder if this problem is even more prevalent in minority languages?
For a context closer to home, you could take a look at Wycliffe Bible Translators in New Zealand (http://wycliffenz.org/). I have a friend that works for this organisation and the work they do is really interesting. I know that they have devices so that the Bible can be listened to for those that are unable to read. With around 6,500 languages in the world, this is what Bible translation looks like in a modern context!
Thanks for the post!
That’s an interesting point! But I think it is not just translations of the scripture that can be a good way to help preserve endangered languages, but translations in general. I think choosing a popular text to translate will get many people into the language. But at the same time, it is also significant for there to be a translation of said endangered language’s culture. Language is not just about understanding the grammar and being able to communicate with it, but it is also a crystallisation of a culture, so it is important that when people pick up the endangered language again, the cultural element is not lost.
This is an awesome topic to bring up and something I think about a lot. The Bible is a text that has been translated and repurposed in so many different ways, and each translation really is reflective of further ulterior motives within the Bible’s publication in different branches of Christianity.
An example of this is in Ecclesiastes which is the most interesting book in the Bible to me. Ecclesiastes really showcases how English in particular often doesn’t have direct translations for old Hebrew words, and thus, to me, a lot of the meanings and lessons in the Bible are misconstrued. The most used word in Ecclesiastes is the word ‘hevel’, which is a Hebrew word that is often translated into meaninglessness, but quite literally means vapour or smoke. There’s a video on it on YouTube and it’s super interesting.
Anyway, I digress. I do not speak te reo, nor am I very familiar with the Maori translation of the Bible, but one thing I am aware of is how different (especially indigenous) cultures, intertwine Christianity with their prior traditions. Thus, I think it really is important to recognise Maori Christianity in a way that is somewhat separate from the institutionalised ideas of it. As Maori is largely an oral culture, I think it is critical to view how Maori people speak about Christianity and what it personally means to them.
A really interesting post! Given the history of a lot of missionary missions, using the Bible as a tool of colonization, I think it’s really interesting to focus on how we might use it to preserve different languages. Language is so central to identity, and as different cultures often intertwine their own beliefs with Christianity, it would also be interesting to see how much culture gets wrapped up in translations as well.